Technology The United States prepares to clash with Google over monopoly in lawsuit

[plat]

Content source

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/the-us-and-google-prepare-to-clash-in-monopoly-trial-both-have-a-lot-to-lose-101034818.html

The lawsuit against Google is a supreme test for the US government, which is trying to use a 133-year-old law to rein in several of the country’s most dominant tech giants. For Google, it is a threat to a core profit engine that sits at the heart of a trillion-dollar empire amassed over the last quarter century.

That drama will unfold over the next nine weeks before federal district Judge Amit Mehta in the US District Court for the District of Columbia; he will decide whether Google broke the law and what any consequences might be for the company.

What do you all think? Guilty? More info needed?

 

[ForgottenSeer 103564]

What do you all think? Guilty? More info needed?

42.64% of smartphone users in the US are Android. Which are google services and google search integrated. 89.04% of search results in the US are performed through Googles search engine on all devices combined. These are preferred searches, not forced. US other searches include Bing at 6.35% and Yahoo at 2.4%.

It seems to me the people choosing have handed this large market share to Google from preference. Considering the "limited" options, it is kinda a no-brainer as to why.

 

[oldschool]

The lawsuit specifically targets G's power to gain "default search engine" status on various platforms.

One central issue that will be debated in the coming weeks is whether Google’s payments to device-makers like Apple to have its search engine built into their computers and phones as a default service — beginning in the early 2000s — constituted an abuse of monopoly power. Mehta will also evaluate if Google’s delays in allowing Microsoft access to its search advertising tool Search Ads 360 amounted to illegal anticompetitive behavior.

Dintzer drilled down on an internal memo that Varian wrote in 2003 titled “Thoughts on Google v Microsoft.”

“We should be careful about what we say in both public and private,” Varian wrote. “‘Cutting off their air supply’, and similar phrases should avoided. It would be ironic, indeed, if Microsoft played the antitrust card against Google but that is not as unlikely as it may now appear.”

“You warned people at Google to communicate carefully?” Dintzer asked Varian.

“Yes,” Varian replied.

Dintzer also showed the court an internal email Varian wrote in October 2009 in which he reminded colleagues to use the term “query share” instead of “market share.” Under questioning, Varian said one of the reasons he asked people not to use the term “market share” was antitrust concerns. Exactly how a company’s “market” is defined and what share of that market it dominates is a core issue in anti-monopoly cases.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...antitrust-case/?itid=sf_politics_article_list

 

[plat]

After staring off into space for a short while, I then received a communication from my top secret spy at Microsoft's HQ. Apparently, CEO Satya Nadella has reacted to the news.

Spoiler

 

[oldschool]

Workers of the world unite! Throw off the chains of capitalist exploitation! Outlaw billionaires now. Labor ownership of capital now. Viva la revolucion!

 

[upnorth]

 

[ForgottenSeer 103564]

So who really has the problem with google search monopoly, Bing,Yahoo? Their search results are basic at best and why google is chosen and that is the key word here, over others in the search engine on the device, its why no one alters that and chooses another.

 

[vtqhtr413]

and why google is chosen and that is the key word here

It's chosen by the device manufacturer initially, I prefer Google and choose it but I would guess that at least half of the Google SE users haven't given a moment's thought to which search engine their device is using, if it was Yahoo, that's the one they would use. Glad to have you in the forum

 

[Sandbox Breaker]

Google is my Master. I'm a G for life!

 

[ForgottenSeer 103564]

It's chosen by the device manufacturer initially, I prefer Google and choose it but I would guess that at least half of the Google SE users haven't given a moment's thought to which search engine their device is using, if it was Yahoo, that's the one they would use. Glad to have you in the forum

It's always about the benjamins isn't it. You are correct many non techie type users just use whats in front of them, doing well just to power the device on and find the browser. I guess im just remembering back in the day, when i tried hard to like and use Bing or Yahoo, and just could not find relevant answers to my search queries leaving me no choice but to head over to google search to find what i was looking for. Google has had the clout since back many years, and the structure and servers are just faster and better than the alternatives. This said not from a biased point of view but just stepping back and looking at the bigger picture. Why wouldn't a device manufacture want to place google as default if it would produce the best search results, this only bodes well for the product and company and they line their pockets in the process.

 

[simmerskool]

i tried hard to like and use Bing or Yahoo, and just could not find relevant answers to my search queries leaving me no choice but to head over to google search to find what i was looking for.

"i tried hard to like and use Bing or Yahoo, and just could not find relevant answers to my search queries leaving me no choice but to head over to google search to find what i was looking for."

 

[plat]

"i tried hard to like and use Bing or Yahoo, and just could not find relevant answers to my search queries leaving me no choice but to head over to google search to find what i was looking for."

That is Google's proposed argument in its defense: "we are #1 because of the quality of our search engine, not because of our underhanded and possibly illegal maneuverings." But the latter fuels the former, get what I mean? This is smelling more and more like a precarious house of cards.

This article reports Google has grabbed 90% of the search engine market. I cannot grasp how vast that is.

Google Goes on Trial Over Justice Dept. Claims That It Has Monopoly Power

The government claims that Google illegally stifles rivals, while the company says its practices are legal and mainstream.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Digmor Crusher]

We all know Google harvests your date, like many others.
We all know its the best search engine and browser.
We all know privacy on the internet is next to impossible to achieve.
That good folks is why I use Chrome and Google. Better things to do than try and mitigate these.

 

[CyberTech]

Google is one of the biggest tech companies in existence, but its empire is built on one little white search bar, and the US Justice Department has just launched what might be one of the biggest challenges it’s ever faced. In one of the largest antitrust trials in recent memory, the government argues that Google owes its dominance not simply to a good design but to a series of coercive deals that have let the search engine market stagnate — while Google complains it’s being punished for success.

