The government argued that by paying billions of dollars to be the automatic search engine on consumer devices, Google had denied its competitors the opportunity to build the scale required to compete with its search engine. Instead, Google collected more data about consumers that it used to make its search engine better and more dominant....
५ ऑगस्ट, २०२४
"Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly."
Wrote Judge Amit P. Mehta of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, quoted in "Google Violated Antitrust Laws in Online Search, Judge Rules/The ruling by Judge Amit P. Mehta was the first antitrust decision of the modern internet era in a case against a technology giant" (NYT).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४९ टिप्पण्या:
I thought Google was not supposed to do evil.
I guess monopolies are good if liberals run them.
In other news water is still wet and puppy dogs and kitty cats can occasionally dislike each other.
Why does the govt use Google?
There are plenty of good alternatives. Bing, DDG, Brave, others.
By using Google the govt is supporting the monopoly.
Don't like it, don't sue them. Just take it and Chrome off the tens of millions of computers the govt owns.
When normies see that the govt now uses DDG/Bing/Brave etc they will start too. A year or so later and Google will be a couple of people operating out of the back room of a strip club in Santa Reseda.
And for those here complaining about Google, do you use it as your go to search engine? Do you use Chrome? Why? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer)
John Henry
[Alphabet] Umbrella Corporation
Now do Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacares, a primary forcing of progressive prices.
Then do federal loans and forgiveness, a secondary forcing of progressive prices.
Andrea, Google monopolistic practices. Dave, that is a plausible, but improbable selection. Next!
From CNet
The case focused on whether Google paid Apple and other companies to make its Google search engine the default on devices such as Apple's iPhone. Google has said it did not maintain a monopoly through use of such agreements and that consumers could change their device defaults to use other search engines.
I need to learn more about the case and what Google did that was illegal. Did Google pay Apple to make Google the initial default search on phones? Did it pay others to do something similar?
I had always understood that Google did this, I thought it was in the open. Is it illegal for them to do that? Is it illegal for Keebler to pay my local grocery to guarantee a certain amount of shelf space? I didn't know either was illegal.
Is this just a case of "Google is too powerful so we will use the law to take them down a peg or two even though they have done nothing illegal."
Can someone explain just what Google did that is illegal? Or even morally wrong? I am not seeing it. Nobody is forcing anyone to use any Google product. There are plenty of excellent (possibly better) alternatives. Almost all are free. It takes less than a minute to change the default search engine.
Much as I dislike Google, this case seems Bizarre to me.
John Henry
Great descision.
It's regulators reminding Google about the need for payoffs.
It was a useful monopoly to those in power for so long that you have to wonder why this is happening now.
Terrific. I refuse to use Chrome or Google and have done so for years. I do everything I can to keep my info off the web.
Isn't Mehta one of the "lawfare" actors in the Trump cases?
It sounds political to me.
Gee, I wonder how much of a cut of the profits the government is going to get for this egregious crime?
John Henry,
You do know that DuckDuckGo uses Bing for search data. They do prevent most data collection that Bing does, but the results come from Bing. Bing does get it is own results rather than use Google, but then Bing is Microsoft with its own long history of violating anti-trust.
"I refuse to use Chrome or Google and have done so for years. I do everything I can to keep my info off the web."
Ditto. I do have a gmail account so I can comment here, but I never use it. I did clear it out of 10+ years worth of crap recently.
Does this follow from the fade out of TDS?
Google was a member of the Democrat's unholy alliance between the tech monopolies, financiers, people dependent on government, government agencies, and "cause" activists who absolutely hate each other (e.g., Israel vs. Palestine, Bloomberg vs. BLM, elite tech vs. working class, etc.).
This alliance is breaking down. Karens and schoolmarms like Senator Warren are driven to regulate, regulate, prosecute, prosecute. Google's market share is too much for them. It must become a literal part of the government or forced to bend. Meet the new political divide. Same as the old political divide.
Can someone explain just what Google did that is illegal? Or even morally wrong? I am not seeing it. Nobody is forcing anyone to use any Google product. There are plenty of excellent (possibly better) alternatives. Almost all are free. It takes less than a minute to change the default search engine.
