> why should Google be punished for hiring the best people over decades to make the best one?

Google should not be punished for having gained a near-monopoly by hiring the best people.

But perhaps their near-monopoly is due to other reasons like paying large amounts to ensure that they are the default option on various platforms. In this case, legal restrictions might be more appropriate.

How do we determine which of these proposed reasons for the near-monopoly is correct? We use a legal process where each side presents their evidence and a neutral party decides which is most credible.