Name one!
> many would consider
I don't. Many of the current top ones replaced the previous top ones. Not many even remember AOL.
And since a monopoly is just “certain business practices” that unfairly constrain competition, your definition seems to be a difference without a distinction.
[1] Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911)
See "Titan" by Chernow.
But in any event the price at trial is not necessarily indicative of unfair anti-competitive business practices. The trial was not necessarily about the current practices at the time of the trial, but broke the business practices into three distinct periods dating back to 1870.
I think a better question for you to ask yourself is “why did the court determine they were acting in a monopolistic manner?”
I’d suggest reading the previously referenced court ruling to get your answer.
Rockefeller was convicted of being rich. That's the bottom line.
Here is a part of the majority court decision written by Chief Justice White:
"constituted a combination in violation of the first section and an attempt to create a monopoly or to monopolize"
>"entered into agreements with, various persons, firms, corporations, and limited partnerships engaged in purchasing, shipping, refining, and selling petroleum and its products among the various states, for the purpose of fixing the price of crude and refined oil and the products thereof, limiting the production thereof, and controlling the transportation therein, and thereby restraining trade and commerce among the several states, and monopolizing the said commerce"
If actual price-fixing to monopolize commerce isn't part of your unique definition of a monopoly, I don't know what else to tell you. It's pretty hard to price fix without a monopoly, but as we already discussed they were able to do so because they controlled over 90% of refineries at the time. (And before you jump in again - erroneously - about their price during the trial, this monopoly charge was related to actions decades earlier). But it's pretty obvious from your relentless rules-lawyering/wordsmithing that either you aren't responding in good faith or don't actually have the ability/willingness to read evidence objectively.
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
>> At the time of the divestiture, the oil industry was becoming competitive because it was moving into Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and California—states where Standard Oil didn’t have much power. The price of petroleum was actually falling in the years before the case, because these new fields were pumping so much crude. The breakup had no measurable effect on oil production, crude-oil prices or refined-product prices.
(The article does say that antitrust actions were necessary to make cigarettes affordable, though.)
For a rather less charitable take, [2] from the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" says,
>> Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States had a defendant that was cutting prices while increasing output. The case also lacked evidence of either predatory pricing or consumer harm.
After this quick bullet-point summary, there's more content below with references to other academic sources, page 2 is pretty interesting.
> many would consider social media companies to be natural monopolies in the current context
They have positive returns to scale, but even this phrasing ("social media companies") deflates the argument -- Facebook competes with Twitter competes with TikTok competes with Reddit competes with Youtube etc. They're big enough to exert market power, but
- Some of them seem to dislike using that power (to the horror of authoritarians in many governments who want to co-opt it), and
- If they abuse that power to the detriment of users (raising prices too high, banning enough communities) users will go elsewhere.
1: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/if-it-aint-broke-dont-bre...
2: https://assets.realclear.com/files/2021/01/1755_antitrust.pd...
For the record, with my limited understanding I don’t think “social media companies” are monopolies because they do not run afoul of general consumer prices because their products are typically free. They may deserve to be regulated under a different framework, but they don’t seem to fit the anti-trust paradigm. I brought them up because others, including the authors of the link I provided, consider them natural monopolies
I guess I'm less convinced of judicial infallibility, but I'll grant you it anyway. Mostly I don't think the important question here is the legal standard (which is of course what the court is interested in) than the question of whether the law is achieving its intent. If the law says that a company that is lowering prices and losing market share is a monopoly that should be broken up, the law isn't really reflecting mainstream thought about antitrust -- that market concentration is self-perpetuating and harms consumers.
Here’s why I think you’re previous comment misses the mark: the court ruling was not about whether the company was monopolistic at the time of divestment (1911), the ruling was against business practices that occurred previously, dating back to 1870. It’s possible those practices were unfairly anti-competitive while also no longer creating a monopoly decades later due to other factors.
Gates was convicted of giving away Explorer for free. Nobody managed to show that harmed consumers.
Like Rockefeller, Bill Gates was convicted of being rich.
Here's what MSFT was actually taken to trial for:
"monopoly position in the market for operating systems designed to run on Intel-compatible personal computers ("PCs"). Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that Microsoft violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a series of exclusionary, anticompetitive, and predatory acts to maintain its monopoly power. "
Not "for Gates being rich." Now, his wealth may have put the spotlight on him, but that doesn't negate the court decision on his actions. I can lament that the only reason I was pulled over was because I drive a red Ferrari, but that doesn't mean that my speeding wasn't illegal.
> red Ferrari
Selective enforcement is a real thing, and why the offense written on the ticket is not always the real offense.
"was in restraint of trade and amounted to the creation of an unlawful monopoly."
You can't create more land in the middle of San Francisco, so the land-owners of the land in the middle of San Francisco have a natural monopoly on the land in the middle of San Francisco.
"Desirable" locations is a completely subjective term.
> You can't create more land in the middle of San Francisco
Yes, you can. We call them skyscrapers.
Alright, use "valuable" then. Value is derived from people's desire to purchase the land, which means valuable land is equivalent to desirable land.
> Yes, you can. We call them skyscrapers.
Skyscrapers aren't land.
I'm not entirely sure you're conversing in good faith but I'll do my best to assume you are. Land is a natural monopoly, and the most classic of all. For example, the land surrounding Central Park in New York City is of limited supply. If you want land which borders, say, the west side of Central Park, then there is even less land available.
If someone owns all of the land that borders the west side of Central Park, then no one else can use that land unless they are permitted to by the owner. This means that the owner has a natural monopoly over all land that borders the west side of Central Park. You cannot create more land that borders the west side of Central Park.
Now, if you wanted to live in a house or apartment that borders the west side of Central Park, your only option is to negotiate with the land-owner. They may sell you the land, or rent the land to you (or rent you an apartment or house on that land). If living on the west side of Central Park is something desirable to you, then the land-owner can charge you the absolute maximum price you are willing to pay for living there. You have no alternative, except to not pay at all. If you are willing to pay $1000 a week to live on the west side of Central Park, the land-owner can charge $1000 a week. It is entirely independent of the labour and costs of the land-owner, and entirely based on your willingness to pay.