But the point that I was trying to make is, that your original comments, where you tried to disagree with the information posted on those government websites, a

But the point that I was trying to make is, that your original comments, where you tried to disagree with the information posted on those government websites, are wrong. The information on those government websites, are correct, in that controlling 50% of a market can subject a company to anti-trust law, and this is backed up by the court cases that I posted. So, on the specific point only regarding the definition of a monopoly, you were wrong, and the government websites are correct. Since I posted actual links, to judicial opinions, do you now understand why you were completely wrong, in your original definition of a monopoly, and that the government website is correct? Everything else you are saying now is just an attempt to misdirect from your original, false statements. > She at no point showed any sympathy You are misrepresenting my point. What I am claiming is that the judge agrees with me, that the important question in this case is the definition of the market. And the judge has not at all agree with your statements where you attempted to reject the information that was posted to you, on those government websites. So, your original statements regarding those government websites were wrong, and the judge in this case has not said that the specific claims on those government websites are incorrect. IE, your original comments, regarding that information, were wrong, and the government websites were correct. That is the only point I am making.