No body is forced to do anything. Google can just not pay that money and lose that share of the market. They're not doing that because they want to preserve their monopoly status.

This is silly. People are forced to do all kinds of things. They are forced at gunpoint, they are forced via laws, they are forced via incentives that are so strong they may as well be a gun. As are companies. So, in theory, you are wrong.

In practice, even more wrong. If management decided to not pay this money, and gave up that positioning to a competitor, they would be fired. If the board allowed it to continue, they could be sued. They are forced.

No one at google sits around thinking "i want to preserve our monopoly status". They are thinking "I don't want to be crushed by someone". Google can be crushed just like any other company. Their panic around AI is due to the fact they think it could crush their search business, and they are correct to think so.

>No one at google sits around thinking "i want to preserve our monopoly status". They are thinking "I don't want to be crushed by someone"

I guarantee they are thinking both, but both are pretty much the same statment anyway.

I spent years there and never saw anyone convey the idea of maintaining a monopoly.

I'll agree that to some extent they are the same thing in certain markets - those that naturally tend to 1 or 2 players dominating the entire market.

How in God's name can someone be forced (compelled by force or necessity : involuntary) by an incentive? No, your usage of the word is against the one used by the code of law regarding market regulation, simple as that.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/force - read the verb section.

There is no tight definition of "force" in US market regulation. You are making things up.

The phrase "market forces" is directly quoted in the ruling. Market forces are incentives pushing market participants to behave in certain ways. This is econ 101.

push != force. The definition of the word "forced" (which you used) I gave you is from Merriam-Webster. The definition you're giving is of the word "force" which is different. Google isn't forced to maximize profit at all costs if it breaks the law, no company is. No boards are vulnerable to lawsuits for not maximizing profit either. That's a myth. Having market forces doesn't mean involved companies are forced to do anything illegal. Do you think because it's the same verb that it has the same meaning, or did you just Ctrl+F "force" and copy the first instance you found?

The definition you gave has the word "force" in it. And a synonym for compel is force. All paths lead to defining "force".

You can't be this silly, surely. Whatever strange definition you've made for yourself of force and forced isn't what the rest of the humans are using.