Google Gets To Keep Chrome But Is Barred From Exclusive Search Deals, Judge Rules (cnbc.com) 30
A federal judge spared Google from the harshest penalties in its antitrust case. The search giant can keep Chrome and avoid breaking up Android, but it has been barred from exclusive contracts and ordered to limit data sharing with rivals. CNBC reports: U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled against the most severe consequences that were proposed by the U.S. Department of Justice, including selling off its Chrome browser, which provides data that helps its advertising business deliver targeted ads. "Google will not be required to divest Chrome; nor will the court include a contingent divestiture of the Android operating system in the final judgment," the decision stated. "Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divesture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints."
The company can make payments to preload products, but it cannot have exclusive contracts, the decision stated. The DOJ asked Google to stop the practice of "compelled syndication," which refers to the practice of making certain deals with companies to ensure its search engine remains the default choice in browsers and smartphones. [...] The judge ordered the parties to meet by September 10th for the final judgement.
"Google will not be barred from making payments or offering other consideration to distribution partners for preloading or placement of Google Search, Chrome, or its GenAI products. Cutting off payments from Google almost certainly will impose substantial -- in some cases, crippling -- downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers, which counsels against a broad payment ban." [...] Google said it will appeal the ruling, which would delay any potential penalties. Mehta ruled Tuesday that Google will have to make available certain search index data and user interaction data though "not ads data." The court narrowed the datasets Google will be required to share and said they must occur on "ordinary commercial terms that are consistent with Google's current syndication services."
The company can make payments to preload products, but it cannot have exclusive contracts, the decision stated. The DOJ asked Google to stop the practice of "compelled syndication," which refers to the practice of making certain deals with companies to ensure its search engine remains the default choice in browsers and smartphones. [...] The judge ordered the parties to meet by September 10th for the final judgement.
"Google will not be barred from making payments or offering other consideration to distribution partners for preloading or placement of Google Search, Chrome, or its GenAI products. Cutting off payments from Google almost certainly will impose substantial -- in some cases, crippling -- downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers, which counsels against a broad payment ban." [...] Google said it will appeal the ruling, which would delay any potential penalties. Mehta ruled Tuesday that Google will have to make available certain search index data and user interaction data though "not ads data." The court narrowed the datasets Google will be required to share and said they must occur on "ordinary commercial terms that are consistent with Google's current syndication services."
Re:Seems like the best possible outcome for Google (Score:4, Informative)
They will still cheat (Score:1)
How will Firefox survive? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How will Firefox survive? (Score:4, Informative)
>"Google is the only way they make money"
It isn't the only way, but it is, by far, the overwhelming hyper-majority of it.
My take is this won't affect Google being able to pay Mozilla for placement, Google just can't require they ONLY put Google on there as an active/default search choice. Pretty toothless.
The whole thing seems like "Yeah, just like we did with Microsoft, you [Google] are a monopoly and are crushing any meaningful competition in search and advertising and trying to take over the web standards and browser space completely. Here is a token slap on the wrist. Continue on as usual."
Re: (Score:2)
The foundation could invest the money in development instead of management and a hundred side projects nobody wants to have that are given up a few years later. They had enough money to try to start an own operation system, they would just need to put it into the browser instead. And if Mozilla dies then because of that management overhead and who ever picks up the source to create its successor will do better.
It's a meaningless concession (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean I guess Yahoo can pay Apple or something to be there default search. But I think most people just end up switching it back I know I do.
There's good reason to use duck duck Go but I don't think they have the deep pockets to pay off Apple. And the search engine to do are frankly inferior to Google.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, Google is doing its darnedest best to make all other search engines more relevant by progressively worsening theirs.
Monopoly (Score:2)
It's interesting that the browser world tend to move towards monopoly over time.
We have software bundling being a factor - as with Internet Explorer, and arguably this was combined with a practice of keeping standards at arm's length - "Works best on IE".
That doesn't seem to have been the case with Chrome...
