Apple for example copies apps and makes them available as default in iOS. Companies go bankrupt because of it, but it is not monopolistic.
Of course all these are because of the strict legal definitions we have. In spirit I agree with you.
That's according to a peculiar interpretation of anti-trust law.
“Due to a change in legal thinking and practice in the 1970s and 1980s, antitrust law now assesses competition largely with an eye to the short-term interests of consumers, not producers or the health of the market as a whole; antitrust doctrine views low consumer prices, alone, to be evidence of sound competition.”
Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...
If dumping actually occurs then the government or competitors can sue and win under the current antitrust laws by showing that consumers are now paying more due to the dumping scheme. Lina Khan’s view militates for prospective suits - suits where no consumer harm has yet occurred.
> Additionally, the consumer harm test focuses on the consumer which is the ultimate class of people antitrust laws seek to protect. Antitrust laws don’t exist to protect markets, they exist to protect citizens.
Citizens stop being consumers when they exit the store. Then they go to work or run their business, whereupon Amazon harms them to the tune of thousands of dollars - all so they can save a penny when they put that "consumer" hat back on. This is ludicrous and self-defeating.
> Quantitative tests are seen as less able to be abused because some judge has a particular view/vibe
Of course, the choice of which quantitative test to use is totally objective too, right? /s
I'm using peculiar in the sense of “Particular; individual; special; appropriate.” Distinctive. This may be somewhat archaic. Not in the sense of odd or curious.