Some people feel the only way to address organizations that enjoy a great deal of success and power in their industry is to break up them up. Despite operational efficiencies, monopolies are generally regarded as bad for an economy because of the lack of choice and competition makes products and services more expensive for consumers than in a competitive market.
An approach could be relaxing certain patent protections if a market player manipulates market conditions or restricts competition. Provide limited tax breaks to new firms entering non-competitive markets. While innovators should be allowed to recoup investments and earn early profits, consumer impact should be considered over the long-term.
A reality is that government action is not always needed in order to restore balance. Consider how dominant Sears Roebuck was in its heyday. Few would predict it would be a relic of the past in the current era. Same for Yahoo, AOL, and Kodak. Market leaders are not always able to maintain their market power and prestige.
Walmart skyrocketed to the top of retail and corporate earners, but faces stiff competition from Amazon. Profitability naturally attracts new market participants who find the ability to compete with the corporate giants by providing goods and services in more efficient and effective measures. Government does not always need to step in.
As governments obsess over Facebook, Google, and Amazon, policymakers should focus on identifying ways to prevent market manipulation or fraud, but breaking up these companies might just make more companies that perform the same questionable behaviors creating social angst. Foster competition rather than government bullying.