9 ms·

>DOJ's antitrust suit against Google has been filed in federal court in DC, here's the complaint: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7273457/10-20-20-U

by r721 6y ago

>DOJ's antitrust suit against Google has been filed in federal court in DC, here's the complaint: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7273457/10-20-20-US-v-Google-Complaint.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7273457/10-20-20-... https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1318560860680425474 https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1318560860680425474 UPD https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monop...

treis 6y ago
I'm dumbfounded. Of all the things in the tech world they chose Google paying Apple, Samsung, et.al. to be the default search engine to sue over. That's not really evidence of Google blocking competition. That's evidence of phone manufacturers using their power in one market (phone sales) to extract cash out of another (search/ads).
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > That's not really evidence of Google blocking competition. That's evidence of phone manufacturers using their power in one market (phone sales) to extract cash out of another (search/ads). No, I think it is a pretty clear example of rent-seeking on Google's behalf. > phone manufacturers using their power in one market Who has more market power - the disparate group of phone vendors who are legally barred from coordinating on things like this or the single actor that controls the only operating system package tenable for those phone vendors to use?
  - treis 6y ago
    >Who has more market power The ones getting paid tens billions of dollars annually seems like the obvious answer to me.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      > The ones getting paid tens billions of dollars annually seems like the obvious answer to me. So what, the seller on any side of a transaction is the one who has the market power? To make it simpler: if there was one employer in the entirety of Earth and 7 billion people who wanted a job - since the employer is paying the employee, the employee would have the market power?
      - treis 6y ago
        To make you analogy more accurate, this single employer would be paying the employees not to work for anyone else. And in that case, yes, the employees would be the ones that have the power since they are getting money for nothing.
        arrosenberg 6y ago
        It's not for nothing though - the employer is buying their productive capacity. The fact that the employer chooses to do nothing with it is entirely irrelevant. Same issue with Google - by using their market power to monopolize search power across devices and OSes, they are effectively locking out any other potential entrants. That this is being done to enhance a completely different line of business (ads) is classic anti-competitive behavior.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        stale2002 6y ago
        Do you know what a monopsony? Not a monopoly. A monopsony. Anti trust law prohibits both monopolies and monopsonys from engaging in anti competitive behavior. You are trying to claim that monopsonys engaging in anti-competitive behavior are not illegal, when they are.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        What you are describing is a monopsony, they are illegal, and the employer is considered to have the most power in that relation because the employees are atomized.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    Google doesn't control the OS, just the services that go with it.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      You're right - I spoke loosely. I still believe my comments apply if you consider the larger bundle that Google is offering and the terms that come with it, plus the fact that they are leveraging their capital to block competitor app stores from even appearing on the home screen or being installed.
      - mullingitover 6y ago
        > ...they are leveraging their capital to block competitor app stores from even appearing on the home screen or being installed. If Google weren't paying manufacturers to not install other app stores, other app stores would be paying manufacturers to install them, which could result in a user experience that Google doesn't control but which users would blame Google for ("Android is slow/buggy!" when in fact it's third party software that is causing the performance issues). Their deals are arguably defensible since they don't block third party app stores entirely, just pre-installed ones. I certainly see the issues with Google parlaying their dominance in the ad market to also dominate the mobile market, but I have a feeling this will be settled with some consent decrees to put up some guardrails in the ad market. The actual harm to consumers from Google's business model is pretty vague and is passed on through marketing expenses that trickle down into product/service prices. If Google disappeared, ads would still cost money and advertising expenses likely wouldn't be drastically lower.
    - sova 6y ago
      There is no way to uninstall Chrome from Android, the best one can do is disable it. Smells like MSFT and IE back in the day. Which lead to what will probably be very similar hearings and results.
      - mullingitover 6y ago
        There's an extremely easy way to uninstall Chrome from Android, which is to never install it in the first place. You do that by using the Android open source project. There are a bunch of Android forks in the wild[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distrib...
  - magicalist 6y ago
    > No, I think it is a pretty clear example of rent-seeking on Google's behalf. If anything, rent-seeking would be the other way, but that's still a big stretch. The phone manufacturers know that searches are valuable to search engines, so they charge for it even though they're not doing anything but being a broker for their users. But while that is getting a cut (literally seeking rent), calling it "rent seeking" is a stretch, because clearly that brokering and OS space is naturally valuable and the phone companies aren't just injecting themselves into someone else's money-making process.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      The rent seeking is on the other end. Google pays off phone manufacturers to sign onerous contract preventing them from installing other app stores or displaying other options on the home screen or during the setup process -> They then collect rent from the companies that have to offer their apps on the Play Store. From wikipedia, "An example of rent-seeking in a modern economy is spending money on lobbying for government subsidies in order to be given wealth that has already been created." In this instance, the phone vendors are the politicians.
