Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google United States

In Its First Monopoly Trial of Modern Internet Era, US Sets Sights On Google (nytimes.com) 57

Posted by msmash from the landmark-battle dept.
schwit1 writes: The Justice Department has spent three years over two presidential administrations building the case that Google illegally abused its power over online search to throttle competition. To defend itself, Google has enlisted hundreds of employees and three powerful law firms and spent millions of dollars on legal fees and lobbyists. On Tuesday, a judge in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will begin considering their arguments at a trial that cuts to the heart of a long-simmering question: Did today's tech giants become dominant by breaking the law?

The case -- U.S. et al v. Google -- is the federal government's first monopoly trial of the modern internet era, as a generation of tech companies has come to wield immense influence over commerce, information, public discourse, entertainment and labor. The trial moves the antitrust battle against those companies to a new phase, shifting from challenging their mergers and acquisitions to more deeply examining the businesses that thrust them into power. Such a consequential case over tech power has not unfolded since the Justice Department took Microsoft to court in 1998 for antitrust violations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In Its First Monopoly Trial of Modern Internet Era, US Sets Sights On Google More

In Its First Monopoly Trial of Modern Internet Era, US Sets Sights On Google

Comments Filter:

  • I am not a big fan of google, but, monopoly?

    https://www.bing.com/ [bing.com]
    https://duckduckgo.com/ [duckduckgo.com]

          Case closed.

    • DeFacto monopoly

      https://gs.statcounter.com/sea... [statcounter.com]

      Statcounter Global Stats
      Search Engine Market Share Worldwide - August 2023
      Google
      91.85%
      bing
      3.02%
      YANDEX
      1.49%
      Yahoo!
      1.17%
      Baidu
      1.06%
      DuckDuckGo
      0.54%

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by garyisabusyguy ( 732330 )

        Then, please remind me when Microsoft was broken up due to monopolistic behavior?

        Windows - 74.73%

        OS X - 14.39%

        Unknown - 6.19%

        Chrome OS - 1.88%

        Linux - 2.8%

        Other - 0.01%

        • Re:Words have meanings (Score:4, Informative)

          by Osgeld ( 1900440 ) on Wednesday September 06, 2023 @12:57PM (#63828144)

          On April 3, 2000, Jackson issued his conclusions of law, holding that Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. On June 7, 2000, the District Court ordered a breakup of Microsoft as its remedy.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tattood ( 855883 )
            That conclusion was that Microsoft used its Monopoly to tie in other software components (i.e.Internet Explorer) into the operating system.

            Microsoft appealed this, and a higher court sided with Microsoft, and made a settlement where they no longer were seeking to break up Microsoft.

            So no, Microsoft was never broken up for being a Monopoly.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by dryeo ( 100693 )

              I thought it was a change in the Justice Department that happened with a new administration where the prosecution basically surrendered.
              OK, reading Wiki, I see that MS won the appeal due to,

              On June 28, 2001, the Circuit Court overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because Jackson had improperly discussed the case with the news media while it was still in progress, violating the Code of Conduct for American judges.[24] The Circuit Court judges accused Jackson of unethical condu

      • Re: Words have meanings (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Kitkoan ( 1719118 ) on Wednesday September 06, 2023 @11:53AM (#63827972)
        But the issue here is that you aren't trapped into using Google search. You are always able to use another companies search engine. Doesn't matter what OS/device you use, you could always switch, and it isn't hard.

        I use a Pixel phone, and my default web search isn't Google. Android is made by Google, my phone is made by Google, but doesn't force its users to use Google search. Nothing forces default to Google search.

        A company doesn't have to have the highest market share to be a monopoly. It just has to use its size and power to prevent competition, which as I pointed out, isn't being done. And this is what's going to hurt this lawsuit, the choice was always there and an option.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

          A company doesn't have to have the highest market share to be a monopoly. It just has to use its size and power to prevent competition

          Err... no. Your first sentence is simply incorrect: the definition of monopoly is "complete control of the supply of particular goods or services, or a company or group that has such control." Your second sentence describes the abuse of a monopoly, not a monopoly in and of itself.

        • Google has a dominant market position. It's a massively dominant market position. That isn't a question. The question is whether they've abused their market position (to hurt consumers). For example, it's really hard for other ad networks to compete with Google. Another example of clear abuse, is how they pushed Chrome (an inferior browser) on to everyone. It clearly hurts consumers because they've been pushing their dumb ad APIs into the browser (along with other half-baked concepts).

          Expect new legal arg
          • "Google has a dominant market position. It's a massively dominant market position. That isn't a question."

            I agree with this part, they have a dominant market position.

            "The question is whether they've abused their market position (to hurt consumers)."

            Still agreeing with you here, it's why there is a lawsuit in the process, to see if they have.

            "For example, it's really hard for other ad networks to compete with Google. Another example of clear abuse, is how they pushed Chrome (an inferior browser) on to every

            • Here is the problem though, the lawsuit is about if Google abused their position in search (according to the article). It isn't if they did these things that you are mentioning and these will have no impact on this lawsuit

              They abused their search position by promoting their own products through the search engine ahead of others. The examples given were to show how promoting Chrome hurt consumers.

      • Again, words have specific meanings. No one is forcing you to use Google anything, People choose to use it, they could chose any of my alternatives (or any of the others). If everyone suddenly lost their minds and decide they would only ever buy Chevys, that is still not a monopoly as long as Ford, Honda, etc, still exist.

      • More people are using Yandex than DDG? Where is this world going? We should send more arms to Ukraine and attempt to bring down the Yandex traffic.
      • Just as Google search is about to be technically outcompeted, and maybe have some of there dominant market share eaten, by the Bing/ChatGPT combo.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HBI ( 10338492 )

      Standard Oil had competition. They were judged as having monopoly power over the market "in restraint of trade" which was the key term in the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Still the operative law.

