No, they don't. They cannot sell a device that harms you or your neighbours, for instance. More to the point, they cannot sell a device that prevents competition.
> Just like Walmart has a monopoly on things sold at Walmart.
No, not just like it. Walmart does not exclusively sell goods that require a Walmart product to use. That distinction makes the comparison not very similar at all.
> but it is their product. They define how they sell it.
It's not "theirs", they have only been granted a limited-time monopoly on it in order to incentivize the initial creation. If they abuse that monopoly, we (i.e. society) CAN take it away.
> If you're relying on your competitor to enable your business model then you're not competing with them.
This is not true, and there are multitudes of counter-examples: store-brand products sharing shelves with competitors, EVs delivered by ICE vehicles, AOL CDs being sent by mail, etc.
>who are going to end up being a global competitor
They already demonstrated they cannot compete without help from the government. It's an inferior product that can only succeed because the better competitors are banned. Kind of like iPhone default browser.
> There can be no competition if there is copyright involved.
Truth is there can almost never be real competition on any market that isn't raw materials, because there's IP (not just copyright, but patents and trademarks as well) almost everywhere else.
They will not have the competition. Because it's their items, and they chose to only support items sold through their marketplace.
reply