The entire point of the court ruling is that it is not legally considered a monopoly, at least according to US antitrust law.
A lot of court rulings are basically come down to, "I don't like the logic but it follows" and you just have to live with them.
The judge makes a decision on their interpretation of the case and the law. This is a very important distinction in decisions.
There's really no interpretation needed.
That's not what I got from the case texts. Did you read them?