Much as I dislike Google, this case seems Bizarre to me.
John Henry
********************
From the Epoch Times article regarding the case:
"The case against Google, filed in October 2020, alleged that the tech giant engaged in anti-competitive practices by establishing exclusive agreements with browser developers, mobile device manufacturers, and wireless carriers.
These agreements prohibited partners from pre-installing rival search engines, leading most U.S. devices to come preloaded exclusively with Google, forcing competitors to find alternative ways to reach users.
In 2021, Google paid over $26 billion in “revenue share” agreements, based on advertising revenue generated from these default placements.
The court said Google’s conduct allowed the company to charge “supracompetitive prices for general search text ads,” enabling it to earn substantial monopoly profits."
Thank me very much!
Google is not a monopolist, but politically-speaking, Google has few friends. The left hate Google because it's a huge, successful private corporation and conservatives now hate Google because of censorship/bias and so R's are now all too willing to see the Biden admin take it down a few notches via activist anti-trust actions.
Kinda off-topic, but related to search engines and advertisers:
For the past month I have been asked to agree/reject/choose what cookies and other info I allow to be captured from my PC. On about ten different sites, mostly news-related.
I can understand that happening, say, once a year.....but why am I being asked every time I visit the same sites?
Anyone know what's going on? Did I do something to cause this?
Breaking up Google is hard, but it's long overdue. I hope the judge doesn't allow Google to get away with a simple fine.
In what sense is Google a "monopolist"? They have quite a few search engine competitors, many of which commenters here have mentioned on other posts, as well as this one. I have had an Apple I-Phone for many years. I guess Google came preloaded on my first I-Phone, but I've used Duck Duck Go for ever and a day. I heard about DDG by "word of mouth", i.e., chat on the web. I never saw an ad for it. Do competitors of Google market their products? Or do they just hire antitrust lawyers? Not that there's anything wrong with that!
"These agreements prohibited partners from pre-installing rival search engines, leading most U.S. devices to come preloaded exclusively with Google, forcing competitors to find alternative ways to reach users.
I don't know what this means. Does it refer to an app? I just search from within a browser.
Wikipedia: While the official corporate philosophy of Google does not contain the words "Don't be evil", they were included in the prospectus (on Form S-1) of Google's 2004 IPO (a letter from Google's founders, later called the "'Don't Be Evil' manifesto"): "Don't be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served—as shareholders and in all other ways—by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains." The motto is sometimes incorrectly stated as Do no evil.
That’s odd. Build a product that most folks want/choose to use, and it’s monopolistic behavior. I missed that in my readings of Adam Smith.
- Krumhorn
"I do everything I can to keep my info off the web."
I take it you're not really on a farm in Minnesota :)
Leland,
I think I might have known that ddg used Bing.
Privatlee which I used before ddg used both Bing and Google. I thought ddg did as well but have not paid attention for years.
I used to use Bing on my laptops. Mainly for comparison. I checked earlier today and find I am using ddg
John Henry
I find it unusual that Mehta ruled the way he did, despite being appointed by Obama.
Antitrust law is based upon the consensus view among economists that monopolies have the suboptimal effects of reducing output and raising prices. A morally blameless company can be found liable for monopolization or attempted monopolization.
The remedies for monopolization can include money damages, injunctive relief, and, sometimes, a breakup of the monopoly into smaller business units to allow more competition.
I don't know what this means. Does it refer to an app? I just search from within a browser.
Most browsers come pre-set to a particular search engine/home page. Google paid to be the exclusive search engine for many years, and still does on many devices (although I feel that they are less ubiquitous than they used to be?).
how is this case different from Bill Gates MicroSoft and InternetExplorer vs something
I don't use Google and a long time ago I used Archie.
is this case any different from earlier Bill Gates MicroSoft and InternetExplorer vs something
and conservatives now hate Google
Now? I've hated those assholes for nearly 20 years now. Banning my Adsense account and stealing my revenue without giving me one, goddam reason why will do that to a person.
effinayright said...
For the past month I have been asked to agree/reject/choose what cookies and other info I allow to be captured from my PC. On about ten different sites, mostly news-related.
