As an aside, I'd like to add this bit of information: People get up in arms when a large "corporation" or "well-established player" in the market throws their capital weight around to bud out budding investors by selling at a loss. But, as you can see in this thread, they turnaround and have a completely different take on the matter when it's a "VC-backed startup" using its newly-acquired capital to drown out competition while it's slowly losing money.
This is why we need anti-trust law. There are cases where throwing your capital around is appropriate, and there are cases where it is anti-competitive.
"There are cases where throwing your capital around is
appropriate"
I'm curious where you think this is the case? Remember, your arbitrary definition of appropriate might not be the same as others'. I probably won't go either way, as I think anti-trust laws in general are not appropriate, but that's a different discussion.
Moreover, may I ask what your moral argument is for such laws? From the looks of it, most people would say: "If you have a lot of money, then you're not allowed to use it to your advantage if we perceive it as predatory". With such vague terms (unless you can make it more explicit), and it will most certainly end up having a favoritist bureaucracy grow around it.
