> The thing with monopoly laws is it doesn’t matter how you got into pole position. The point is that you’re illegally utilizing tangential benefits of the pole position to maintain that position as well as enter new markets.
The following is for US law.
Your first sentence is not really needed because US monopoly law really doesn't care if you are actually in pole position. It's more about monopolization than it is about monopoly.
To a first approximation think of it as being about fair competition. You could have a complete 100% monopoly in some particular market but if you got that monopoly by simply outcompeting everyone else by making a better product and you were not trying to use that to expand into other markets by doing things like tying you would probably not have an antitrust problem.
The following is for US law.
Your first sentence is not really needed because US monopoly law really doesn't care if you are actually in pole position. It's more about monopolization than it is about monopoly.
To a first approximation think of it as being about fair competition. You could have a complete 100% monopoly in some particular market but if you got that monopoly by simply outcompeting everyone else by making a better product and you were not trying to use that to expand into other markets by doing things like tying you would probably not have an antitrust problem.