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.
When discussing the results of court proceedings what matters is the actual law, not what you think should be the law.
So the law says “anticompetitive measures are totes chill as long as you’re not completely dominating the market”?
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.