35 ms·

I appreciate the passion Matt Stoller brings to antitrust issues but his analyses are not good on the economics, to say the very least. I agree that some of go

I appreciate the passion Matt Stoller brings to antitrust issues but his analyses are not good on the economics, to say the very least. I agree that some of google’s conduct is very questionable. It’s not obvious to me that paying to be the default search product is pro-competitive. On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) is this: we (google) give our product away for free and so do our competitors. What’s more, the cost of switching search engines is literally zero: just type Bing instead of Google. If customers are choosing our search product among two free options, then our product is better. It’s going to be very difficult to establish that there’s an abuse of dominant position in that case. (There is other behavior by google which is more questionable, but in search they are on firm ground.) Having a large market share is not an antitrust violation, nor should it be.

DannyBee 3y ago
In the legal realm, I actually like to read blogs, newsletters, podcasts of folks that are often on the other side of an issue or thing than I am. I find it useful to gain perspective/etc. When i have no opinion, i try to find folks on "both" sides. Like say insurance lawyers and injury lawyers takes on a thing or whatever. So I tried to read Matt on antitrust (though it turns out we share some of the same views), but once you get beyond the "forcefulness", everything only gets worse in my experience. It's a lot of bloviation, and when you get into the details, he often will, charitably, take interesting interpretations of the actual opinions and views of courts and others, especially when they disagree with his view. Once I read enough to have a sense of continuity (IE how did claims/views/predictions turn out), I ended up giving up my subscription because i just couldn't read it anymore. There are those who are much better at representing what's going on as a whole in a thing, even when they have a point of view and share it. Even when it's a point of view i think is totally wrongheaded. It's not as passionate, for sure, but I find it more useful and enjoyable in the end, whether i agree or not. In Matt's case, let's take this one: "Judge Mehta tossed these claims, saying that services like Yelp and Expedia aren’t general search engines and are therefore not in the same market as Google. It was a highly technical and annoying way to read certain legal questions, but bringing an antitrust case has become virtually impossible unless it’s done perfectly." You'll note that Matt does what he often does here - when he can't explain why he's right, things become more abstract - there aren't any examples of how it was "highly technical" or "annoying" or what "certain legal questions" are. Not a single example anywhere to be found. No example or data that backs up that it is "virtually impossible" to bring antitrust cases unless they are "done perfectly". Nope, just some abstract complaint and throwaway language about how, you know, whatever he said in the last newsletter about how this part was gonna be a slam dunk or whatever is really right, it's just, you know, "highly technical" things got in the way. Which ones? Oh, well, you wouldn't know them, they live in Canada, and only visit in the summer. Let's look at what actually happened here: No, the judge did not throw the claims out because they aren't general search engines. He threw it out because he felt the plaintiffs were way short on the evidence, because they rely entirely on an expert who cites no evidence himself, only makes up theories. This sounds like an exaggerated opinion of what happened, but it's not :) See page 46 of the opinion. "The court agrees with Google’s second argument. Plaintiffs’ theory of anticompetitive harm rests on a multi-linked causal sequence that relies not on evidence but almost entirely on the opinion and speculation of its expert, Professor Jonathan Baker. Plaintiffs cite Professor Baker’s report for the following propositions: < a page of propositions elided > Remarkably, not one of Professor Baker’s opinions, on which these fact assertions are based, cites to any record evidence. Indeed, a closer inspection of Professor Baker's reports shows he has largely theorized the anticompetitive effects in the relevant market of Google's conduct toward the SVP's ... Plaintiffs are required to show with proof "that the monopolist's conduct indeed has the requisite anticompetitive effect", and they have fallen well short of that burden". This isn't even the end. It goes on, where the Judge points out this state at oral argument and the states confirm they have no evidence, etc. It then explains why unsupported expert opinions aren't enough to get past summary judgement, etc. It is a clear step by step refutation of the claims, unrelated to the market question. It does then end with "Professor Baker's opinions do not rest on facts; only his ruminations about the market effects of Google's conduct" as one final jab. To read all that, and believe that this is about, you know, some highly technical legal questions being read in an annoying way and that it's the judge requiring them to "do it perfectly" is, uh, an interesting take for sure. It's one thing if Matt went into this and said "I think that random theorization should be enough, because facts are a lagging indicator" or "I think the court is wrong on the following legal standard", or whatever, but nope, this just gets painted as the nonsense we started with. This is very common in his writing, and at least for me, made it not worth reading.
