This is reductio ad absurdum.
“Very similar to the idea of influencing advertisers now in the twitter case.” No, it absolutely is not, unless you say that the advertisers’ money is a “raw material.” The advertising organizations aren’t bauxite producers choking off supplies to an aluminum producer.
“Interestingly trusts can literally involve others who may not be direct competitors but the collective can materially gain by limiting others ability to compete with those aligned with you, that was actually some of the impetus behind anti trust laws.” The advertisers are neither direct nor indirect competitors.
“For example just denying a basic raw material that would prevent a company ability to compete. A competitor could ask a supplier to not sell to another competitor, maybe by offering a a higher payment for that raw material, a price they can pay due to their specific market share thus preventing a company from even starting up, both the company and supplier then would run afoul of anti trust laws.” Again, there is no raw material denied.
The defendants in this case would neither suffer nor prosper based on the demise of X. You say that for the application of the law “the collective can materially gain,” yet neither you nor X can express what that gain would be.
Laws protecting competition apply to competitors: there are none here.
Until you can actually quote a statue, regulation or Act that supports your ramblings I will consider you silly. You continue to argue through assertion and now toss in a Latin phrase, showing little understanding of what it actually means.
I am still waiting for you to provide support in your very clear statement that antitrust laws only apply to competitors.
First to quote you “The laws pertain to COMPETITORS, not customers.” and your most recent post doubles down on that assertion, again quoting you “Laws protecting competition apply to competitors: there are none here.”
I asked for your reference, give me the proof that supports your quote, instead you only assert it again and go down the road of sophistry. You are a confused person.
This discussion will not proceed further until you provide the legal justification for your assertion.