> I'm not sure what you're saying, Microsoft wasn't broken up. I am saying this isn't theory. That this happens basically any time a company has monopolistic p

> I'm not sure what you're saying, Microsoft wasn't broken up. I am saying this isn't theory. That this happens basically any time a company has monopolistic power. We cannot expect companies to behave altruistically (nor should we, the purpose of a corporation is to make a profit). > "Companies would engage in anticompetitive behavior and avoid scrutiny" in which case that's a regulatory failing Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. And the regulatory response is to break the company apart or provide a public service that meets the need of the public if the monopoly is natural. The legal duty is to maximize shareholder value. Because that is the only interest of a shareholder. I am aware I'm repeating myself here but that necessarily means the company must behave in a way that they maximize their profit under the law as it currently stands regardless of morality/ethics. Given the US government has not done any monopoly control since I can remember, avoiding regulatory scrutiny is a farcical risk. The original point we were discussing is that private monopolies by themselves can be okay but monopolistic manipulation should be punished. And I disagree with that point because monopolies (and any company) must maximize their profit. Nevermind the legal duty to their shareholders, companies must maximize profit.