Contestable monopolies cannot be exploited because to do so brings forward that contesting.
In other words: don't worry about monopolies, the free market will sort them out. However, with a monopoly, there is no longer any free market in existence. Ergo, no sorting can occur.
Examples are poor. The Chinese rare earth affair can be discounted as it was clearly not a monopoly in any recognizable form. Being the sole supplier in a market is not sufficient to have a monopoly. As for Rockerfella reducing prices - again, being dominant with a natural commodity is not a monopoly in itself, and Standard Oil didn't behave like one, according to the author.
The Czech supplier having having a shrinking market share - this argument is so slight it almost proves the opposite of what the author intended. All it shows is that the monopoly is still being established.
Google has several of the features of a monopoly in search:
- they dominate the supply
- they dominate in other related areas
- they leverage these positions horizontally, each to strengthen the other
- no effective market operates in these areas (search)
- there has been a corresponding lack of innovation and change (in search) for 10 or 15 years
Google behaves as if it has a monopoly in search. It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck...