I know you you're being sarcastic but a lot of people probably think that's perfectly ok and is the way everything should be...

I replied to a comment arguing that courts should pass judgements according to what is in the national economic interest. That would mean courts following other guidelines than the law.

Protectionism works both ways - as it should. So if Sweden disadvantages American companies in the name of protecting domestic companies like Klarna, then it's completely expected that the US will do the same thing against Swedish companies to protect their domestic companies.

Companies like Klarna are a plague, no disagreement in that.

Don’t tease the paper tiger, it might be forced to fold again.

Now imagine how bad European militaries are.

All of Europe can't even push back a broken husk of Russia.

Does IKEA sell it's competitors products too or does Sweden not care about monopolies for them suddenly?

Checked what in EU? Do Microsoft not bundle their own browser in Windows in EU?

But is searching for products a new product line, or just a natural extension of searching for webpages (many of which are about products)? Where do you draw the line between merely improving the monopoly product and abusing the monopoly?

No, you are the one not understanding this.

Google literally is a convicted monopolist in the Search antitrust case. The judge just didn’t impose any remedy or penalty.

Many of the arguments around that case had to do with bundling Search, nothing to do with other products. It was Search.

This is why the Firefox CEO gave Google the testimony they paid for, and retired shortly thereafter. It was quid pro quo.

Firefox was paid for years to include Search so one day they’d show up to court and say “we include Google because they are the best, not because they pay us”. The judge didn’t actually buy it, but that was the deal - we pay you millions, one day you show up and read a script.

The confusing part to the lay person is Google got away with it despite the prosecutions case holding.

Imagine if a person robbed a bank and was convicted. The judge then said, ok you robbed the bank, the prosecution proved it, I rule in their favor.

However, when it comes to the punishment, I’m just going to let it slide, you can go home now.

Also, keep the money you stole, and if you happen to walk by another bank…say Associated Investments (AI), just go ahead and rob that one!