> They didn't have a monopoly either - and you don't need one to run foul of anti-trust laws. Not quite true - there are many examples of a monopolistic market

> They didn't have a monopoly either - and you don't need one to run foul of anti-trust laws. Not quite true - there are many examples of a monopolistic market where smaller players will leverage anti-competitive tactics that are only legal because of their small market share; if the monopolist used those same tactics, then it would be illegal. To be precise though, you're right that you don't need a full-on monopoly - just dominant market ownership and actual leverage of that dominance, which can be evaluated in multiple ways. One ex:price-elasticity analysis arguments that compare changing prices to responses in the market demand. If I raise prices 100x, or charge a super high premium above what an efficient market would dictate, but demand doesn't change, then you can make a reasonable case for my market dominance. As another analogy: if I make an phone operating system "HackerNewsOS" and charge a 80% premium to apps wanting to be in my app store, my market share of "one person" would not run roul of anti-trust laws. (However, if I conspire with Apple to set the same premium on both of our platforms, then we're talking a different ballgame haha...) >It is no different that when Microsoft tied Internet Explorer to Windows. Yes and no - I would argue that Microsoft's dominance of the PC market in the 90's is >> Apple's dominance of the mobile phone market share. I'm really interested to see how the courts eventually settle on some of the definitions of the markets in question, as that would dictate how much leverage Apple really does have.