narism 3y ago
>we (google) give our product away for free and so do our competitors. Search is not Google’s product, it’s a way to get their product. Their product is eyeballs which they sell to advertisers. >the cost of switching search engines is literally zero: just type Bing instead of Google. If this is true, why does Google pay Apple billions/year and Mozilla millions/year to make Google the default search? You could be saving that money!
- huitzitziltzin 3y ago
  The government could make antitrust claims regarding google’s behavior vis a vis advertisers. (I’m sympathetic to some claims that could be made there!) Monopolization of the ad market is not the issue here, because the specific claim is that google has monopolized the search market. You can read that right in the linked article. Google’s payments to be the default are (as I already said) not obviously pro-competitive to me. I don’t know if you and I disagree there. But again… in Google’s defense they are going to say (accurately!) “everyone gives search away for free so consumers are free to switch.” It’s going to be impossible (IMO) to argue that consumers are harmed in the search market. It just won’t be credible. The department of justice is likely wasting its time, which is similar to the recent behavior of the FTC under Lina Khan which is (if you are American) wasting taxpayers’ time taking on losing cases, while letting mergers which really deserve critical scrutiny through. Microsoft Activision is a prominent recent example. And if the Justice Department actually does show up in court with a filing that says: “No, your search engine was awesome, but it’s increasingly ad-filled crap. You’re too powerful, you’re too lazy, and America needs some real competition” (this is a direct quote from Stoller’s article) they are going to be laughed out of town and they will richly deserve it. So again… I like the attention Stoller pays to antitrust issues but his analysis of the economics (especially in the case of some tech firms) is just bad.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > Microsoft Activision is a prominent recent example. That was always ludicrous. The only way for the FTC to win that case was to define the relevant market as "games produced by Activision". That would have made the merger anticompetitive by definition... but no more anticompetitive than Activision already was.
scyzoryk_xyz 3y ago
Look, I’m not informed or an expert here, but if it’s being given away for free, then the search itself is not the “product”. The way I understand it, Google’s monopoly is over the ad market. Stoller wrote a book on the subject which I never properly got through in its entirety, but it included a deep dive on what a monopoly is. You are correct - market share is not an anti-trust violation in it’s own. My assumption is that they will be arguing over whether Google is exercising its total control over the system to prevent competition from emerging, and using that control to extract all the value for itself. All while crippling functionality for the customers, not us search engine users in this case - but the advertisers.
- huitzitziltzin 3y ago
  The DoJ is welcome to make a claim on monopolizing the ad market. The case here is about monopolizing the search market.
  - scyzoryk_xyz 3y ago
    Isn’t the whole point that they’re tightly intertwined? You pay to advertise in the relevant search results of your customers.
    - huitzitziltzin 3y ago
      That’s not the law, so it’s irrelevant to the legal issues.
      - scyzoryk_xyz 3y ago
        I don’t mean the law. I mean how the actual ad/search product actually works. As a Google customer I pay them to present my stuff the way I want it to my customers when they search for stuff about the things I sell. That’s the product, no?
        huitzitziltzin 3y ago
frays 3y ago
I wonder if Google will talk about the rise of AI-powered competitors (ChatGPT, Bing, etc) as part of the search landscape to help defend their case.
- huitzitziltzin 3y ago
  If they don’t they should fire their lawyers. (They will.)
arrosenberg 3y ago
As the article and others are pointing out, Google achieves 'free' Search through bundling and predatory pricing, which are both anticompetitive.
- huitzitziltzin 3y ago
  “Bundling” can be anticompetitive but is not at issue in the actual case the government has filed. Nor can I personally identify a meaningful bundle from google in the right sense. You may be using the word informally.
  - arrosenberg 3y ago
    I wasn’t referring to the case specifically, but Google is absolutely bundling products in the formal, illegal sense as well. Would drive, docs and gmail be free if you divorced them from the ad revenue products?
    - huitzitziltzin 3y ago
      >> Would drive, docs and gmail be free if you divorced them from the ad revenue products? If they are all free then it’s not a bundle in the antitrust relevant sense. Microsoft Teams is a great example of an anticompetitive bundle if you want one.
      - arrosenberg 3y ago
