> vertical (not horizontal) acquisition [..] any acquisition or merger would be a monopolist’s act
Past a certain size, it absolutely is. E.g. a food producer will have a much harder time entering (or staying in) a vertically-integrated market (as an independent entity), where all the grocery chains privilege offerings by producers they own.
Using other near-monopolies as argument for why new ones should be allowed to form will lead to a very consolidated market, which is exactly what anti-trust is supposed to prevent.
You’ve moved beyond this specific acquisition and are now talking in generalities. I don’t agree with your post; however, I would note that the situation at issue here in the Microsoft case is actually very similar to your hypothetical. Activision is the food producer. Sony is the grocery chain. Microsoft is also a grocery chain, one that is losing to Sony and is trying to buy Activision in order to compete.
The solution isn’t to sanction Sony because it’s not clear that Sony has done anything illegal to obtain its market position. It’s not illegal to have a monopoly. The solution is to let competition arise from the market and increase consumer choice either by driving down prices or providing more options for consumers. In the market for grocery stores, Microsoft buying Activision is anti-monopolist and pro-competition.
Past a certain size, it absolutely is. E.g. a food producer will have a much harder time entering (or staying in) a vertically-integrated market (as an independent entity), where all the grocery chains privilege offerings by producers they own.
Using other near-monopolies as argument for why new ones should be allowed to form will lead to a very consolidated market, which is exactly what anti-trust is supposed to prevent.