>As per YOUR LINK, you don't need a monopoly for antitrust; just "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market."
Instead of picking one sentence out of context, why not quote the entire thing? Does it still support your claim?
Here is your sentence in context for those who care about truth:
"the Supreme Court, in other cases, seems to have articulated standards for 'monopoly power' and 'market power' that, at least linguistically, are incompatible. In NCAA v. Board of Regents, [FN33] the Court defined 'market power' as 'the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market.' [FN34] By contrast, the Supreme Court has consistently defined 'monopoly power,' at least for section two cases, in accordance with the definition articulated in United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. [FN35]-i.e., as 'the power to control prices or exclude competition.' [FN36] Strictly construed, the Court's language appears to require a higher burden of proof to establish 'market power' than to demonstrate 'monopoly power,' because proof of a defendant's ability to exclude competition would not suffice to demonstrate the existence of 'market power.' Moreover, even the price portion of the du Pont monopoly power definition is broader than the NCAA market power standard because the latter ignores the ability to prevent price decreases."
Did you ignore what is current case practice? Did you ignore that the article cited more cases supporting my position than yours? Your out of context quoting is intellectually dishonest.
Some more quotes you ignored - go ahead and post them in context if you like.
"Most antitrust rules require the plaintiff to show that the defendant has or is likely to obtain 'market power' or 'monopoly power.' The offense of monopolization requires, of course, proof that the defendant has monopoly power."
"According to the Supreme Court's latest formulation, a tying arrangement is not illegal unless the seller has 'market power' in the tying product."
> Seriously. It clearly states what I said,
Yes, indeed. It's so clearly stated you removed the context that clearly states the opposite of what you said.
I guess I should have found a clearer explanation, since you quote things out of context.
Here's an easier read [1], and here's some legal standards applied from there with case citations:
Under cartels and collusion:
"if the enterprise (as an economic entity) has not acquired a monopoly position, or has significant market power, then no harm is done."
Two questions:
1) Why did you remove the context of your quote?
2) Can you cite a successful anti-trust case where monopoly power was not shown in the proceedings?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law