        Gonna need a cite on that logic. The MS case was about including IE with Windows for free. With Google, the products are paid for by the ad revenues instead of Windows and Office licenses. > Microsoft Teams is a great example of an anticompetitive bundle if you want one. Also true.
        huitzitziltzin 3y ago
        >> The MS case was about including IE with Windows for free. This is exactly where the anticompetitive effects of bundling arise. >> With Google, the products are paid for by the ad revenues instead of Windows and Office licenses. That’s why it’s going to be impossible to argue that this is bundling in the anticompetitive sense.
taeric 3y ago
But is it free if it costs them billions? That is, saying that customers /could/ switch is not necessarily relevant. There is evidence that they believe paying for the "default" billing is worth a ton of money. Not just to Apple, but to Mozilla, too. That they could lose access to revenue streams by losing default billing is very relevant when that is also a large portion of how they are able to make that payment. Could see it more as collusion with competition, I suppose? It isn't competing on the merits of their search, but more on their ability to afford default status. Which keeps Apple from entering search, and ostensibly keeps it more expensive for Microsoft to keep Bing. Consider, if Apple could get more from MS to make Bing default, why wouldn't they?
- huitzitziltzin 3y ago
  >> That is, saying that customers /could/ switch is not necessarily relevant On the contrary, it’s the whole ballgame in a case like this. Google’s claim will be: “we have high market share because our product is good. Look - customers could switch for free if they didn’t like it.” The government cannot make a monopolization claim solely on the basis of high market share in this case. It’s not remotely persuasive. (Indeed: who do you do your searches with??) >> “there is evidence…” Totally agree with this sentence. But it’s not going to be decisive for the government. It will not be remotely sufficient. Again - it’s not clear to me personally that this behavior is pro-competitive. But I’ve already told you what google is going to say. If you’re going to argue monopolization you have to define the market (here search) and then show it’s monopolized. Market share isn’t enough. >> could see it more as collusion… Not legally. Sorry. Not without some specific evidence of a conspiracy.
  - taeric 3y ago
    All it takes is an email between Apple and Google saying they want to keep prices high for conspiracy. Isn't above them, either. Certainly inline with past of apple. Seems more a complaint against them, I grant. The discovery is what could kill Google, here. They will argue customers could switch, but any negotiations with apple to stay default are discoverable. If any of them note they fear losing share, that is pretty damning. Note I fully agree with you on difficulty of position. But you don't pay billions for status that you think you earn on your merits. Especially if you then charge other players to be top search spot for their own name.
candiddevmike 3y ago
It's not free, but you aren't paying money for it.
- huitzitziltzin 3y ago
  In other words… it’s free. Google search is free. All of this “… then you are the product” stuff is totally meaningless legally and economically.
  - candiddevmike 3y ago
    Wikipedia is free, Google search is not. You are paying for Google Search. People need to realize their privacy has value, a lot of value actually, otherwise Google Search and every other privacy invasive platform would cost money.
    - huitzitziltzin 3y ago
      >> People need to realize their privacy has value, a lot of value actually, I mean… maybe? (How much is your data worth to google in dollars? Probably not that much.) But I think consumers understand how google makes their money. If your argument in court is “consumers are misunderstanding in dollar terms how much this is harming them,” then you are going to lose.
    - enigmurl 3y ago
      If it's truly the case that you're paying for Google Search, that would be an even bigger incentive for consumers to leave to a different search engine (in essence, they would be paid to switch).
Apofis 3y ago
I love this part of the article and it definitely describes what's going on with AI assisted research: "So if the government wins, we’ll see immense innovation and new entrants. If Google wins, however, then machine learning/AI will be deployed consistent with how Google, and perhaps Microsoft, chooses to deploy them, which is to say, slowly, un-creatively, and in service to monopoly power." Specifically, the "slowly, un-creatively" part, which is what I really care about.
fredgrott 3y ago
And if I was a gov lawyer I would submit proof of: 1. the browser blocks in using free email accounts, for example Google makes it impossible to use gmail accounts from a non Google browser. MS also has a similar things with Edge. Not the only example, but an example most of us had dealt with.... If you are locking a product down so that I cannot choose why are you afraid of fair competition in a free marketplace Google?
- huitzitziltzin 3y ago
  I have logged into gmail via safari recently so I’m not entirely sure I know what you’re referring to here???
- willi59549879 3y ago
  it is not blocked, but i get an annoying pop up that tells me i should use chrome.
