The essence of the law in question lies in the following quote, saying that a monopoly can act in the market so long as that action "doesn't prevent competition

The essence of the law in question lies in the following quote, saying that a monopoly can act in the market so long as that action "doesn't prevent competition on the merits and does not harm consumers and innovation." I just wanted to note, as a clarification, that it is important not to conflate diversity and competition. Diverse standards - for example multiple gauges for railways - STIFLE competition by creating lock-in and silos. That's why governments tend to enforce or at least encourage standards, including units for measurement and screw sizes, FRAND licensing, etc, rather than vigorously taking companies to court to prevent standards from forming. Diversity isn't necessarily a sign of a healthy marketplace, nor common standards or technology proof of an unhealthy one. Unfortunately a large chunk (including the app store, and lots more) of what we call Android is NOT open source, and not a standard others are free to adopt. Unity is enforced and bundling insisted on. Google seems to have believed that highly illegal bundling wasn't highly illegal bundling if neither consumers nor corporations (OEMs) were directly charged for it. Where they got this fantasy I can't possibly imagine, it has not the slightest basis in law nor ever did. Yet Google remain mesmerized by this whimsical and entirely invented bit of logic. Harm to competition is "the dog that didn't bark." Of course we can't point to all the innovations that didn't happen - because they didn't happen; and yes Google can point to a few scraggly competitors that have somehow held on by their fingernails, and to the silo of Apple users locked in to a different network effect. But the harm done has been profound. Excellent article.