Abuse of Dominant Position or the anomaly of the dominant Position : The same thing

Concept and Definition of the anomaly

According to the Larousse dictionary, to dominate is to be the master of a territory, to exercise full and complete sovereignty over it; synonyms: to govern - to rule - to enslave - to command - to enslave or even to subdue.

Also according to the Larousse dictionary, the dominant is the one who plays the main role, who dominates among others: The dominant traits of his character; synonyms: capital - characteristics - fundamental - primordial

Well, now that the qualifications have been established, let's examine the dominant position according to competition law: Competition law states that it is not the dominant position that is illegal, but the act of abusing it; In short, abusus du jus, but for me, the normal behavior of a dominant position would be usus and not abusus. I believe the qualifications are clear: abusus (according to DicoLatin: to use something completely, to make use of, or to employ; to use something in a roundabout way) which gives abuse and usus (still according to DicoLatin: to serve something / to be useful to someone) to use or to use.

But the best is mathematics and commutativity, which demonstrate the direct or indirect correlation between the dominant and the dominated. Thus, if we believe case law and doctrine, we take A for the dominant and B for the dominated. According to the latter, the formulation is as follows:

A = B, it is only if A abuses that A ≠ B, or A > B.

Whereas for me, and I imagine for you, it would only be, according to the definitions from the outset, A > B simply because of the dominant position, or even A ≠ B.

Why? As indicated by the dominant position, and beyond, human nature tends to abuse what it alone possesses and what is neither shared nor controlled (even if the judge controls, it's true, but it's only after the fact, and often too late).