Comment by goodmythical
10 hours ago
Because the argument wasn't "there should be more" but was in fact "there have been none"?
It's pretty easy to weaken such a strong position if you can provide not just one but multiple pieces of evidence to the contrary.
The argument was they feel they are invincible in their [monopolist] position, and that argument is only made stronger by the cases you cited as none of the outcomes really moved the needle in that aspect.