2000年時聯邦巡迴法院更曾表示：「擁有合法專利並不意味著專利權人於專利權合法壟斷權以外的領域同樣免於Sherman Act的約束 （…The possession of a valid patent or patents does not give the patentee any exemption from the provisions of the Sherman Act beyond the limits of the patent monopoly.）」
More internet regulations mean that only the big companies have enough rent value/ resources to comply with. New competitors may hardly have the abilities to follow the rules, which could be wiped out by laws but not by competitions.
Massively global regulations on the social-network markets require a lot of people who are familiar with such industries. People from Facebook would inevitably be part of the rule makers. As one of them, the monopoly power of Facebook will be raised.
Nonetheless, it could be impossible to get so many complex things done in a short period, Zuckerberg still has and enjoys the new and positive PR image.
Zuckerberg is smart that he re-direct the competition from the market into the political rent-seeking area by claiming that he wants to protect the users or the privacy.
美國法上，飛機事故中如果飛機本身有製造或設計上瑕疵，依然適用「侵權行為」的product liability。這點從1976年的聯邦第二巡迴法院判決「Bruce v. Martin-Marietta Corporation」可得證。
product liability基本有三塊瑕疵廠商均可能負擔strict liability：
a. manufacturing defect b. design defect c. failure to warn
（請參考 Restatement of Law, Torts, §402 (A))
尤其落入design defect的話，我認為這類下美國判例樹立的兩項檢測：consumer expectation test與risk-utility test 波音應該都很難過關，因為當法院要求證明波音的設計瑕疵存在「當時技術上極限時」，原告律師只要簡單以空中巴士或它牌飛機的操控系統軟體證明「reasonable alternative design」確實存在且並非經濟成本上之不可能，波音幾乎難以狡辯脫身。
換言之，過去我投資默克藥廠依據的科技抗辯（state of art）在波音737MAX案中應該是難以援用主張。