>how are they a monopoly

they are because a judge just ruled they are. answering questions like this is the reason the courts exist, and they just answered this question.

or they might not actually be a monopoly, there's still a possibility of appeal, but there's really no more definitive answer than a judge's ruling. antitrust law is fuzzy, and depends a lot on the courts to interpret it.

>they are because a judge just ruled they are.

but they are not a monopoly according to the Wikipedia definition that I cited in another subthread, and linked to above, though.

and courts can be packed, which, i have been reading, has happened with the us supreme court.

if you want to beleive a wikipedia definition based on historical caselaw, instead of an actual judge's decision, then i guess sure, do whatever you want.

if you're asking how they're a monopoly, i answered you. if you want to debate whether the judge was right or wrong, maybe phrase your question less like a question.

>if you're asking how they're a monopoly, i answered you. if you want to debate whether the judge was right or wrong, maybe phrase your question less like a question.

okay, i will. in fact, i also answered you, so I'll just link to my other answer again:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41167248

as you say, antitrust law is fuzzy.

and judges are human, and therefore fallible.

and that judge's ruling can be overturned by an appeals court. and the appeals court's ruling can again be overturned by an even higher court.

such things have happened many times in the past.

so that means that the courts are no more reliable than Wikipedia.

qed. case dismissed. ;)