I can understand that happening, say, once a year.....but why am I being asked every time I visit the same sites?
Anyone know what's going on? Did I do something to cause this?
They are required to ask by law in the EU so it's probably because the site is hosted in an EU country.
"Most browsers come pre-set to a particular search engine/home page. Google paid to be the exclusive search engine for many years, and still does on many devices (although I feel that they are less ubiquitous than they used to be?)."
Thanks, tommyesq.
I am aware of this, if that's all that's being described. I have a cheat-sheet of settings I go through when I get a new device and I'm always switching the search engine away from Google. Although in my case, it really doesn't matter. I don't search from the URL line; I go to the website to search (in my case DDG).
Seems like a waste of government resources to pursue this case.
“the first antitrust decision of the modern internet era in a case against a technology giant" (NYT)”
Was U.S. v. Microsoft decided during the medieval internet era?
I agree some of Google's products like Google map are very good.
However, its search is getting worse and worse. Did they explain what 'quality' they were talking about?
Judge Mehta ruled against Google. The appeal will be heard by Judge A. Mazzon. The final appeal, as usual, will be adjudicated by a random jurist known only as “X”.
Google’s control of revenue for content creators I think is where they do the most monopolistic harm. If you don’t like Universities policing students rather than referring cases to law enforcement, then you shouldn’t like what Google does. They’ll let any company file a copyright violation on you and then that company gets your revenue until you can get a court to rule against that company. This creates an industry to track down even the most minor of copyright uses, often falling under fair use, to create revenue by taking it from other creators. And since the revenue stream is taken, it is harder to pay the legal cost of fighting the ruling that Google gave without investigation. Sure, the creators go somewhere else, but the same practices that prevent competition from other browsers block other media providers. See Rumble, Truth Social, and even X and TikTok as examples.
Left Bank: "Was U.S. v. Microsoft decided during the medieval internet era?"
LOL
Yes.
They are required to ask by law in the EU so it's probably because the site is hosted in an EU country.
I get this from lots of non-EU sites. Like mlb.com. Really annoying. Maybe it's because they can't be bothered to tailor the sites to the location of the user, so it's forced on everyone.
Microsoft’s Edge web browser is Google Chrome gussied up by MS. I only use Edge if other browsers don’t work on some websites. I have a Gmail account just to comment here or to use as a fake email address when required by some websites to cut down on the spam that is generated when those websites sell my email address to someone else, who then use it to bombard my Inbox with advertising. Google, one of the Evil Empires, along with Microsoft, Disney, and Apple.
They are required to ask by law in the EU so it's probably because the site is hosted in an EU country.
I get this from lots of non-EU sites. Like mlb.com. Really annoying. Maybe it's because they can't be bothered to tailor the sites to the location of the user, so it's forced on everyone.
There are actually about 18 states with fairly comprehensive data privacy laws, including California, that basically require these kinds of notices everywhere.
Krumhorn said...
"That’s odd. Build a product that most folks want/choose to use, and it’s monopolistic behavior."
*************************
Ma Bell had that same attitude.
You very likely wouldn't be using a G5 PC or a cellphone if that situation were allowed to continue. Bell had no incentive to offer fast landlines to homes, nor did they have the tech savvy to design commercially-marketable PC hardware and software--or the networks to link them up.
So it's not a matter of you getting want you want, it's a matter of you not having any choice in the matter, and not even knowing what you might like as alternatives.
**************
More Krumhorn: "I missed that in my readings of Adam Smith."
Then you didn't read him very closely---if at all... Here are his views against monopoly, per ChatGPT:
1. Restriction of Competition:
Limitation of Market Dynamics: Smith believed that monopolies restrict competition, which is essential for a healthy and dynamic market. He argued that competition drives innovation, efficiency, and fair prices, all of which are stifled by monopolistic practices.
2. High Prices and Reduced Output:
Consumer Harm: Monopolies can lead to higher prices and reduced output compared to competitive markets. Smith pointed out that monopolistic businesses can set higher prices because consumers lack alternative options, leading to consumer exploitation.
