Although intellectual property is essentially a knowledge monopoly of varying degrees, the meaning of "monopoly" in the context of intellectual monopoly caused by intellectual property is very different from the meaning of "monopoly" in traditional antitrust laws. "Knowledge monopoly" mainly refers to the exclusive right granted by the intellectual property law; if such exclusive right leads to a market monopoly of the corresponding product or service, then "knowledge monopoly" also includes the consequences of such a market monopoly, regardless of the rights of the right holder There are two possibilities for this kind of exclusive right to be "abuse" or not. One is that the right holder uses the exclusive right to gradually control the corresponding product market, resulting in anti-competitive consequences. The second is that it does not control the market and does not cause anti-competitive consequences. The former is exactly the situation in which antitrust laws may require sanctions. Which of the following statements is consistent with the original:. ['Exclusivity leads to knowledge monopoly.', 'Anti-competition is caused by abuse of intellectual property.', 'Intellectual property is essentially a knowledge market monopoly.', 'The law should intervene in intellectual property rights that cause market monopolies.']