Remix clone Hacker News

Monopoly, and the degree to which Google obtained a monopoly in the defined market examined in this case, is a legal question. So indeed it does matter what a judge decides after a trial where the evidence was examined and a conclusion reached.

You might even argue that there’s no other definition less abitrary than this one, and it’s your understanding of what the word means that needs revision.

▲

carlosjobim 4 days ago | parent [-]

Your argument is simply appeal to authority. The truth is still the truth no matter what men do or decide. If the judge calls Google a monopoly in advertising, he is obviously wrong, and nobody has any duty to pretend that he is right. Both you and I can think for ourselves.

▲

CPLX 3 days ago | parent [-]

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?

	▲	carlosjobim a day ago \| parent [-]
		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.