> It bears mentioning that a monopoly in and by itself is actually fine. If you provide a product or service so legitimately good that noone else can compete wi

> It bears mentioning that a monopoly in and by itself is actually fine. If you provide a product or service so legitimately good that noone else can compete with you, that's fine. This is a more modern interpretation of anti-trust. And IMO a shit one, because the monopolist can never be seriously challenged by competitors. It's a sign of a broken and unhealthy market. Even if the monopolist completed fairly to ascend, once they are effectively the only choice then the product or service will eventually degrade. How will consumers even know there could be alternatives if the competition is bullied, bought, or intimidated out of the market? Consumers need choice to have power.