DOJ Antitrust Case Aims To Undo Google-Anthropic Partnership (pymnts.com) 5
An anonymous reader quotes a report from PYMNTS: The Justice Department's proposal to resolve its antitrust case over online search against Google reportedly would force the tech giant to unwind its partnership with artificial intelligence (AI) company Anthropic. A recommendation in the Justice Department's court filing Wednesday (Nov. 20) that Google be barred from partnerships with companies that control where consumers search for information, is intended to apply to the company's investment in Anthropic, Bloomberg reported Thursday (Nov. 21). [...]
It was reported in October 2023 that Google had invested $500 million in Anthropic and agreed to contribute another $1.5 billion over time. During that same month, PYMNTS reported that Anthropic's commitment to building and deploying what the company said are generative AI capabilities with stronger built-in guardrails, differentiated it from other foundational AI models on the market. On Tuesday (Nov. 19), the U.K.'s competition watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), cleared Google's partnership with Anthropic, saying that it had determined that the deal between the tech giant and the AI startup did not warrant additional investigation. "The CMA does not believe that Google has acquired material influence over Anthropic as a result of the partnership," the regulator said in its assessment of the arrangement. U.S. regulators also call for a sale of Google's Chrome browser and restrictions to prevent Android from favoring its own search engine.
"DOJ had a chance to propose remedies related to the issue in this case: search distribution agreements with Apple, Mozilla, smartphone OEMs and wireless carriers," Google said in a Thursday blog post. "Instead, DOJ chose to push a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America's global technology leadership."
It was reported in October 2023 that Google had invested $500 million in Anthropic and agreed to contribute another $1.5 billion over time. During that same month, PYMNTS reported that Anthropic's commitment to building and deploying what the company said are generative AI capabilities with stronger built-in guardrails, differentiated it from other foundational AI models on the market. On Tuesday (Nov. 19), the U.K.'s competition watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), cleared Google's partnership with Anthropic, saying that it had determined that the deal between the tech giant and the AI startup did not warrant additional investigation. "The CMA does not believe that Google has acquired material influence over Anthropic as a result of the partnership," the regulator said in its assessment of the arrangement. U.S. regulators also call for a sale of Google's Chrome browser and restrictions to prevent Android from favoring its own search engine.
"DOJ had a chance to propose remedies related to the issue in this case: search distribution agreements with Apple, Mozilla, smartphone OEMs and wireless carriers," Google said in a Thursday blog post. "Instead, DOJ chose to push a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America's global technology leadership."
Wouldn't that just harm Anthropic? (Score:2)
Obvious question here. Wouldn't forcing Google to divest from and withdraw it's promises of future investments in an independent company that has a competing product or service merely hurt that competitor and hurt competition?
I realize Google would and could be in a position to more easily influence that board and eventually acquire that company if Google's own in-house genAI doesn't pan out as well, but I would think acquisition of Anthropic would be where the government might draw the anticompetitive lin
Gruber: 'like selling my left foot' (Score:3)
Chrome is not a standalone business. Android is not a standalone business. They’re both just appendages of Google that serve only as distribution channels for the advertising Google shows in search results, and the money it makes from advertising and game commissions in the Play Store. It’s like saying I have to sell my left foot. It’s very valuable to me, but of no value to anyone on its own. (Well, other than spite.) https://daringfireball.net/lin... [daringfireball.net]
And my question is: How would a spun-off Chrome pay for itself? Would you-all start paying for Chrome? Or would another company have to take over Chrome and fund it through other means (including selling advertising/mining personal data, i.e. through Google's business model?) I could see Android as a separate business, but not Chrome.
Re: (Score:1)
It is not your problem what the buyer does with your left foot. And if you used your left foot to kick people in the unmentionables, I can see why you are forced to sell your left foot. But what is really necessary here is that you are stopped kicking people.
Likewise, if the surveillance with the ad system is the problem, the US needs to pass humane and decent privacy laws, and enforce them. If the problem is a monopoly in advertising, the US already has laws for that, and only needs to enforce them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the buyer making a fortune, but about Google losing control. If they have to sell it on eBay with $1 starting bid, so be it.
Anthropic (Score:2)
Anthropic? Isn't that the company responsible for Climate Change? (Anthropic Global Warming)