For all that, the trial began quietly. I got to the courthouse around sunrise for the start of US v. Google, worried I’d find a line around the corner. Instead, the sidewalk was nearly empty, populated by a handful of similarly cautious early arrivals. “I thought there’d be more people,” one said while we waited in the muggy DC air. In the hours that followed, a small crowd emerged — filling the courtroom and spilling into an overflow room and two dedicated media rooms for journalists. A man in an Uncle Pennybags-style top hat, fake mustache, and monocle wandered the halls of the courtroom; “I’m here to highlight Google’s monopoly and provide moral support as a fellow billionaire,” he told me between mustache twirls. He admitted he might not be there to keep up the joke every day — it’s a 10-week trial, he conceded, and “I have a job.”

The case against Google is relatively straightforward and also potentially explosive. The Justice Department argues that around 2010, Google began using anti-competitive tactics to maintain an overwhelming search engine monopoly. Already dominant over alternatives like Bing and Yahoo, it cemented its position with the “power of defaults,” striking deals that put Google’s product front and center. That included paying Apple and Mozilla to make Google the default engine in Safari and Firefox and requiring that Android manufacturers prominently display a Google search widget on phones. (That agreement is called the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement or MADA, and it’s been legally contentious in Europe for years.) As it grew, it used vast quantities of search data to improve its engine, creating a feedback loop that — the Justice Department alleges — has made it almost impossible to beat. “This case is about the future of the internet and whether Google Search will ever face meaningful competition,” said attorney Kenneth Dintzer in opening statements.

Full article

In the Google antitrust trial, defaults are everything and nobody likes Bing

“Your honor, this is a monopolist flexing.”

www.theverge.com

 

[vtqhtr413]

MONTHS OUT OF law school, Yosef Weitzman already has a huge courtroom role in the biggest antitrust trial of the century. In a US federal trial that started last week, Google is accused of unlawfully monopolizing online search and search ads. The company’s self-defined mission is to make the world's information universally accessible, yet Google successfully opposed live streaming the trial and keeping the proceedings wholly open to the public. Enter Weitzman.

The fresh law graduate is among a handful of legal or antitrust geeks trying to attend most, if not all, of the public portions of the trial, fearing a historic moment of tech giant accountability will escape public notice. Some have pushed off day jobs or moved near to the Washington, DC, courthouse. All are obsessively documenting their observations through social media and daily email newsletters. The trial is scheduled to run near-daily through November and few news outlets can dedicate a reporter to a courtroom seat for eight hours a day for the duration.

Most reporters focused on Google are based in San Francisco. Legal and regulatory publications that can commit charge hundreds of dollars for content subscriptions. Any antitrust junkie—or frustrated Google Search user—wanting an affordable readout from the sparsely attended, era-defining trial, must rely on Weitzman, or a handful of others firing off tweets, skeets, and Substacks. “Regardless of your view on this trial and Big Tech, it will affect everyone, so it’s important that the public is aware of what’s going on as the trial unfolds and to record what happens,” Weitzman says.

Meet the Law Geeks Exposing Google’s Secretive Antitrust Trial

A historic antitrust trial sees Google accused of unlawfully monopolizing search. A handful of antitrust activists are trying to make sure the world sees all the action.

www.wired.com

Interesting website from the article

BIG by Matt Stoller | Substack

The history and politics of monopoly power. Click to read BIG by Matt Stoller, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of subscribers.

www.thebignewsletter.com

 

[MuzzMelbourne]

In the ongoing court battle between Google and the U.S. Justice Department over whether the company has violated an antitrust law, the stakes are high.

The outcome of the 10-week trial, which will be decided by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, could fundamentally change the way people search the internet and reduce revenue for the company that has the most common search engine for online users.

The civil antitrust lawsuit is the first to go to trial in a series of cases targeting other big tech companies like Meta and Amazon. But this particular suit, brought forward by the Justice Department and eleven other states, alleges that Google illegally monopolizes search engine services—spending billions to do so— making it the default company through which advertising companies and website publishers purchase and sell ads.

How Google's Antitrust Trial Could Change Internet Search

The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Google, claiming that the company violated of the Sherman Act.

time.com

 

[upnorth]

New detail on just how much Google is willing to pay to be a go-to search engine has slipped out in court in the US, where the tech giant is on trial defending itself from monopoly claims.

An expert testifying on behalf of Google said it sends 36% of the advertising revenue it makes on Apple's Safari web browser to the iPhone maker. The relationship between the two firms is at the heart of the monopoly case. Prosecutors say their dealings have illegally restricted competition. The lead lawyer for Google "visibly cringed" when the specific share of ad revenue sent to Apple was revealed, according to Bloomberg.

Google has maintained that its dominance of online searches is due to having a superior product.

The high-stakes trial pitting Google against the US Department of Justice started in September. Many of the proceedings have been shielded from public view, to protect trade secrets. But some details have emerged. All told, Google paid more than $26bn to other companies, including Apple, Samsung and Mozilla, be installed as the default search engine, according to statements heard at the trial. Analysts on Wall Street have estimated that amounted to more than $18bn for Apple alone.

University of Chicago professor Kevin Murphy, who revealed the share of advertising revenue Google sends to Apple from traffic on Safari, was testifying that the hefty sums Google and parent company Alphabet pay are evidence of the stiff competition in the market - one of the arguments advanced by Google. The trial is expected to wrap up in the coming days, after a parade of witnesses, who have included Alphabet chief Sundar Pichai and Microsoft boss Satya Nadella.

Google sends a third of Safari ad revenue to Apple

New detail on how much Google is willing to pay to be a go-to search engine has slipped out in court.

www.bbc.com