Folks don't realize how complex browsers are (Score:2)
Browsers are basically little tiny operating systems. Between HTML5 and JavaScript you have touring complete languages and then you've got all the crazy hard work acceleration to make the cool HTML5 stuff work and you've got the thousands of different age cases to handle Insanity of modern CSS and then you have on top of that massive amounts of securit
Isn't this the worst possible outcome? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this the worst possible outcome?
It probably won't substantially hinder Google. However, will the Firefox deal with Google that's been propping up Firefox all this time still be able to work? Or will Firefox be SOL?
I'm afraid of an ironic result of this being that Chrome becomes that just much more of a monopolistic monoculture as a result of the ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Isn't this the worst possible outcome? (Score:2)
It looks like only exclusivity deals (Score:4, Insightful)
https://www.theverge.com/news/... [theverge.com]
It confused me for a bit too. Basically this is completely toothless and has absolutely no effect on anything. I mean I guess technically Yahoo could also pay Firefox and Google could not bar them from accepting the money using contracts but we both know in practice Google can just withdraw their support if Firefox takes any money from anywhere else and get away with it because we so weakly enforce laws around here.
I mean laws against corporations. If you or me so much as jaywalk a cop bust our skulls in in a heartbeat.
Remember kids, fascism requires that the law has an in-group it protects but doesn't bind and an out group it binds but doesn't protect.
Re: (Score:2)
>"It confused me for a bit too. Basically this is completely toothless and has absolutely no effect on anything."
That was my take as well. Same thing happened with Microsoft, also ruled a monopoly, like Google just was. And nothing of any consequence happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Got barred.
No. This ruling effectively said something else. This practice in a monopoly is an anti-trust violation, and yet what happened today is that the court's punishment amounted to "don't do it again".
On the same day (Score:2)
Google is the new AOL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The good news is, AOL didn't remain a monopoly. After launching its dial-up service in 1991, it peaked in 2001, when they bought Time Warner. After that point, the company steadily declined, until it's barely on people's minds today.
Google is likely to follow the same trajectory, with or without government regulation.
Re: (Score:1)
Chrome wins by cultivated default (Score:2)
Profitable nonprofit Mozilla chose not to compete but simply exist
That informed adult choice guarantees Chrome market domination. Google "donations" were money wisely spent.
Despite wallowing in money, the sock puppet known as Mozilla has the gall to use their hoard of riches for non-browser, not-mail client projects so reward their chosen in ways useless to internet users. Mozilla is mere grift wearing an angel's skinsuit with the few sincere contributors serving as human fig leaves and the (shrinking) naiv
I'm confused (Score:2)
Exclusivity contracts outside of someone's ecosystem which limits someone else's business to business transactions is by very definition an antitrust violation. The court seemed to have only told Google to follow the law, imposed no meaningful punishment of them breaking the law in the past ... and Google is appealing? What possible leg do they have to stand on to appeal a decision that effectively amounts to "don't break the law in the future", especially since this practice has been found in violation in
Re: (Score:2)
Exclusivity contracts outside of someone's ecosystem which limits someone else's business to business transactions is by very definition an antitrust violation.
Most exclusivity contracts are legal. It generally only becomes illegal in specific cases like this, where the courts determine it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
False. Exclusivity contracts are explicitly illegal when combined with significant market power. That is the foundation of anti-trust law - actions that are perfectly legal when you're a small player in a competitive market are illegal when you have the capability to use them to obliterate competition. Google's exclusivity contracts have been the basis for many fines all over the world.
Just not in the United States of Corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
False. Exclusivity contracts are explicitly illegal when combined with significant market power.
The part you overlook is that it has to have gone through court to get to that point. Like now. It's illegal for them, because of all this.
Re: (Score:2)
No, illegal is illegal. The court just rules on the matter of law, they don't decide what the law is. That is the same with literally any law.
Again, read my other post, this is applying an exclusivity contract when you have the power to distort the market is the definition of monopolization which is explicitly illegal according to the Sherman Act.
Re: (Score:2)
In short, anti-trust laws are designed in a way that the courts have to determine if and how they should apply, based upon
Re: (Score:2)
oh and to add to my post, the citation for this is that this is a textbook example of "monopolizing" (which is a verb that is used in the Sherman Act, as apposed to the noun monopoly which a lot of people think is illegal but isn't at all).