This question actually involves a kind of "strategic commitment" of monopoly enterprises in the entry deterrence strategy. However, it should be pointed out that the classic "limit pricing strategy" usually refers to the monopoly deliberately lowering the price to reduce the attractiveness of market profits and make potential entrants feel that it is difficult to make profits after entering; and the "raising prices" you mentioned is another phenomenon that is sometimes confused. It is usually accompanied by the following mechanisms and considerations: 1. Price is linked to brand image and customer loyalty: In some industries, high prices are often associated with high quality, professional services or luxury brand images. Monopoly enterprises can use this image advantage to make consumers have a strong sense of brand dependence and trust, so that it is difficult for entrants to shake the existing market structure in the short term after entering the market. For new entrants, in order to gain consumer recognition, they must invest a lot of resources in product quality, brand promotion and customer service, which increases entry costs and risks. 2. Use excess profits to reinvest and build barriers: Monopolists can usually obtain higher profit margins by maintaining high prices. Enterprises can use this part of the profit to expand research and development, optimize products, improve after-sales service, or conduct large-scale advertising and market maintenance; they can even use their financial advantages to make strategic acquisitions, obtain exclusive resources, or sign long-term exclusive cooperation agreements with important suppliers. In this way, a stronger implicit competitive advantage is formed, making it difficult for new entrants to obtain sufficient differentiated competitive conditions even if they enter the market. 3. Implying potential aggressive counterattack strategies: Some monopoly companies will publicly or implicitly use "trigger strategies", that is, if competitors enter the market, they will adopt aggressive price wars or other market means to protect their market share. Maintaining high prices at present is actually sending a signal to potential entrants: market profits seem high, but behind this is a strong "defense" ability and possible fierce competition. Entrants are worried that even if the initial market price is high, once they enter, the monopoly will likely quickly lower prices or use other exclusive means to restore the original high-end status or completely suppress competition, making it impossible for new entrants to achieve expected profits. 4. Strengthen consumers’ perception of quality, price and usage costs: High prices may also imply certain scarcity and high barriers to entry. After consumers get used to a certain product, they often form usage inertia and “switching costs”. Through high-price strategies, monopoly enterprises not only provide the product itself, but also lock in consumers through higher additional services, network effects, technical standards or ecosystems (such as software platforms, patented technologies, etc.). New entrants not only have to face price competition, but also have to invest resources to break consumers’ inherent usage habits and trust. It should be emphasized that using a monopoly position to raise prices to restrict new entrants may be manifested as a “strategic pricing” in economics. Its goal is not to simply squeeze consumer surplus, but to create a “high-threshold” market competition environment so that potential competitors will eventually give up entry when faced with implicit but multi-level entry barriers; at the same time, monopolists may also use the large amount of excess profits brought by high prices to continuously strengthen their own barriers. However, in reality, the antitrust laws of many countries will pay close attention to the use of market dominance to engage in exclusive behavior and unfair competition, including behaviors that restrict competition through pricing strategies. If the monopolist harms the interests of consumers or distorts market competition in this way, government regulators may intervene to investigate and take corresponding measures. Therefore, whether from the perspective of theoretical discussion or practical operation, this strategy is highly controversial and has legal risks.