alt Hacker NewsBecause 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.
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.