>Seriously, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or really don't understand.

You're wrong about this:

>The plaintiff must demonstrate that there is a likelihood that the scheme alleged would cause a rise in prices above a competitive level sufficient to compensate for the amounts expended on the predation, including the time value of the money invested in it

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-466.ZS.html

The test is "above a competitive level" and not more than prices before the scheme.

>Your product sucking is not a antitrust issue, it is simply your incompetence.

No, it's because your competitor is willing to spend more money than you and give their product away for free to protect their monopoly in another area.

>Asking that Google or Coca-Cola be punished for having a better product isn't only naive, is ignorance.

That's not what anyone is asking. If Google can make better maps for less cost than everyone else, bully for them. But that isn't what they do. They devote more resources than their competitors to make better products while giving them away for free. And they do it to extinguish competition and further cement their search/ad monopoly.

... That's exactly the issue with the current paradigm of monopoly enforcement. You can subvert a market, then if you fly under the radar for long enough, the competition bureaus have no ability to determine that pricing pressure is being exerted because the market is already non-competitive at the point of the comparison.

You conflate the limits of our current enforcement framework with the principles that underlie the effort in the first place throughout this thread.