3 ms·

So, what are the demands in this trial? Do they want to divide google? How?

advisedwang 3y ago
From the complaint [1]: > VIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF > To remedy these illegal acts, Plaintiffs request that the Court: > a. Adjudge and decree that Google acted unlawfully to maintain general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising monopolies in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; > b. Enter structural relief as needed to cure any anticompetitive harm; > c. Enjoin Google from continuing to engage in the anticompetitive practices described herein and from engaging in any other practices with the same purpose and effect as the challenged practices; > d. Enter any other preliminary or permanent relief necessary and appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the markets affected by Google’s unlawful conduct; > e. Enter any additional relief the Court finds just and proper; and > f. Award each Plaintiff an amount equal to its costs incurred in bringing this action on behalf of its citizens. So basically just banning whatever anti-competative behaviour the court finds and fining Google a bunch. [1] https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2020/10/20/google_complaint_filed_0.pdf https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2020/1...
summerlight 3y ago
So-called "break-up" may not be effective as expected and it's easy to workaround that for tech companies as they're less tied to physical infrastructures unlike conventional monopolies. It's likely that they'll got billions of fine as well as be forced to implement corrective measures on their anti-competitive behaviors, of course if they lose.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  I think they very tied together because all google services run on the same internal infra and use shared collected data, and for example moving ads out of google and force them to pay market cloud prices, deal with all bugs and complexity other market players are facing and more importantly cut from data collected internally at google will produce significant damage on them.
  - summerlight 3y ago
    There is no good way to prevent a proposed "G Infra" and other broken up entities such as "G Ads", "G Search", etc etc to make a preferential deal to share the infrastructure since "G Infra" has never been a monopoly in the market. If you want to do that, you gotta go through another multi-year legal fights which is destined to fail. You might be able to prevent "G Search" from doing some anti-competitive stuff, but at the point it's not that different from just forcing corrective measures except breaking up is a much harder, risky and time consuming goal. Breaking up based on geographic location worked well for conventional monopoly because those companies were usually organized in a geographically cohesive way and they don't have good incentives to form another cartel across the continent. For Google, it's already structured in a way to reinforce network effects in every way, so this is a completely different story. The right approach to tackle this problem is a more pin-pointed regulation, such as DMA. EU is doing the right thing for those big techs while the US is wasting its precious time and energy.

From the complaint [1]: > VIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF > To remedy these illegal acts, Plaintiffs request that the Court: > a. Adjudge and decree that Google acted unlawfully to maintain general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising monopolies in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; > b. Enter structural relief as needed to cure any anticompetitive harm; > c. Enjoin Google from continuing to engage in the anticompetitive practices described herein and from engaging in any other practices with the same purpose and effect as the challenged practices; > d. Enter any other preliminary or permanent relief necessary and appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the markets affected by Google’s unlawful conduct; > e. Enter any additional relief the Court finds just and proper; and > f. Award each Plaintiff an amount equal to its costs incurred in bringing this action on behalf of its citizens. So basically just banning whatever anti-competative behaviour the court finds and fining Google a bunch. [1] https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2020/10/20/google_complaint_filed_0.pdf https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2020/1...

summerlight 3y ago

So-called "break-up" may not be effective as expected and it's easy to workaround that for tech companies as they're less tied to physical infrastructures unlike conventional monopolies. It's likely that they'll got billions of fine as well as be forced to implement corrective measures on their anti-competitive behaviors, of course if they lose.

riku_iki 3y ago
I think they very tied together because all google services run on the same internal infra and use shared collected data, and for example moving ads out of google and force them to pay market cloud prices, deal with all bugs and complexity other market players are facing and more importantly cut from data collected internally at google will produce significant damage on them.
- summerlight 3y ago
  There is no good way to prevent a proposed "G Infra" and other broken up entities such as "G Ads", "G Search", etc etc to make a preferential deal to share the infrastructure since "G Infra" has never been a monopoly in the market. If you want to do that, you gotta go through another multi-year legal fights which is destined to fail. You might be able to prevent "G Search" from doing some anti-competitive stuff, but at the point it's not that different from just forcing corrective measures except breaking up is a much harder, risky and time consuming goal. Breaking up based on geographic location worked well for conventional monopoly because those companies were usually organized in a geographically cohesive way and they don't have good incentives to form another cartel across the continent. For Google, it's already structured in a way to reinforce network effects in every way, so this is a completely different story. The right approach to tackle this problem is a more pin-pointed regulation, such as DMA. EU is doing the right thing for those big techs while the US is wasting its precious time and energy.