> If that's what you think of the courts, you are under a serious misapprehension of what the judicial court system is. Then what do you call United States v.

> If that's what you think of the courts, you are under a serious misapprehension of what the judicial court system is. Then what do you call United States v. AT&T? Or United States v. Microsoft Corporation? > The role of courts is not of fact finder, market minder, or regulator. It's certainly the courts' job to enforce anti-trust legislation. > You would have to create an IRS-like body to determine the monopolistic status of every market, industry, company. You mean like the FTC? But again, it's not whether a company is a monopoly; it's whether they're engaged in anti-competititive practices to maintain that monopoly. The FTC and the Antitrust division of the DoJ investigate antitrust violations, not so-called "innocent" monopolies. > And tell me, are you just concerned about big tech companies making 30%, or would you regulate grocery chains that make 4% just the same? It doesn't matter how much profit a company makes, or how much it charges; it's whether or not it's artificially reducing competition in order to keep prices high. There's typically less barriers to entry to selling groceries, but its certainly not impossible for a grocery chain to engage in anticompetitive practices. > It's like people don't think of the details and implications of an idea before proposing that they've got the answer. You seem to be under the impression this is an idea I'm proposing, but what I'm describing is how competition law has worked for the last century.