Movie makers shouldn't own cinemas.
Car makers shouldn't own dealerships.
Hardware makers of general computing devices (non-appliances) shouldn't make Apps.
This game has played out a few times. Lets see how this one goes.
Car makers shouldn't own dealerships.
Hardware makers of general computing devices (non-appliances) shouldn't make Apps.
This game has played out a few times. Lets see how this one goes.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/sony-pic...
They are perfectly reasonable under a certain interpretation of monopoly. It's just that the US definition and that in Europe (and elsewhere) differ quite profoundly.
United States anti-trust revolves around the idea of harms. You have to show that Mr Moneybag's empire causes material harm to customers - such as paying more than they could in a more efficient market.
The European (and it seems Japanese) take is directed at power. Even if it benefits consumers it's wrong to leverage dominance in one area to obtain power in another.
Not an example I'd use to back up the pro-consumer argument you're making.
But we can outlaw lying in advertisements and product information.
It basically comes down to the scale and context. Things don't need to be completely morally black and white for us to see that something is generally bad.