ameister14 3y ago
>On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) is this: we (google) give our product away for free and so do our competitors. What’s more, the cost of switching search engines is literally zero: just type Bing instead of Google. That's not a defense, though. So the government is unlikely to prove anti-competitive outcomes by arguing an increased cost to consumer, but that's not what they seem to be arguing. Going from Ohio v. Amex, The other relevant ways to prove anti-competitive outcomes are through a decrease in product quality in the relevant market or market power and evidence of harms to competition. The government appears to be arguing that product quality is lower and that Google has market power and has engaged in conduct that harms competition. If those are results from anti-competitive behavior then that is an antitrust violation, and should be.
- huitzitziltzin 3y ago
  It is a defense. It is the defense that they will use and probably the only one they need. The government lost Ohio vs. Amex, which was in any event about a two sided market. Google is definitely active in two sided markets but this case does not make those claims. Good luck to DoJ if they are arguing that the quality of the product is lower! They are going to fall on their faces. I’m not saying google doesn’t engage in anticompetitive behavior. There is a good case to be made on various things they do. But to go at google for “monopolizing the search market” is just pointless. The DoJ should bring a stronger case! Such cases can be made.
  - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
    For your information, it actually is being made by the DOJ, just not on this lawsuit. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-googl... The press release doesn't mention it, but the actual court document asks the court to: "Order the divestiture of, at minimum, the Google Ad Manager suite, including both Google’s publisher ad server, DFP, and Google’s ad exchange, AdX, along with any additional structural relief as needed to cure any anticompetitive harm"
HWR_14 3y ago
I tried rewriting your comment as it could have been written a few decades ago: > On the other hand, the case that Microsoft is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) is this: we (Microsoft) give our product away for free and so do our competitors. What’s more, the cost of switching browsers is literally zero: just download Netscape instead of Internet Explorer. > If customers are choosing our browser among two free options, then our product is better. It’s going to be very difficult to establish that there’s an abuse of dominant position in that case. (There is other behavior by Microsoft which is more questionable, but in browsers they are on firm ground.)
- huitzitziltzin 3y ago
  Bundling IE was anticompetitive for the same reason bundling Teams now is anticompetitive. They (= Microsoft) deserved to lose that case (as they deserve to lose a similar case about Teams). This is not the same. Notably the claim is being made that the search market is being monopolized, not that there is a bundle at issue. If the government thinks there’s a bundle here they can make that claim.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    It's legal in the US to have an awesome product that monopolizes the market as long as it wins on it's own merits. The government is claiming that the search market is being monopolized, not by having the best results, but by paying $45 billion dollars/year to various browser suppliers to make Google the default browser. That's the illegal act. > "Essentially, Google has bought up all of the shelf space where search is placed in front of consumers, which is to say browsers and phones. This behavior is very similar to what Microsoft did in the 1990s, when it bundled its browser with its operating system, and signed deals with ISPs to block its browser rival Netscape from getting access to customers. The analogy isn’t a coincidence, as the Microsoft case is controlling precedent. "
    - huitzitziltzin 3y ago
      >> The government is claiming that the search market is being monopolized, not by having the best results, but by paying $45 billion dollars/year to various browser suppliers to make Google the default browser. That's the illegal act. And google is going to say correctly that consumers are free to switch search engines. They are free to enter “bing.com” in google chrome and it will take them right where they want to go: to another search engine! I note above that I am not sure google’s payments are pro-competitive. They probably aren’t. It’s fair to be uncomfortable with them. But to make an antitrust case on monopolization of search you are going to need more evidence than those payments.
mr_toad 3y ago
> we (google) give our product away for free Sure, like a farmer gives his cows pasture. If one farmer bought up all the land, and then tried to claim he was giving away grass for free I doubt any jury would be fooled.
sam0x17 3y ago
> we (google) give our product away for free and so do our competitors. This is hogwash though. They take an 80% cut of the advertising profits (could be more now, this is just my dated figure that I know from a decade ago). Are the courts really incapable of dealing with an ad-supported monopoly in 2023?

