> This fact alone makes it not a monopoly. "The hypothetical possibility of competition" is definitely not enough to conclude that something is not a monopoly

> This fact alone makes it not a monopoly. "The hypothetical possibility of competition" is definitely not enough to conclude that something is not a monopoly in any legal sense. A monopoly doesn't require 100% control of the market, nor is owning 100% of a market illegal. > by simple logic you prove that Google does not impede competition Again, "the hypothetical possibility of competition" does not mean Google isn't impeding things. In fact, the case established quite the opposite: --- Unlawful Restraint of Trade (Sherman Act Section 1 and California State Law) Question No. 6: Did Epic prove, by a preponderance of the evidence and in accordance with the instructions given to you, that Google entered into one or more agreements that unreasonably restrained trade in a relevant antitrust market? Jury answered: YES Question No. 7: If you answered “yes” to Question 6, which of these agreements did you find to be unreasonable restraint(s) of trade in accordance with the instructions given to you? x DDA agreements x Agreements with Google’s alleged competitors or potential competitors under Project Hug or Games Velocity Program x Agreements with OEMs that sell mobile devices (including MADA and RSA agreements) Jury answered: ALL OF THE ABOVE