Normally though competition crushing is done through anti-competitive practices.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Anti-competitive_practices

Or, more charitably (?), marketing.

The theme of the comment thread is that companies in the past (example: Microsoft) got in serious trouble for talking about crushing the competition. While companies want to do better than the competition because it means more sales and more revenue, they are meant to do it by providing better products or services rather than by causing competitor companies to go out of business granting the survivor a monopoly, even if either motivation leads to the same outcome.

"providing better products or services" and "causing competitor companies to go out of business" are related, though, not two wholly separate ways of doing business. If you provide a better product or service at a better price point, you'll win more and more of the market for the product or service.

If you offer a targeted price reduction to unsustainable levels in all areas a competitor operates and says you do it to crush the competition then you will have a really bad time in court. If you however said that you did it to provide better services to those poor people then at least you have a fighting chance.

I guess this change in wording is why we mostly stopped seeing companies taken to court over anti-competitive practices in USA. Since we reworded all the "crush the competition" to "provide better services" the courts are now unable to tell when companies are behaving in an anti-competitive manner.