Bam!
A Landmark anti-trust court decision has dropped the hammer on Google.
Let’s look at the decision and what it could mean….
In a seismic decision that could shake up the internet and hobble one of the world’s best-known companies, a judge ruled Monday that Google’s ubiquitous search engine has been illegally exploiting its dominance to squash competition and stifle innovation. The highly anticipated decision issued by US District Judge Amit Mehta comes nearly a year after the start of a trial pitting the Justice Department against Google in the country’s biggest antitrust showdown in a quarter century, the AP reports. After reviewing reams of evidence that included testimony from top executives at Google, Microsoft, and Apple during last year’s 10-week trial, Mehta issued his potentially market-shifting decision three months after the two sides presented their closing arguments in early May.
- Major setback for Google. The decision represents a major setback for Google and its parent, Alphabet Inc., which had steadfastly argued that its popularity stemmed from consumers’ overwhelming desire to use a search engine so good at what it does that it has become synonymous with looking things up online.
- Appeal is almost certain. Google will almost certainly appeal the decision in a process that may ultimately land in the US Supreme Court. For now, the decision vindicates antitrust regulators at the Justice Department, which filed its lawsuit nearly four years ago while Donald Trump was still president, and has been escalating its efforts to rein in Big Tech’s power during President Biden’s administration.
- Google depicted as bully. The case depicted Google as a technological bully that methodically has thwarted competition to protect a search engine that has become the centerpiece of a digital advertising machine that generated nearly $240 billion in revenue last year. Justice Department lawyers argued that Google’s monopoly enabled it to charge advertisers artificially high prices while also enjoying the luxury of having to invest more time and money into improving the quality of its search engine—a lax approach that hurt consumers.
- Next steps. Mehta’s conclusion that Google has been running an illegal monopoly sets up another legal phase to determine what sorts of changes or penalties should be imposed to reverse the damage done and restore a more competitive landscape. The potential outcome could result in a wide-ranging order requiring Google to dismantle some of the pillars of its internet empire or prevent it from shelling out more than $20 billion annually to ensure its search engine automatically answers queries on the iPhone and other internet-connected devices. It’s also possible that the judge could conclude only modest changes are required to level the playing field.
Whatcha think?
Will this change anything or not?
Will Zuck be next?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
Google will appeal, drag it through the courts, then accept a measly ‘punishment’ before carrying on in the same old way. That’s how I see it, anyway.
Best wishes, Pete.
Probably I do not think the government has enough bite to do anything other. chuq
It’s about time. Whether or not anything will actually come of this is another story. Congress and the court system have been chipping away at the country’s ability to deal with monopolies for decades now. Heck, that’s been going on for over a hundred years. Almost as soon as overwhelming public opinion forced Congress to deal with abusive monopolies like the railroads and the oil companies at the turn of the 20th century, Congress and the courts started to chip away at the very same laws it had just passed.
Look up the era of the “Trust Busters” and Teddy Roosevelt sometime. It makes for interesting reading.
The break up of Ma Bell into the Baby Bells comes to mind as well….I will check it out….thanx for the heads up chuq
The breakup of Ma Bell was long overdue. Dear lord, when I think of the long distance phone charges we used to have to pay back then! Before we got married my wife and I lived only about two miles apart, but calling her on the phone was a long distance phone call because of how bizarre the phone company’s billing system was back then.
It was ridiculous we had the same problem….but the Baby Bells found away around the break-up. chuq
My concern is the little picture not the big picture . I am certainly a long standing little picture almost invisible little picture man. By little picture I mean “How will this affect me ?” I get update and change and amended policiy notices all the time and have no idea what they mean for little insignificant me. I do few if any banking stuff as my financial profile is composed of a modest retirement income and paying simple household affairs.
I do not think any of us knows what this will mean to us personally…..I do very little on line other than research…..I do my banking in person. chuq
I am concerned about that as well. Google is so thoroughly tied to so many different systems these days that if the government decides it has to break the company up it could cause serious problems for us. Look at Gmail, for example. Hundreds of millions of people have free Gmail accounts. They’re free because Google makes enough money off advertising from other sources and from Gmail data to pay the hundreds of millions of dollars it takes to keep that system running. If the feds decide, for example, to split Gmail off from the main company, that would also cut it off from most of the funding that keeps it operating.
Seems we have to learn not to kill big just because it’s big. Seems big helps gmail customers who would otherwise pay for subscriptions. That is already happening with news – subscribe or no news. In the construction business many local and state communities and even federal review demands impact studies be conducted to see how all surrounding entities and even distant will impact people and other enterprises. No one is demanding impact studies ? Some years ago when they broke up the phone companies most people got hit with increases as mere customers as “big” could afford to subsidize some service like long distance.
Facebook and Zuck should be next. chuq
I’ll read the news on these with interest. I probably won’t make comments on this subject and related as I am not well versed on topic.
Any thoughts are always appreciated. chuq
If I was Google, I would shut the whole operation down for a couple of weeks and see how those who wish to screw with them would like it.
Not to worry they are business with a scenario to make them indispensable….detecting hacks of campaigns. There should never be a monopoly if you believe the stupidity of a free market. chuq