DannyBee 3y ago

In the legal realm, I actually like to read blogs, newsletters, podcasts of folks that are often on the other side of an issue or thing than I am. I find it useful to gain perspective/etc. When i have no opinion, i try to find folks on "both" sides. Like say insurance lawyers and injury lawyers takes on a thing or whatever. So I tried to read Matt on antitrust (though it turns out we share some of the same views), but once you get beyond the "forcefulness", everything only gets worse in my experience. It's a lot of bloviation, and when you get into the details, he often will, charitably, take interesting interpretations of the actual opinions and views of courts and others, especially when they disagree with his view. Once I read enough to have a sense of continuity (IE how did claims/views/predictions turn out), I ended up giving up my subscription because i just couldn't read it anymore. There are those who are much better at representing what's going on as a whole in a thing, even when they have a point of view and share it. Even when it's a point of view i think is totally wrongheaded. It's not as passionate, for sure, but I find it more useful and enjoyable in the end, whether i agree or not. In Matt's case, let's take this one: "Judge Mehta tossed these claims, saying that services like Yelp and Expedia aren’t general search engines and are therefore not in the same market as Google. It was a highly technical and annoying way to read certain legal questions, but bringing an antitrust case has become virtually impossible unless it’s done perfectly." You'll note that Matt does what he often does here - when he can't explain why he's right, things become more abstract - there aren't any examples of how it was "highly technical" or "annoying" or what "certain legal questions" are. Not a single example anywhere to be found. No example or data that backs up that it is "virtually impossible" to bring antitrust cases unless they are "done perfectly". Nope, just some abstract complaint and throwaway language about how, you know, whatever he said in the last newsletter about how this part was gonna be a slam dunk or whatever is really right, it's just, you know, "highly technical" things got in the way. Which ones? Oh, well, you wouldn't know them, they live in Canada, and only visit in the summer. Let's look at what actually happened here: No, the judge did not throw the claims out because they aren't general search engines. He threw it out because he felt the plaintiffs were way short on the evidence, because they rely entirely on an expert who cites no evidence himself, only makes up theories. This sounds like an exaggerated opinion of what happened, but it's not :) See page 46 of the opinion. "The court agrees with Google’s second argument. Plaintiffs’ theory of anticompetitive harm rests on a multi-linked causal sequence that relies not on evidence but almost entirely on the opinion and speculation of its expert, Professor Jonathan Baker. Plaintiffs cite Professor Baker’s report for the following propositions: < a page of propositions elided > Remarkably, not one of Professor Baker’s opinions, on which these fact assertions are based, cites to any record evidence. Indeed, a closer inspection of Professor Baker's reports shows he has largely theorized the anticompetitive effects in the relevant market of Google's conduct toward the SVP's ... Plaintiffs are required to show with proof "that the monopolist's conduct indeed has the requisite anticompetitive effect", and they have fallen well short of that burden". This isn't even the end. It goes on, where the Judge points out this state at oral argument and the states confirm they have no evidence, etc. It then explains why unsupported expert opinions aren't enough to get past summary judgement, etc. It is a clear step by step refutation of the claims, unrelated to the market question. It does then end with "Professor Baker's opinions do not rest on facts; only his ruminations about the market effects of Google's conduct" as one final jab. To read all that, and believe that this is about, you know, some highly technical legal questions being read in an annoying way and that it's the judge requiring them to "do it perfectly" is, uh, an interesting take for sure. It's one thing if Matt went into this and said "I think that random theorization should be enough, because facts are a lagging indicator" or "I think the court is wrong on the following legal standard", or whatever, but nope, this just gets painted as the nonsense we started with. This is very common in his writing, and at least for me, made it not worth reading.

