4 ms·
It is exactly a valid argument. The points you and the parent comment are making are the very heart of the issue in horizontal merger and monopolization cases:
by huitzitziltzin 5y ago
It is exactly a valid argument. The points you and the parent comment are making are the very heart of the issue in horizontal merger and monopolization cases: what is the relevant market?
Draw it narrowly (I.e., convince the judge to accept a narrow market definition) and making the case against a merger or in favor of monopolization becomes easy. Convince the judge to draw it broadly and it becomes much harder to stop a merger or to make a monopolization claim.
- cycomanic 5y agoYou are misunderstanding me. Yes the issue is exactly about where to draw the line. The parent's dismissed statements that facebook is a monopoly by saying "you can make every company a monopoly if you make the category narrow enough". My argument is exactly what you are saying, you can not dismiss the statement "facebook is a monopoly" by saying "every company is a monopoly if we make a narrow enough category", you need to actually make arguments (and convince the judge) why the category should be this narrow/broad.