SO never had a monopoly. Ironically, throughout the long anti-trust trial, SO's market share kept sliding. SO was never convicted of having a monopoly, it was convicted of certain business practices.

> many would consider

I don't. Many of the current top ones replaced the previous top ones. Not many even remember AOL.

I mean, they essentially operated 9 of every 10 refineries. That was enough for both the NJ and US courts to deem them a monopoly (yes, they used those words).[1]

And since a monopoly is just “certain business practices” that unfairly constrain competition, your definition seems to be a difference without a distinction.

[1] Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911)

SO's market share declined substantially throughout the trial. How does that fit your thesis?

See "Titan" by Chernow.

If you agree that more risk tends to push prices lower with all else being equal, I don’t see that being indicative of evidence considering investors would presumably be pricing in regulation risk.

But in any event the price at trial is not necessarily indicative of unfair anti-competitive business practices. The trial was not necessarily about the current practices at the time of the trial, but broke the business practices into three distinct periods dating back to 1870.

Why did SO's "natural monopoly" keep sliding away from them throughout the trial period?

I don’t think you’re tracking. There’s no guarantee a natural monopoly will remain in place forever or reuse we’d still be working by whale blubber light. What happened to the business during the trial is not necessarily relevant to the trial ruling.

I think a better question for you to ask yourself is “why did the court determine they were acting in a monopolistic manner?”

I’d suggest reading the previously referenced court ruling to get your answer.

If you want to call SO a "natural monopoly", the evidence does not support that conclusion. Nor did the trial conclude SO was a monopoly. That's my point here.

Rockefeller was convicted of being rich. That's the bottom line.

Except multiple courts disagree with your conclusion and found Standard Oil guilty of anti-competitive price fixing. Meaning they found evidence to the contrary of your point.

Here is a part of the majority court decision written by Chief Justice White:

"constituted a combination in violation of the first section and an attempt to create a monopoly or to monopolize"

See the word "attempt". That changes everything. They were not convicted of having a monopoly.

Uh, no. Feel free to read the actual referenced judicial opinion rather than cherry-picking to suit your conclusion. That was the word used in the charge. Here's more of it:

>"entered into agreements with, various persons, firms, corporations, and limited partnerships engaged in purchasing, shipping, refining, and selling petroleum and its products among the various states, for the purpose of fixing the price of crude and refined oil and the products thereof, limiting the production thereof, and controlling the transportation therein, and thereby restraining trade and commerce among the several states, and monopolizing the said commerce"

If actual price-fixing to monopolize commerce isn't part of your unique definition of a monopoly, I don't know what else to tell you. It's pretty hard to price fix without a monopoly, but as we already discussed they were able to do so because they controlled over 90% of refineries at the time. (And before you jump in again - erroneously - about their price during the trial, this monopoly charge was related to actions decades earlier). But it's pretty obvious from your relentless rules-lawyering/wordsmithing that either you aren't responding in good faith or don't actually have the ability/willingness to read evidence objectively.

Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.

This article[1] from Brookings says,

>> At the time of the divestiture, the oil industry was becoming competitive because it was moving into Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and California—states where Standard Oil didn’t have much power. The price of petroleum was actually falling in the years before the case, because these new fields were pumping so much crude. The breakup had no measurable effect on oil production, crude-oil prices or refined-product prices.

(The article does say that antitrust actions were necessary to make cigarettes affordable, though.)

For a rather less charitable take, [2] from the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" says,

>> Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States had a defendant that was cutting prices while increasing output. The case also lacked evidence of either predatory pricing or consumer harm.

After this quick bullet-point summary, there's more content below with references to other academic sources, page 2 is pretty interesting.

> many would consider social media companies to be natural monopolies in the current context

They have positive returns to scale, but even this phrasing ("social media companies") deflates the argument -- Facebook competes with Twitter competes with TikTok competes with Reddit competes with Youtube etc. They're big enough to exert market power, but

- Some of them seem to dislike using that power (to the horror of authoritarians in many governments who want to co-opt it), and

- If they abuse that power to the detriment of users (raising prices too high, banning enough communities) users will go elsewhere.

1: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/if-it-aint-broke-dont-bre...

2: https://assets.realclear.com/files/2021/01/1755_antitrust.pd...

For just about any ruling, I’m sure you’ll find dissenting opinions. The only opinion that matters in the end is the court’s and they concluded it was a monopoly.

For the record, with my limited understanding I don’t think “social media companies” are monopolies because they do not run afoul of general consumer prices because their products are typically free. They may deserve to be regulated under a different framework, but they don’t seem to fit the anti-trust paradigm. I brought them up because others, including the authors of the link I provided, consider them natural monopolies

> The only opinion that matters in the end is the court’s and they concluded it was a monopoly.

I guess I'm less convinced of judicial infallibility, but I'll grant you it anyway. Mostly I don't think the important question here is the legal standard (which is of course what the court is interested in) than the question of whether the law is achieving its intent. If the law says that a company that is lowering prices and losing market share is a monopoly that should be broken up, the law isn't really reflecting mainstream thought about antitrust -- that market concentration is self-perpetuating and harms consumers.

> If the law says that a company that is lowering prices and losing market share is a monopoly

Gates was convicted of giving away Explorer for free. Nobody managed to show that harmed consumers.

Like Rockefeller, Bill Gates was convicted of being rich.

You have an interesting way of rewording court decisions to fit your narrative.

Here's what MSFT was actually taken to trial for:

"monopoly position in the market for operating systems designed to run on Intel-compatible personal computers ("PCs"). Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that Microsoft violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a series of exclusionary, anticompetitive, and predatory acts to maintain its monopoly power. "

Not "for Gates being rich." Now, his wealth may have put the spotlight on him, but that doesn't negate the court decision on his actions. I can lament that the only reason I was pulled over was because I drive a red Ferrari, but that doesn't mean that my speeding wasn't illegal.

The entire case hinged on Windows including Explorer for free.

> red Ferrari

Selective enforcement is a real thing, and why the offense written on the ticket is not always the real offense.

Oh I’m not claiming they are infallible, my point is that in a pragmatic sense theirs is the opinion that matters.

Here’s why I think you’re previous comment misses the mark: the court ruling was not about whether the company was monopolistic at the time of divestment (1911), the ruling was against business practices that occurred previously, dating back to 1870. It’s possible those practices were unfairly anti-competitive while also no longer creating a monopoly decades later due to other factors.

SO was never convicted of being a monopoly.

Again, read the actual court decision on the case rather than draw your own conclusion. They were found guilty of unreasonable restriction of trade, which is to say guilty of monopolistic behavior.

"was in restraint of trade and amounted to the creation of an unlawful monopoly."

Monopolistic behavior is not the same as having a monopoly.