• evo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      How does this have anything to do with market share anyway?

      Are you serious or are you just trolling? This is an anti trust lawsuit. The definition of antitrust is preventing abuse of monopolies. And the definition of a monopoly is “controlling most or all of the market share” or something.

        • bus_factor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          When discussing the results of court proceedings what matters is the actual law, not what you think should be the law.

            • Knusper@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              Well, those measures are not seen as anticompetitive then, because you’re not stiffling competition, you’re rather even aggressively competing with the big players. But yes, a company with a monopoly may not be allowed to perform the exact same action like a company with little market share.

              The thing is, laws don’t have to be fair. As a society, we want laws to ensure the best outcome for everyone involved. Fairness just happens to generally serve that purpose.

              But in case of anti-competition laws, it does not. For example, it could even be beneficial to humanity to literally just force any company above 60% market share to pay a big fee. Because ultimately, competition is beneficial to humanity and a monopolist is couteracting that.