The argument as framed in yesterday's hearing is that Google is dominate in search and maybe some other industries as well, such as mobile search and mobile ope

The argument as framed in yesterday's hearing is that Google is dominate in search and maybe some other industries as well, such as mobile search and mobile operating systems. Google's competitors have asserted that Google is using this dominance to promote its own products unfairly and steal ideas and information from its competitors, e.g. Yelp's assertions of data theft where Google Places is concerned. I must have missed this whole "first" argument. In any case if you review the testimony I think you'll find the majority relates to the argument that Google is dominate and abusive. This may or may not constitute a monopoly. The contrasting argument seems to be that there's no lock-in which apparently is a necessary facet of monopoly although it's worth noting no one but Google seems entirely convinced of that. It seems that if you're unfairly promoting yourself and there's no serious competition, it might be grounds for some sort of injunction. Maybe the strongest argument against Google's dominance is that such a dominance coupled with self-promotion or the power to shut out competitors makes the barrier to entry into these industries very difficult.