> Our antitrust laws have been focused primarily about the anticompetitive aspects of owning a whole market, but has missed the boat so far on the anticompetitive aspects of vertical integration.
This is simply historically false; vertical integration has been a central focus of antitrust law from day one (it was a key consideration in the drafting of the 1890 Sherman Act and the 1914 Clayton Act.)
I guess my question then would be, if vertical integration is adequately addressed by antitrust laws, how does a company which is the dominant power in search, mobile, and email manage to exist, while continuing to buy companies that bring it into dozens of other business markets, while proudly proclaiming that integration as a primary feature?
Because antitrust law recognizes that while vertical integration can have consumer harms, it generally does not (and often benefits consumers), so while it addresses vertical integration and includes mechanisms for addressing harms from it, it does not generally prohibit it or even seek to prevent it the way it does monopolization.
Also, most of what you describe is participating in multiple markets that aren't part of a vertical supply chain, so while it is integration, it's not vertical integration.
This is simply historically false; vertical integration has been a central focus of antitrust law from day one (it was a key consideration in the drafting of the 1890 Sherman Act and the 1914 Clayton Act.)