In Its First Monopoly Trial of Modern Internet Era, US Sets Sights On Google (nytimes.com) 57
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.
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.
Re: (Score:1)
I really question worth engaging with your anti-semitic conspiracy horseshit where you put the ADL next to a mafia family is worth it, but consider the following:
Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of your speech.
Now consider this timeline:
1. Musk buys Twitter.
2. Musk, under the guise of "free speech for everyone" cranks the bigot spigot to wide-open on Twitter.
3. Advertisers, predictably, run as far away from Twitter as possible to save their own brand reputation, because they don'
Re: (Score:3)
I'm just having a hard time figuring out what an objective standard looks like, and even if you find some statutory or policy language that encompasses the most likely scenarios for transition into effective monopoly, there's still going to be a lot of legal routes for a company to delay trial. What's really missing is the sustained political will to push forward. The reality is that only a few times in US history has any Administration ever had the political will and just as importantly political capital t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just having a hard time figuring out what an objective standard looks like, and even if you find some statutory or policy language that encompasses the most likely scenarios for transition into effective monopoly, there's still going to be a lot of legal routes for a company to delay trial.
Holy crap you’re right. Let me just google what they are.
Re:Ineffective (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, first... what is the are that the company operates in that is a monopoly?
Internet search?
Advertising?
Other?
If it is all of the above, then you will likely see a government request to split alphabet up, like the old AT&T was split up for controlling too many aspects of communications
If it is a single item like Internet Search, then the clear precedent (eg desktop operating systems) would be to ignore it, because producing a clearly superior product is not a monopoly, or monopolistic behavior
jmo
ymmv
Re: (Score:3)
...producing a clearly superior product is not a monopoly, or monopolistic behavior
And when a company is large enough to sell the same product at a considerable loss for as long as it takes to drive the competition out of business? Is that merely considered a 'superior' marketing decision driven by finance? Perhaps we need to re-define "monopolistic behavior" again. For the 21st Century.
We live in a different era of capitalism. One that governments created by turning anti-monopoly laws into fine print loopholes to allow the kind of mega-corp corruption to grow large enough where even c
Result would be worse Google products (Score:2)
core search
gmail
advertising
youtube
Then some of those would not naturally have an independent source of sustainable revenue/profit.
So they would have to get worse, either by adding subscription fees, badvertising in gmail, what have you.
Not sure how the average Internet user would benefit from such a remedy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, we have Windows as the default OS, not because it was better at the time, but because of monopoly power. Companies such as Be couldn't even give their OS away as MS threatened (and were known to follow through) PC manufacturers, and before that it was superior forms of DOS that were prevented from being bundled through MS monopoly power, leveraging contracts and creating "bugs" to show it wouldn't run the software that people wanted to run.
What made MS so successful was not superior software, but contr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Legal arguments may be different, but endless stalling tactics won't be.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides a court, the only other way to determine a fact like that is the for company to voluntarily acknowledge it. Tantamount to an admission of guilt in this scenario.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Amen. I think 25% market share is too much. That would have prevented cars from being dominated by "the big 3", although imports did that without government interference. I think the soft drink market would still be affected by this if it were enacted. I don't drink much soda any more; but when I did I was pissed off at those companies quite a bit, especially when it came to their exclusive contracts with convenience stores, ie, "this store only has Pepsi". There were even stories of such stores hiding
Re: Ineffective (Score:2)
Words have meanings (Score:2, Insightful)
I am not a big fan of google, but, monopoly?
https://www.bing.com/ [bing.com]
https://duckduckgo.com/ [duckduckgo.com]
Case closed.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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,
Re: Words have meanings (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
How often do you run across people that insist that they need Chrome (which they might call 'google') because they "have google" (they mean gmail)?
I think you have Google confused with Apple products.... Their monopolistic, proprietary and predatory approach is much more evident than anything Google has done.
Re: Words have meanings (Score:2)
Never said that, never hinted that, wasn't even remotely suggesting that, please try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Expect new legal arg
Re: Words have meanings (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Bad timing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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:3)
Standard Oil used anti-competitive behavior to acquire all of their competitors, namely a sweetheart railroad shipping deal that allowed them to undercut all other sellers
I remember looking at the back of my parent's gas/credit card back in the day and noticing all the logos that had shared elements, the so called 43 baby-standard oils [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
More to it (Score:2)
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.
Little or no consumer benefit (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Just My Opinion (Score:1)
This needs to include Chrome (Score:2)
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.
Becoming dominant by breaking the law (Score:2)
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