Yes my argument is an appeal to authority. That’s the right approach to answering a legal question.
An appeal to authority is an excellent way to argue when the authority in question has the ability to determine and define the answer in question.
Calling a company an illegal monopoly at the ci conclusion of a trial is analogous to calling a person a convicted murderer because a court says they are.
Do you have your own definition of a kilometer too?
Who are the persons who has to respect the judge (the authority) when he is flagrantly wrong in his decision? The justice system has to respect that decision. Google and the other involved parties have to respect that decision.
You and me however, are not involved in any way, and do not have to respect anything this ignorant judge says or decides.
It's also not one party, it's successive Democratic and Republican administrations that prosecuted the cases.
It's also not just Federal, the most recent victory was also prosecuted by the Attorneys General of 17 separate states, also from a mix of political parties.
Google is a monopoly engaged in anti-competitive actions that have severely harmed the markets it participates in. That's a demonstrated fact at this point.
You're welcome to advocate for a redefinition of the words we're using here, or just to legalize monopoly power, which presumably is a political goal you have and would have the effect of causing judges to reach different outcomes based on this new law, but there's no value in arguing with reality.
An appeal to authority is an excellent way to argue when the authority in question has the ability to determine and define the answer in question.
Calling a company an illegal monopoly at the ci conclusion of a trial is analogous to calling a person a convicted murderer because a court says they are.
Do you have your own definition of a kilometer too?