> When it comes to understanding what really makes large tech firms dominant and predicting what judges will do, you aren’t getting the full picture. Maybe I’m

> When it comes to understanding what really makes large tech firms dominant and predicting what judges will do, you aren’t getting the full picture. Maybe I’m just suggesting the site should be more modest and, in particular, be careful about treating aggregation theory as if it were almost like a brand that needs be elevated. The danger for readers is a false confidence, for what Thompson too rarely reminds the reader is what we don’t know. This section off Wu's criticism I can agree with, Thompson has a way of shoehorning everything to fit his models which doesn't always work. >> Antitrust should be dealing with the reality of anticompetitive behavior in markets, not ideals of how companies work > Wu does not believe that Google is unique as far as scalability is concerned, he appears to assume that the company must be doing something nefarious to command such market share. And, by the same token, there must be some sort of unfair lock-in, because again, companies ought not be so dominant. This is a sure recipe for lazy arguments that end up criminalizing the basics of business. This I can get behind Thompson on. Blindly enforcing laws which are not updated for the fundamental changes in technology will lead to poor outcomes. Laws have to evolve with what technology enables, and Thompson has at least thought about this in a depth that Wu doesn't even care to acknowledge.