If you think this is theoretical, see the startup scene in Europe and Canada.
And the differences between Europe/Canada vs US startups aren't because startups created there aren't allowed to be sold. They are.
The govt's goal is not to support rent-seeking or support monopolies. It's been a huge distortion in the market recently that people have been founding companies with the purpose of selling to their large competitor who wants to maintain monopoly pricing.
If (for example) Figma's existence and growth forces Adobe to compete at normal pricing and have to cut their monopolistic pricing by half that is a net win for society. Market competition is good. If the end result is Figma sells to Adobe and Adobe maintains their monopolistic pricing society loses. The govts main goal is to ensure maximal societal benefit by fostering innovation that improves productivity and market competition.
They have no issue with Figma selling, just not in a way that drastically reduces market competition and harms consumers.
Innovation is only good (and should be rewarded) if it improves long term productivity. The most consistent way to do this is through market competition. Entrepreneurs should not be rewarded for preventing competition or helping reduce/stagnate productivity.