narism 3y ago

>we (google) give our product away for free and so do our competitors. Search is not Google’s product, it’s a way to get their product. Their product is eyeballs which they sell to advertisers. >the cost of switching search engines is literally zero: just type Bing instead of Google. If this is true, why does Google pay Apple billions/year and Mozilla millions/year to make Google the default search? You could be saving that money!

huitzitziltzin 3y ago
The government could make antitrust claims regarding google’s behavior vis a vis advertisers. (I’m sympathetic to some claims that could be made there!) Monopolization of the ad market is not the issue here, because the specific claim is that google has monopolized the search market. You can read that right in the linked article. Google’s payments to be the default are (as I already said) not obviously pro-competitive to me. I don’t know if you and I disagree there. But again… in Google’s defense they are going to say (accurately!) “everyone gives search away for free so consumers are free to switch.” It’s going to be impossible (IMO) to argue that consumers are harmed in the search market. It just won’t be credible. The department of justice is likely wasting its time, which is similar to the recent behavior of the FTC under Lina Khan which is (if you are American) wasting taxpayers’ time taking on losing cases, while letting mergers which really deserve critical scrutiny through. Microsoft Activision is a prominent recent example. And if the Justice Department actually does show up in court with a filing that says: “No, your search engine was awesome, but it’s increasingly ad-filled crap. You’re too powerful, you’re too lazy, and America needs some real competition” (this is a direct quote from Stoller’s article) they are going to be laughed out of town and they will richly deserve it. So again… I like the attention Stoller pays to antitrust issues but his analysis of the economics (especially in the case of some tech firms) is just bad.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > Microsoft Activision is a prominent recent example. That was always ludicrous. The only way for the FTC to win that case was to define the relevant market as "games produced by Activision". That would have made the merger anticompetitive by definition... but no more anticompetitive than Activision already was.

scyzoryk_xyz 3y ago

Look, I’m not informed or an expert here, but if it’s being given away for free, then the search itself is not the “product”. The way I understand it, Google’s monopoly is over the ad market. Stoller wrote a book on the subject which I never properly got through in its entirety, but it included a deep dive on what a monopoly is. You are correct - market share is not an anti-trust violation in it’s own. My assumption is that they will be arguing over whether Google is exercising its total control over the system to prevent competition from emerging, and using that control to extract all the value for itself. All while crippling functionality for the customers, not us search engine users in this case - but the advertisers.

