Your definition places every single company in the world in the category of monopolist and is therefore absurd. Every single company sells a commodity or servi

Your definition places every single company in the world in the category of monopolist and is therefore absurd. Every single company sells a commodity or service different to their competitors. For example, McDonald's sells burgers, as do Burger King. It's arbitrary (and therefore not something that one could determine rationally) where the line is drawn about what will be considered a product or service. If you want to draw the line at Burger there is no monopoly. If you want to draw he line at Big Mac then McDonald's has a 100% monopoly. Is the line Big Mac specifically, burgers, food? No matter the company and what it sells, you will always be able to come up with a definition of their product narrow or wide enough to find that they sell 100% of that thing when you want to. An example: Epic's complaints about the app stores. Apple has a monopoly on app stores running on iPhones, but not on mobile devices, not on consumer computer devices, not on computer-based gaming devices, not on entertainment services generally. They could never stop people playing Fortnite, but you could always call Apple a monopolist if you chose your definition appropriately. Ultimately, the decision is arbitrary and up to the discretion of a bureaucrat. In the absence of a rational method to determine monopolies the decision becomes one of who the bureaucrat decides to shake down.