Right, so if one entity controls 100% of the supply of some good and has no compunctions about using any means necessary to keep it that way, it’s not a monopoly because there’s no legal obstacle to competition?
I don’t know how we got on the subject of monopolies, but it is not correct that all industries trend towards monopolies without government intervention.
Some forms of mostly networked services tend towards a natural monopoly. i.e. the economy doesn’t need multiple power or cable tv distribution networks.
Most industries tend to form an oligopoly - small number of sellers (often one or two primary and a couple of niche players) that dominate the market. Coke/Pepsi (soft drinks), Microsoft/Apple (PC), Apple/Google (smartphones).
In reality, it is exceedingly difficult for any company to dominate 100% of any market.
So did Edison need or have governmental support when he was sending goons to bust up movie houses that weren’t paying the royalties he thought he was entitled to?
Yes: patents, and his ability to control who received a license to use his patents.
Are citizens supposed to privately enforce their patents? I mean, filing a lawsuit is one thing, but we’re talkin’ goons…
Hey, it was a goonier time. For every goon attack, there were indeed plenty of lawsuits, both threatened and filed, and removal of patent licenses, both threatened and carried out.
Also, note two key factors in the fall of the monopoly: the reluctance of California’s Ninth Circuit Court to uphold patent claims, and the SCOTUS rulings in Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co and United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co.
If it were just goons keeping Edison and co.'s monopoly going, they could have persisted in spite of this, but they didn’t. This suggests that, at least in this case, goons alone weren’t enough.