      - magicalist 6y ago
        >> Of all the things in the tech world they chose Google paying Apple, Samsung, et.al. to be the default search engine to sue over. That's not really evidence of Google blocking competition. That's evidence of phone manufacturers using their power in one market (phone sales) to extract cash out of another (search/ads). > No, I think it is a pretty clear example of rent-seeking on Google's behalf. Not sure what conversation you're having in the above comment, but this is the one that I was responding to :)
        whimsicalism 6y ago
        Google engages in anti-competitive behavior (ie. using their capital to increase the entry barriers for other app store markets on Android), so that they can then collect rent on their app store (among other things, like search/advertising). The anti-competitive actions (paying off phone vendors) that Google takes are part of that rent-seeking behavior, just as companies that lobby politicians to increase barriers to entry so they can raise prices are engaging in rent-seeking. If you want to nit-pick and say the play store pricing is the rent-seeking and the paying off of the phone vendors is the anti-competitive behavior, I wouldn't have a huge quibble with that.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    In what configuration of rent-seeking is the sued party the one paying the rent?
  - jariel 6y ago
    "I think it is a pretty clear example of rent-seeking on Google's behalf." It's literally the opposite: rent-seeking on the behalf of Samsung, Apple - moreover, 'rent-seeking' is not remotely illegal.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  > that's evidence of phone manufacturers using their power in one market (phone sales) to extract cash out of another (search/ads). That's an example of how competition is supposed to work. Phone makers sell their audience to the highest bidder. There's no shortage of phone makers. The issue is that google bought them all.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    The issue is the near zero marginal cost of software makes it easy to dominate entire lines business. Technology itself allows businesses to become huge because once they have a solution, they can implement it at near zero cost everywhere and so competitors can’t really compete. Like Walmart/target/Costco versus little Main Street stores, or Home Depot/Lowe’s versus independent hardware stores, etc. Smaller operators will have high marginal costs and higher prices, and will never be able to compete with bigger operations that can utilize software and other technology to offer the absolute lowest prices. Although, in other businesses like retail, this results in single digit profit margins at best, whereas in software, due to the minimal labor needed and protections of copyright and obfuscation and network effects, the tech companies can maintain much bigger profit margins.
    - cblconfederate 6y ago
      Yeah indeed the margins are high. In the case of google/FB, they are so high, that paying back users with "free services" doesn't cut it anymore. Even the cost of running those free services has gone way down. At this point users shouldbe getting paid for having their data used. That way, a potential competitor could outright buy the users directly (instead of paying FB/Google for advertising to acquire users). Unfortunately there's no legal framework for that yet. No other industry except perhaps finance has the potential to cheaply scale as IT. I wonder what antimonopoly actions have been in finance in the past (finance seems to have been a lot more regulated since forever)
      - paulryanrogers 6y ago
        Bing does pay users to use its search. Though the pay out is quite modest at about $1.50 a month, in gift cards.
- ballenf 6y ago
  Regardless, it feels like a very shrewd approach: very narrow and also the keystone holding up Google's monopolies in other areas. Not all other areas, but a lot of them. Prohibiting pay-for-placement can be enforced by accountants and lawyers without help from engineers. Would be theoretically much easier to enforce than any other area of scrutiny I've heard discussed. This would also kill Firefox if it's applied beyond mobile.
  - Tyr42 6y ago
    So by doing this, they will help Chrome form a monopoly?
    - xenadu02 6y ago
      Possibly? I didn't see anything in the complaint about the use of their search landing page to push Chrome on people. That could be a problem because Chrome always defaults to Google search. Honestly... what would Chrome's market share be if Google weren't heavily pushing it on everyone who visits google.com?
- microtherion 6y ago
  Arguably, Google paying such sums is evidence that there IS competition in the search engine space. Otherwise, Google could just say "You know where to find Lycos or AltaVista if you prefer them".
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    google having so little competition means that phone companies are making a lot less than they would in a healthy market. There's nothing to compare to
  - username90 6y ago
    Google pay such sums since otherwise the other search engines would pay billions to be the default search engine. And if we make such transactions illegal Apple will make their own search engine and make that the default since there is too much money left on the table otherwise.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Given this AG's track record can we really hold on good-faith that this isn't politically motivated? Many conservatives are absolutely desperate to believe there is a conspiracy against them, but why go to lengths of proving it if you can just exact revenge through AT legislation.
Aaronn 6y ago
Another place to get all of the documents in this case is https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/united-states-of-america-v-google-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/united-states-... Any time someone buys a document from PACER and has the RECAP extension https://free.law/recap/ https://free.law/recap/ installed in their browser it is uploaded so everyone can view it for free on the Court Listener website.

