Well I take 'monopoly' to be a pretheoretical concept tied to the moral concequentialist justification of markets: aggregate social benefits. Ie., a monopoly i

Well I take 'monopoly' to be a pretheoretical concept tied to the moral concequentialist justification of markets: aggregate social benefits. Ie., a monopoly is whatever situation gives rise to a situation where a company can set prices without regards to legitimate competitive market processes. Where 'legitimate' is effectively a concequentialist constraint concerning aggregate consumer benefit. There are many theories of /when/ a company is a monopoly; including very narrow case law definitions around pricing. The pretheoretical use of the term however is taken to permit a broader scope. And lets be clear: a 30pc surcharge on all our economic activity (whether that be a mastercard or an apple) given no market justification has no justification. Let there be many app stores on the iphone-- and we shall see what the market price on an app store. If it ends up being 30% then theres no objection.