Federal Judge Clears Way for US Antitrust Case Against Google (msn.com) 32
The Washington Post reports:
A federal judge said the Department of Justice's landmark case alleging Google's dominance over the online search business is anti-competitive can go ahead, throwing out some of the government's claims but ruling that a trial is still necessary.
Google had asked for the judge to make a ruling before the trial, which is scheduled for September.
Some of the government's claims, including those put together by a consortium of state attorneys general that argued the way Google designed its search engine page was unfairly harming competitors like Yelp, were dismissed. But D.C. District Court Judge Amit Mehta said the allegations that Google's overall business practices constitute a monopoly that violates the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act still deserve a trial. "This is a significant victory for Google, knocking out several claims and narrowing the range of activities at issue for trial," said David Olson, an associate professor and antitrust expert at Boston College's law school. "Having said that, the strongest claims against Google remain, so Google still remains at risk of a significant antitrust ruling against it."
The trial will be a major test for Google and the massive business empire it has assembled over the past two decades. The company is still the dominant portal to the internet, exercising immense power over what people see online... The eventual ruling will also be seen as a test for the U.S. government's more aggressive posture on antitrust.
Google had asked for the judge to make a ruling before the trial, which is scheduled for September.
Some of the government's claims, including those put together by a consortium of state attorneys general that argued the way Google designed its search engine page was unfairly harming competitors like Yelp, were dismissed. But D.C. District Court Judge Amit Mehta said the allegations that Google's overall business practices constitute a monopoly that violates the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act still deserve a trial. "This is a significant victory for Google, knocking out several claims and narrowing the range of activities at issue for trial," said David Olson, an associate professor and antitrust expert at Boston College's law school. "Having said that, the strongest claims against Google remain, so Google still remains at risk of a significant antitrust ruling against it."
The trial will be a major test for Google and the massive business empire it has assembled over the past two decades. The company is still the dominant portal to the internet, exercising immense power over what people see online... The eventual ruling will also be seen as a test for the U.S. government's more aggressive posture on antitrust.
Re: Thanks government *golfclap* (Score:1)
Easy to say when your daddy takes over and makes sure the investigators get black holed and most of the charges expire before you even allow the case to go to court.
Tale as Old as Time (Score:2, Funny)
IBM sued for anti-trust violations in 1969. Clears the way for Microsoft.
Microsoft sued for anti-trust violations in 1998. Clears the way for Google.
Google sued for anti-trust violations in 2020...
Re: (Score:2)
Macro level regulation needs to be enforced at macro scale once a generation to continue serving its purpose, as every new generation tests its limits. News at 11.
Re: (Score:1)
Too complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
This will drag on for yeas, mostly enriching the lawyers. Meanwhile, it misses the point: it isn't that Google dominates search. It is thevfactvtgat Google us too big, with search and advertising and YouTobe and GMail and a million other things - all of which make it an anti-competitive behemoth.
Antitrust needs to be simply based on size. Companies above a certain size (a tiny fraction of Alphabet) must divest. Easy to check, easy to enforce, no years-long process.
Re: (Score:1)
Antitrust needs to be simply based on size. Companies above a certain size (a tiny fraction of Alphabet) must divest. Easy to check, easy to enforce, no years-long process.
Size measured in what? Revenue, profit, number of employees, number of customers, market capitalization, number of products? You've said it's easy to check but you haven't actually said what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that it shouldn't be just size either.
For instance, for a long time movie studios, could not own movie theaters. The "Paramount Decrees" (which were removed in 2019 by the DOJ... so... fuck that) split Paramount into multiple companies. I'd argue though that a. those decrees were a good thing, and b. similar things should apply to tech companies. A company shouldn't make the hardware and sell commercial software for those devices. A company shouldn't own the OS and the store. A company shouldn't
That's why I use Bing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
*facepalm*
Re: (Score:2)
You may just as well use baidu or yandex. Hostile foreign governments spying on your web searches is far less dangerous that domestic government, as they have far less interest, incentive or ability to get you.
In the end, as is often the case in life you have a choice of lesser evil only. I would argue that rather than choosing to concentrate your spying in one company (OS and search), it may be better to distribute your data over as large of a group of companies as possible, so that everyone gets a sliver,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spying through OS means spying on everythng you do on the device. Every keystroke, every program you install/run, every document you create, every internet connection you make...
Oh, wait, that's Microsoft. And Google. And Apple.
Guilty Of Getting Chosen (Score:2, Insightful)
As favorite services provider. If everyone likes your service and decides to use it then you are guilty of anti-trust. Gotcha.
Re:Guilty Of Getting Chosen (Score:4, Interesting)
No, their "crime" is using their power on search to create power in advertising, cloud services, cell phone operating systems, etc. Which is valid. The problem is letting it go this long. Same goes for Amazon, maybe Apple, today's Microsoft, and plenty of others. The market naturally favors strong companies, which is why antitrust laws exist.
Re: (Score:3)
You really have no clue how this works, do you? If they just were popular and did not act in an anti-competitive fashion, there would be no case. But look, they are. And that means they sabotage the market and _that_ is the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the biggest (dis)advantages of US government is the sheer scope of it. Even when you control top positions of most agencies and a lot of managerial positions, you still can't actually prevent bureaucracy from acting on their legal obligations. You can only hinder it somewhat. And most of their legal obligations are decades if not centuries old, not politics of the day.
The recent hilarious twitter spat between a sitting US legislator and a Supreme Court Justice is a great case to point. Legislator can
Do Apple Next! (Score:1)
Yelp??? (Score:2)
the way Google designed its search engine page was unfairly harming competitors like Yelp,
Since when is Yelp a competitor to Google in the search space?
And hell, when I google for something (like "$SOMETHING near me") the first page is nothing BUT Yelp pages.
Re: (Score:2)
the way Google designed its search engine page was unfairly harming competitors like Yelp,
Since when is Yelp a competitor to Google in the search space?
And hell, when I google for something (like "$SOMETHING near me") the first page is nothing BUT Yelp pages.
That's exactly my experience, too.
Yelp? (Score:2)
I wouldn't even know Yelp exists or what it is, we're it not for Google and showing up once in a while in Google search results.
Of course, I quickly discovered Yelp is a waste of time and I don't click on those results anymore.
antiracism (Score:2)
Antiracism = anticapitalism. You're either antiracist or racist. Part of the solution or part of the problem. Smash capitalism!