Maybe I phrased it wrong. What I was trying to say is that the theory distinguishes between unfair market dominance and simply being the best. If the splits continue to dominate that would be strong evidence it's the latter.

(The reason I disagree with this is because I think that corporations, like countries, are a social contract that should only be allowed if they serve the people. I think a free market serves the people, but a market needs heavy govt interference to be free. I know that's a minority opinion, so I didn't get into it)