      Google helped to make the market for search. Once it was created and quantified, their dominance over it for the last 25 years has amounted to a monopoly, despite the existence of fringe competitors. They have little hope of avoiding a consent order of some kind, and if they fight that, a breakup.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by jmccue ( 834797 )
      A big election will happen in 2024 in the US, this is a fund raiser. In 2025 the verdict will be released and it will be another wrist slap with a small fine for Google. But that may depend upon political contributions made this and next year.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • I am a big fan of using the force of law to protect competition in the economy...but...Google???

      We are watching our cost of living double year over year, and Google has nothing to do with it. We should be focusing on the grocery product cartel, the property rental cartel, the cell phone service cartel, and the landline ISP cartel. And that's just for starters!

      I am not a fan of Google. I hate google quite a lot, in fact, for various reasons. But Google isn't driving my cost of living up, so right now I d

    • some maroon always posts this shit.

      That not how... Ok go nuts, why not try bidding your $5 legal defence to Google. I'm sure since they are interested in money that they would snap up your amazing offer to overturn antitrust (it's actual name not monopoly as outs colloquially known) legislation.

  • This is a joke right? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MeNeXT ( 200840 ) on Wednesday September 06, 2023 @10:54AM (#63827836)

    This is exactly what the US desires and strives for. The whole legal system is designed to support it. Advertising is built to mislead.

    I think Google hasn't bought enough politicians unlike Microsoft, the oil industry or the pharmaceutical industry.

    I'm not a fan of Google. Not one bit. The only reason I use Google is because it's the best tool to meet my needs or less restrictive than the competition and I can avoid Google's undesirable features unlike it's competitors.

  • a trial that cuts to the heart of a long-simmering question: Did today's tech giants become dominant by breaking the law?

    I hope this doesn't eclipse the larger issue: Is the way today's tech giants are functioning anywhere between suboptimal and harmful in a way that regulation can meaningfully address? I don't expect the trial to get into all the regulatory terrain since it's a legal proceeding, but there's more ground to be examined than that which will be covered in this trial.

  • this just affects ad rates for businesses. Maybe a start up or two that Google was going to buy and quash will get bought and quashed by Facebook or Microsoft instead.

    The two largest grocery store chains in the country are about to merger out west, and it's being rubber stamped with some token requirements. Meanwhile the price of food is sky rocketing. How about we do something about that? Or hell I'd settle for blocking the Activision buyout.

  • Stop letting them buy competition (Score:3)

    by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Wednesday September 06, 2023 @11:46AM (#63827944)

    There is some definite validity to companies becoming too large and manipulating their markets and also challenges in defining that legally in a way that would pass judicial scrutiny (most would require new laws).

    One thing I think is fair and would hold up legally is when companies have simply reached a certain market cap size or metrics where they control a 50-70% share of their market they are no longer allowed to make buyouts. Maybe just in their primary sector (stifle competition) or maybe at all?

    Like a lot of the problems we see with the big tech firms stem from market changing purchases. Google buying DoubleClick really set off their advertiser dominance. Facebook buying Instagram and Whatsapp. Oracle buying Sun and Peoplesoft. Microsoft buying GitHub, LinkedIn, Zenimax and Acti/Blizz, Dell buying EMC. And this is just in tech.

    There are probably a lot of ways this could be unworkable but I think the government has a place to enforce the "spirit" of competition in favor of consumers and the businesses that rely on them. When a large company can simply vertically integrate not by building up it's own products and skillsets but just buying the next hot thing or stamping out future competition while they are nascent in most cases it never seems to work out in favor of the consumers, the shareholders reap the rewards at consumers expense.

    • There is some definite validity to companies becoming too large and manipulating their markets and also challenges in defining that legally in a way that would pass judicial scrutiny (most would require new laws).

      Thing is, market manipulation is part of how capitalism is designed to work and even on smaller scales it still is anti-competitive in nature.

      Take for example, those ads you might've seen on social media for lithium powered swamp coolers (incorrectly called portable "air conditioners") or overpriced portable fire pits. You might be able to produce and sell a similar product at a lower price, but since you don't have the money to fund a massive ad campaign on social media, people are aware of their products

      • True, it's counterintuitive so most people forget that monopoly is the natural state of capitalism if left unchecked because what's more efficient than a single supplier with total control over an industry.

        Competition is a policy choice and has to be regulated.

  • Personally, I think it's a power play to make tech companies bend the knee. It doesn't matter if the tech companies are actually guilty. They want access to all of that sweet info. They want direct access to people's account info and what they post. All of it. On the other hand, the big tech companies have power to direct the "truth". They can destroy you if you don't have a means to fight back. They are above the law unless you have money and power as well. Google can destroy you. It can erase you. It can'

  • Thanks to not just Chrome but also the many Chromium based browsers (essentially all of which have no choice but to adopt anything Google decides to add e.g. changes to extention APIs or new web standards) Google has more power in the browser market than Microsoft and Internet Explorer ever did.

  • Did today's tech giants become dominant by breaking the law?

    That's not the question asked in an antitrust suit.

    The tactics used by Google and other "tech giants" to "become dominant" are perfectly legal...unless you are a monopoly.

    For example, if you are a small software vendor, and you want to enforce an exclusivity deal on your customers, where they agree to use your entire suite and not use competing software, you're welcome to do that. If you can get your customers to go for it, there's no ethical or reason not to do that.

    But, if you dominate the market, it's no

Slashdot Top Deals

"I am, therefore I am." -- Akira

Close