No, you are the one not understanding this.

Google literally is a convicted monopolist in the Search antitrust case. The judge just didn’t impose any remedy or penalty.

Many of the arguments around that case had to do with bundling Search, nothing to do with other products. It was Search.

This is why the Firefox CEO gave Google the testimony they paid for, and retired shortly thereafter. It was quid pro quo.

Firefox was paid for years to include Search so one day they’d show up to court and say “we include Google because they are the best, not because they pay us”. The judge didn’t actually buy it, but that was the deal - we pay you millions, one day you show up and read a script.

The confusing part to the lay person is Google got away with it despite the prosecutions case holding.

Imagine if a person robbed a bank and was convicted. The judge then said, ok you robbed the bank, the prosecution proved it, I rule in their favor.

However, when it comes to the punishment, I’m just going to let it slide, you can go home now.

Also, keep the money you stole, and if you happen to walk by another bank…say Associated Investments (AI), just go ahead and rob that one!