| > Linux has huge marketshare especially across server space where NVidia cards are used also Consumers don't generally rent server space. It would be difficult to establish consumer harm on the basis of server prices. > Furthermore plenty of people run Linux desktops that would be affected by this Right, this is the insignificant bit. Inconveniencing 2 or 3% of the market is not a valid antitrust claim [1][2]. > Consumer harm comes when there is intention to control consumer choice No, it comes when you can prove prices were raised, output reduced, innovation diminished or customers were "otherwise harmed" [3]. To the degree intent is considered in the enabling case, it's in reading the intent of the Congress, not the defendant [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste... [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/north-ame... [3] https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/why-the-consumer... [4] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/330/ |
You are also not counting handheld use such as the Steamdeck. There is a reason Steamdeck doesn't use NVIDIA graphics.