you don't want to discuss the law, Discussing what the law should be is of interest to me. Using the law as an argument for why a company should be obligated

you don't want to discuss the law, Discussing what the law should be is of interest to me. Using the law as an argument for why a company should be obligated to do something (outside of practical concerns for the company itself) is an argument I find to lack substance. and we agree Google is a bad example of the law applied, so what's your point? This thread started with a defense of Standard Oil. I'm making the broader point that anti-trust laws are ineffective (not to mention more likely to be used as a tool against political enemies than as a boon to consumers), unnecessary (because unless the monopoly is propped up by government, the market will route around the roadblock anyway in the few cases where this comes up), and unjust (because unless the monopolist is using force to prop up the monopoly, there is no moral justification for using forceful coercion against the company owners).