by r721 6y ago

treis 6y ago

I'm dumbfounded. Of all the things in the tech world they chose Google paying Apple, Samsung, et.al. to be the default search engine to sue over. That's not really evidence of Google blocking competition. That's evidence of phone manufacturers using their power in one market (phone sales) to extract cash out of another (search/ads).

whimsicalism 6y ago
> That's not really evidence of Google blocking competition. That's evidence of phone manufacturers using their power in one market (phone sales) to extract cash out of another (search/ads). No, I think it is a pretty clear example of rent-seeking on Google's behalf. > phone manufacturers using their power in one market Who has more market power - the disparate group of phone vendors who are legally barred from coordinating on things like this or the single actor that controls the only operating system package tenable for those phone vendors to use?
- treis 6y ago
  >Who has more market power The ones getting paid tens billions of dollars annually seems like the obvious answer to me.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > The ones getting paid tens billions of dollars annually seems like the obvious answer to me. So what, the seller on any side of a transaction is the one who has the market power? To make it simpler: if there was one employer in the entirety of Earth and 7 billion people who wanted a job - since the employer is paying the employee, the employee would have the market power?
    - treis 6y ago
      To make you analogy more accurate, this single employer would be paying the employees not to work for anyone else. And in that case, yes, the employees would be the ones that have the power since they are getting money for nothing.
      - arrosenberg 6y ago
        It's not for nothing though - the employer is buying their productive capacity. The fact that the employer chooses to do nothing with it is entirely irrelevant. Same issue with Google - by using their market power to monopolize search power across devices and OSes, they are effectively locking out any other potential entrants. That this is being done to enhance a completely different line of business (ads) is classic anti-competitive behavior.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - stale2002 6y ago
        Do you know what a monopsony? Not a monopoly. A monopsony. Anti trust law prohibits both monopolies and monopsonys from engaging in anti competitive behavior. You are trying to claim that monopsonys engaging in anti-competitive behavior are not illegal, when they are.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        What you are describing is a monopsony, they are illegal, and the employer is considered to have the most power in that relation because the employees are atomized.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  Google doesn't control the OS, just the services that go with it.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    You're right - I spoke loosely. I still believe my comments apply if you consider the larger bundle that Google is offering and the terms that come with it, plus the fact that they are leveraging their capital to block competitor app stores from even appearing on the home screen or being installed.
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      > ...they are leveraging their capital to block competitor app stores from even appearing on the home screen or being installed. If Google weren't paying manufacturers to not install other app stores, other app stores would be paying manufacturers to install them, which could result in a user experience that Google doesn't control but which users would blame Google for ("Android is slow/buggy!" when in fact it's third party software that is causing the performance issues). Their deals are arguably defensible since they don't block third party app stores entirely, just pre-installed ones. I certainly see the issues with Google parlaying their dominance in the ad market to also dominate the mobile market, but I have a feeling this will be settled with some consent decrees to put up some guardrails in the ad market. The actual harm to consumers from Google's business model is pretty vague and is passed on through marketing expenses that trickle down into product/service prices. If Google disappeared, ads would still cost money and advertising expenses likely wouldn't be drastically lower.
  - sova 6y ago
    There is no way to uninstall Chrome from Android, the best one can do is disable it. Smells like MSFT and IE back in the day. Which lead to what will probably be very similar hearings and results.
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      There's an extremely easy way to uninstall Chrome from Android, which is to never install it in the first place. You do that by using the Android open source project. There are a bunch of Android forks in the wild[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distrib...
- magicalist 6y ago
  > No, I think it is a pretty clear example of rent-seeking on Google's behalf. If anything, rent-seeking would be the other way, but that's still a big stretch. The phone manufacturers know that searches are valuable to search engines, so they charge for it even though they're not doing anything but being a broker for their users. But while that is getting a cut (literally seeking rent), calling it "rent seeking" is a stretch, because clearly that brokering and OS space is naturally valuable and the phone companies aren't just injecting themselves into someone else's money-making process.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    The rent seeking is on the other end. Google pays off phone manufacturers to sign onerous contract preventing them from installing other app stores or displaying other options on the home screen or during the setup process -> They then collect rent from the companies that have to offer their apps on the Play Store. From wikipedia, "An example of rent-seeking in a modern economy is spending money on lobbying for government subsidies in order to be given wealth that has already been created." In this instance, the phone vendors are the politicians.
