ETA: Monopolies are generally allowed to exist in the US until they start either harming customers or engaging in flagrant anticompetitive measures. Without either of these, there is no victim class to sue. The Sherman Act makes it much easier to litigate instances of “harming customers.”
There are tons of existing private monopolies in the market today that are allowed to exist just because no one’s sued for harm. The Govt. doesn’t just go around trust busting without cause.
The glass bottle industry is dominated by Owens, which has a ~85% market share but is allowed to continue because they’re ostensibly the best for the economy. Glass bottles are cheap to buy and no one’s really eager to start a competing plant. If either of those changed then trust busting might begin, but that doesn’t mean they’re not already a monopoly.
You can argue what kind of monopoly that Steam is, but the idea that it’s not is completely unfounded in reality.
Being “good” doesn’t mean you’re not a monopoly.
See: US Postal Service, most municipal utilities.ETA: Monopolies are generally allowed to exist in the US until they start either harming customers or engaging in flagrant anticompetitive measures. Without either of these, there is no victim class to sue. The Sherman Act makes it much easier to litigate instances of “harming customers.”
There are tons of existing private monopolies in the market today that are allowed to exist just because no one’s sued for harm. The Govt. doesn’t just go around trust busting without cause.
The glass bottle industry is dominated by Owens, which has a ~85% market share but is allowed to continue because they’re ostensibly the best for the economy. Glass bottles are cheap to buy and no one’s really eager to start a competing plant. If either of those changed then trust busting might begin, but that doesn’t mean they’re not already a monopoly.
You can argue what kind of monopoly that Steam is, but the idea that it’s not is completely unfounded in reality.