Legal Definitions - attempted monopolization

Attempted monopolization refers to a situation where a company engages in specific actions with the intent to gain or maintain a monopoly in a particular market, even if it doesn't fully succeed in achieving that monopoly. This legal concept aims to prevent anti-competitive behavior before it fully harms market competition.

For a claim of attempted monopolization to be successful, it generally requires proof of three key elements:

• Specific Intent: The company must have a clear and specific intent to achieve monopoly power within a defined market.
• Anti-Competitive Conduct: The company must have engaged in predatory or anti-competitive actions designed to achieve that monopoly. These actions go beyond normal competitive behavior.
• Dangerous Probability of Success: There must be a "dangerous probability" that the company would have succeeded in achieving monopoly power if its actions had continued or been fully realized. This considers the company's market power, the market structure, and the nature of its conduct.

Here are some examples to illustrate attempted monopolization:

• Example 1: Tech Giant Acquiring Startups

  A dominant global technology company, "OmniCorp," identifies a rapidly growing niche market for secure, encrypted messaging services, currently served by several small, innovative startups. OmniCorp begins a strategy of aggressively acquiring these startups one by one, often paying significantly above market value. Simultaneously, it launches its own competing messaging service, initially offering it for free with advanced features that would typically be premium, and publicly states its goal to become "the sole provider of secure communications."

  How this illustrates attempted monopolization: OmniCorp's aggressive acquisition strategy and its free, feature-rich offering, coupled with its public declaration of intent, demonstrate a specific intent to monopolize the secure messaging market. The acquisitions and potentially predatory pricing (offering a premium service for free to drive out competitors) constitute anti-competitive conduct. Given OmniCorp's vast financial resources and existing user base, there is a dangerous probability of success that it could eliminate competition and achieve a monopoly in this market segment.

• Example 2: Pharmaceutical Company Blocking New Entrants

  "MediCorp," a major pharmaceutical company, holds a patent on a widely prescribed drug for a chronic condition. A smaller, innovative competitor, "BioHealth," develops a new, more effective drug for the same condition. MediCorp then leverages its significant market power and existing relationships to pressure major pharmacy chains and large healthcare providers into exclusively stocking or prioritizing its existing drug, threatening to delay or discontinue other popular MediCorp products if they also carry BioHealth's new medication. This makes it nearly impossible for BioHealth to get its product to patients.

  How this illustrates attempted monopolization: MediCorp's actions clearly show a specific intent to prevent competition and maintain its dominant position in the market for this type of medication. Using its leverage over distributors and providers to block a competitor's product is a form of anti-competitive conduct. Given MediCorp's existing market share, brand recognition, and influence within the healthcare industry, these actions create a dangerous probability of success that BioHealth would fail, leaving MediCorp with a near-monopoly.

• Example 3: E-commerce Platform Undermining Small Businesses

  "GlobalMart," a dominant online retail platform, identifies a burgeoning market for unique, handcrafted jewelry sold by independent artisans. Instead of competing fairly, GlobalMart launches its own line of similar jewelry, selling it at prices below its own production cost. Concurrently, it uses its platform's data to identify the most successful independent artisans selling on its site and offers them exclusive, long-term contracts with highly restrictive terms, threatening to remove their listings from the platform if they refuse to sign or sell their products elsewhere.

  How this illustrates attempted monopolization: GlobalMart's strategy of predatory pricing (selling below cost) and coercive exclusive dealing with artisans demonstrates a clear specific intent to eliminate competition and monopolize the market for handcrafted jewelry. These tactics are forms of anti-competitive conduct. As a dominant online platform with immense reach and resources, GlobalMart possesses a dangerous probability of success in driving out smaller, independent artisans and monopolizing this specific market segment.