    - magicalist 6y ago
      >> Of all the things in the tech world they chose Google paying Apple, Samsung, et.al. to be the default search engine to sue over. That's not really evidence of Google blocking competition. That's evidence of phone manufacturers using their power in one market (phone sales) to extract cash out of another (search/ads). > No, I think it is a pretty clear example of rent-seeking on Google's behalf. Not sure what conversation you're having in the above comment, but this is the one that I was responding to :)
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        Google engages in anti-competitive behavior (ie. using their capital to increase the entry barriers for other app store markets on Android), so that they can then collect rent on their app store (among other things, like search/advertising). The anti-competitive actions (paying off phone vendors) that Google takes are part of that rent-seeking behavior, just as companies that lobby politicians to increase barriers to entry so they can raise prices are engaging in rent-seeking. If you want to nit-pick and say the play store pricing is the rent-seeking and the paying off of the phone vendors is the anti-competitive behavior, I wouldn't have a huge quibble with that.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  In what configuration of rent-seeking is the sued party the one paying the rent?
- jariel 6y ago
  "I think it is a pretty clear example of rent-seeking on Google's behalf." It's literally the opposite: rent-seeking on the behalf of Samsung, Apple - moreover, 'rent-seeking' is not remotely illegal.
cblconfederate 6y ago
> that's evidence of phone manufacturers using their power in one market (phone sales) to extract cash out of another (search/ads). That's an example of how competition is supposed to work. Phone makers sell their audience to the highest bidder. There's no shortage of phone makers. The issue is that google bought them all.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  The issue is the near zero marginal cost of software makes it easy to dominate entire lines business. Technology itself allows businesses to become huge because once they have a solution, they can implement it at near zero cost everywhere and so competitors can’t really compete. Like Walmart/target/Costco versus little Main Street stores, or Home Depot/Lowe’s versus independent hardware stores, etc. Smaller operators will have high marginal costs and higher prices, and will never be able to compete with bigger operations that can utilize software and other technology to offer the absolute lowest prices. Although, in other businesses like retail, this results in single digit profit margins at best, whereas in software, due to the minimal labor needed and protections of copyright and obfuscation and network effects, the tech companies can maintain much bigger profit margins.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    Yeah indeed the margins are high. In the case of google/FB, they are so high, that paying back users with "free services" doesn't cut it anymore. Even the cost of running those free services has gone way down. At this point users shouldbe getting paid for having their data used. That way, a potential competitor could outright buy the users directly (instead of paying FB/Google for advertising to acquire users). Unfortunately there's no legal framework for that yet. No other industry except perhaps finance has the potential to cheaply scale as IT. I wonder what antimonopoly actions have been in finance in the past (finance seems to have been a lot more regulated since forever)
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      Bing does pay users to use its search. Though the pay out is quite modest at about $1.50 a month, in gift cards.
ballenf 6y ago
Regardless, it feels like a very shrewd approach: very narrow and also the keystone holding up Google's monopolies in other areas. Not all other areas, but a lot of them. Prohibiting pay-for-placement can be enforced by accountants and lawyers without help from engineers. Would be theoretically much easier to enforce than any other area of scrutiny I've heard discussed. This would also kill Firefox if it's applied beyond mobile.
- Tyr42 6y ago
  So by doing this, they will help Chrome form a monopoly?
  - xenadu02 6y ago
    Possibly? I didn't see anything in the complaint about the use of their search landing page to push Chrome on people. That could be a problem because Chrome always defaults to Google search. Honestly... what would Chrome's market share be if Google weren't heavily pushing it on everyone who visits google.com?
microtherion 6y ago
Arguably, Google paying such sums is evidence that there IS competition in the search engine space. Otherwise, Google could just say "You know where to find Lycos or AltaVista if you prefer them".
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  google having so little competition means that phone companies are making a lot less than they would in a healthy market. There's nothing to compare to
- username90 6y ago
  Google pay such sums since otherwise the other search engines would pay billions to be the default search engine. And if we make such transactions illegal Apple will make their own search engine and make that the default since there is too much money left on the table otherwise.
mhh__ 6y ago
Given this AG's track record can we really hold on good-faith that this isn't politically motivated? Many conservatives are absolutely desperate to believe there is a conspiracy against them, but why go to lengths of proving it if you can just exact revenge through AT legislation.

Aaronn 6y ago

Another place to get all of the documents in this case is https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/united-states-of-america-v-google-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/united-states-... Any time someone buys a document from PACER and has the RECAP extension https://free.law/recap/ https://free.law/recap/ installed in their browser it is uploaded so everyone can view it for free on the Court Listener website.