It's weird writing in the article to include that.
In the article this comes from a completely different argument in a completely different point against a MS argument that Google has violated the Sherman act in the same way MS did.
The quote is from Google attorney who pointed out that all the companies that had signed exclusive deals with Google had testified that they chose Google because it was the best.
It doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with the chat history argument.
I felt the same way, it is almost as if they have a blog-generating AI prompt that says something along the lines of "make the subheading a provocative counterpoint".
In the article this comes from a completely different argument in a completely different point against a MS argument that Google has violated the Sherman act in the same way MS did.
The quote is from Google attorney who pointed out that all the companies that had signed exclusive deals with Google had testified that they chose Google because it was the best.
It doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with the chat history argument.