> Why do you insist on throwing the red herring “monopoly?” It is not a red herring. Instead, it is the most important factor for determining if something is

> Why do you insist on throwing the red herring “monopoly?” It is not a red herring. Instead, it is the most important factor for determining if something is illegally anticompetitive. * if a company does not have a large enough percentage of the market, then many actions become completely legal* <------ (hint. This is the central point and is completely uncontroversial) > Again, Microsoft was not a “monopoly” in the 90s It had over 70% of the relevant market. According to court precedent ,that is absolutely within the definition of having monopoly power. And Microsoft has no where close to that amount of monopoly power for anti trust laws to apply. > You don’t have to be a monopoly to be anti-competitive. You quite literally do have to have a large enough percentage of the market for something to be anti competitive. If you do not have a large percentage of the market, then whole swaths of things are not illegal, that would be illegal if a large market share firm did the same action. Is it literally a factor that determines if anti trust law applies. This isn't controversial. Feel free to look up all the information on the FTC website, if you actually care. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...