3. Inefficiency:
Lack of Incentive for Improvement: Without competitive pressure, monopolistic firms lack the incentive to innovate or improve their products and services. This inefficiency can result in lower quality and less variety in the marketplace.
4. Corruption and Influence:
Political Influence: Smith was wary of the relationship between monopolies and government. He noted that monopolies often seek to protect their interests through political means, which can lead to corruption and policies that favor the monopoly at the expense of the public good.
5. Barriers to Entry:
Hindrance to New Entrants: Monopolies can create barriers to entry for other businesses, making it difficult for new firms to enter the market. This suppression of new competitors can stifle entrepreneurial activity and innovation.
6. Market Distortion:
Artificial Scarcity: Smith argued that monopolies can create artificial scarcity by controlling supply, further distorting the market and leading to inefficiencies.
Specific References:
East India Company: Smith specifically criticized the East India Company, which held a monopoly on trade in certain regions. He highlighted how its monopolistic practices led to exploitation and inefficiencies.
Smith's views on monopolies were deeply rooted in his belief in the benefits of free and competitive markets. He advocated for policies that promote competition and prevent monopolistic practices, seeing them as essential for economic prosperity and consumer welfare."
Sherman Antitrust Act (Wikipedia):
A Section 1 violation has three elements:[15]
(1) an agreement;
(2) which unreasonably restrains competition; and
(3) which affects interstate commerce.
A Section 2 monopolization violation has two elements:[16]
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
Section 2 also bans attempted monopolization, which has the following elements:
(1) qualifying exclusionary or anticompetitive acts designed to establish a monopoly
(2) specific intent to monopolize; and
(3) dangerous probability of success (actual monopolization).
Yes, you can change your default browser. I always do - typically to DuckDuckGo. Most people don’t. Very many don’t know how, understand the issues, etc. The result is that most Microsoft Windows users utilize their Bing search engine. Similarly, of course, for the same reasons, Android users mostly use Google as their search engine. Which primarily leave Apple Mac and IOS (iPad, iPhone, etc) devices. Google pays, esp Apple, to place their search engine as the default on their platforms. Google then reaps the benefits from charging advertisers for ad placements. Nobody else can outbid Google for default placement of their search engine, because they have a lot more money than any of their competitors (except maybe Microsoft, but default placing Bing on these platforms would make their monopoly position worse, because they are already default placing their own search engines on their Wndows platforms). Of course, it’s a bit more complicated because the default search engine is typically set by the browser, which is, of course another antistrust problem for Apple, Microsoft, and Google which default those too to their own products.
Speaking of Microsoft - some of the precedent here is when they tied (more Clayton than Sherman Antitrust) their MS-DOS (and IBM’s PC-DOS, a licensed clone) to their Windows 95/98 operating system, hindering the sale of the DR-DOS (from which MS-DOS was quasi-illegally cloned) OS. Owners of DR-DOS, then the DOJ, successfully sued MSFT over this. The relevance is market definition - MSFT tried to include Apple, and maybe mini and mainframe computers as part of the relevant market, which didn’t prevail (IBM had tried that a decade earlier, but that case was settled politically by a change in the WH and AG).
A couple notes on the Microsoft antitrust suits. I know the guy who was the Caldera (DR-DOS owner) and DOJ expert witness in those cases. He was allowed to see all of the Win 95/98 (and NT 3) code. There was actual code that tested what OS Widows was running on top of, and put out a warning message at every boot (often with Win 95/98) if it wasn’t MS/PC DOS. Essentially the smoking gun.
Secondly, I interviewed with them for a job as a patent attorney job maybe 25 years ago. The head of their small group of patent attorneys handed me their latest adhesion OS EULA and asked me what I thought about it. I responded that it almost assuredly violated both Sherman and Clayton antitrust Acts by granting them a paid up IP (copyright and patent) license by any company using their Widows or Office software. She scoffed. Within 6 months, they had been sued for it by the DOJ. I was surprised by their antitrust naivety, given their exposure, and my working closely with IBM attorneys, who were required to attend mandatory antitrust classes when going to work there (after 3 antitrust suits against IBM already).
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा