Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

Water is obviously wet, depending on your definition of "wet".

Likewise Google is obviously an online advertising tech monopoly, depending on your definition of "monopoly".

There might be legal or technical rationals for why these statements are not true. But practically speaking, they are obviously true and that's what should matter.

Something is wet when it is covered in water, so how can water be wet? It's just water.

Because unless you're talking about a single molecule of water, water is always covered in more water.

But that's beside the point.

Practically speaking, a person considers something "wet" if contacting it will make them wet. If a person contacts water, they will become wet. It's not about the technical definition of "wet" - it's about the practical implication of the word and the effect it has on people and things around it.

Just like how even if Google does not technically have a monopoly, their influence over the market is monopolistic in practice and has the same adverse effects as a monopoly.