Except when have anti monopolistic laws worked as intended, classic example - Intel?
I sense an issue.
We're discussing the main example of this happening. Intel didn't buy AMD because of anti-monopoly regulations (unless you have a better explanation).
But you say that it couldn't have been the reason, because these regulations don't work on Intel.
With this kind of logic we'll never get to anything constructive.
Anti-monopoly regulations don't mean you can't be a monopolist. Their only role is to protect competition, but competition must exist in the first place.
If you're an only supplier of some product (because no one else knows how to do it or isn't interested) you are a monopolist, but anti-monopoly laws don't apply.
In fact legal system is what actually makes monopolies possible through copyright, patents and concessions. ;-)
The point is these companies enjoy higher margins & profits, more than pure market-share. At least that's how I look at it, they'd rather sell things at 10% premium instead of driving the competitors out of business with possibly a long &/or less profitable price war.
So now you're literally accusing Intel and Nvidia of being better at doing business than AMD. Is this really what you intend?
It's like if you accused a runner for winning unfairly, because he trained harder or has better body proportions. Because in your perfect world all runners should have identical bodies and train exactly the same.
Both Intel and AMD can do top-notch CPUs. But Intel is better at selling them. And selling is the core ability in any business.
