"The text of the Sherman Act bars ‘monopolization,’ so to write that one is trying to build firms that can ‘monopolize’ is, well, remarkable." Perhaps remarkab

"The text of the Sherman Act bars ‘monopolization,’ so to write that one is trying to build firms that can ‘monopolize’ is, well, remarkable." Perhaps remarkable to say it out loud, but other than that not remarkable at all and totally logical. Any company in a free market is incentivized to combat their number one threat: competition. You can combat competition with a good product, but also more hostile methods like outgrowing, acquisitions, patents, lobbying, cartels, etc. Competition is an existential threat so the incentives are very strong. Being the only one playing nicely means your business is dead. Monopolization in tech is even more incentivized as it's often trivial for competition to copy your approach/product. So "good product" just doesn't cut it. The only remarkable thing is an almost complete lack of regulation, Sherman act or not. The article is full of examples of monopolies that should not exist. But they do exist. Regulation is non-existing or 10 years late.