huitzitziltzin 3y ago
The DoJ is welcome to make a claim on monopolizing the ad market. The case here is about monopolizing the search market.
- scyzoryk_xyz 3y ago
  Isn’t the whole point that they’re tightly intertwined? You pay to advertise in the relevant search results of your customers.
  - huitzitziltzin 3y ago
    That’s not the law, so it’s irrelevant to the legal issues.
    - scyzoryk_xyz 3y ago
      I don’t mean the law. I mean how the actual ad/search product actually works. As a Google customer I pay them to present my stuff the way I want it to my customers when they search for stuff about the things I sell. That’s the product, no?
      - huitzitziltzin 3y ago

frays 3y ago

I wonder if Google will talk about the rise of AI-powered competitors (ChatGPT, Bing, etc) as part of the search landscape to help defend their case.

huitzitziltzin 3y ago
If they don’t they should fire their lawyers. (They will.)

arrosenberg 3y ago

As the article and others are pointing out, Google achieves 'free' Search through bundling and predatory pricing, which are both anticompetitive.

huitzitziltzin 3y ago
“Bundling” can be anticompetitive but is not at issue in the actual case the government has filed. Nor can I personally identify a meaningful bundle from google in the right sense. You may be using the word informally.
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  I wasn’t referring to the case specifically, but Google is absolutely bundling products in the formal, illegal sense as well. Would drive, docs and gmail be free if you divorced them from the ad revenue products?
  - huitzitziltzin 3y ago
    >> Would drive, docs and gmail be free if you divorced them from the ad revenue products? If they are all free then it’s not a bundle in the antitrust relevant sense. Microsoft Teams is a great example of an anticompetitive bundle if you want one.
    - arrosenberg 3y ago
      Gonna need a cite on that logic. The MS case was about including IE with Windows for free. With Google, the products are paid for by the ad revenues instead of Windows and Office licenses. > Microsoft Teams is a great example of an anticompetitive bundle if you want one. Also true.
      - huitzitziltzin 3y ago
        >> The MS case was about including IE with Windows for free. This is exactly where the anticompetitive effects of bundling arise. >> With Google, the products are paid for by the ad revenues instead of Windows and Office licenses. That’s why it’s going to be impossible to argue that this is bundling in the anticompetitive sense.

taeric 3y ago

But is it free if it costs them billions? That is, saying that customers /could/ switch is not necessarily relevant. There is evidence that they believe paying for the "default" billing is worth a ton of money. Not just to Apple, but to Mozilla, too. That they could lose access to revenue streams by losing default billing is very relevant when that is also a large portion of how they are able to make that payment. Could see it more as collusion with competition, I suppose? It isn't competing on the merits of their search, but more on their ability to afford default status. Which keeps Apple from entering search, and ostensibly keeps it more expensive for Microsoft to keep Bing. Consider, if Apple could get more from MS to make Bing default, why wouldn't they?

huitzitziltzin 3y ago
>> That is, saying that customers /could/ switch is not necessarily relevant On the contrary, it’s the whole ballgame in a case like this. Google’s claim will be: “we have high market share because our product is good. Look - customers could switch for free if they didn’t like it.” The government cannot make a monopolization claim solely on the basis of high market share in this case. It’s not remotely persuasive. (Indeed: who do you do your searches with??) >> “there is evidence…” Totally agree with this sentence. But it’s not going to be decisive for the government. It will not be remotely sufficient. Again - it’s not clear to me personally that this behavior is pro-competitive. But I’ve already told you what google is going to say. If you’re going to argue monopolization you have to define the market (here search) and then show it’s monopolized. Market share isn’t enough. >> could see it more as collusion… Not legally. Sorry. Not without some specific evidence of a conspiracy.
- taeric 3y ago
  All it takes is an email between Apple and Google saying they want to keep prices high for conspiracy. Isn't above them, either. Certainly inline with past of apple. Seems more a complaint against them, I grant. The discovery is what could kill Google, here. They will argue customers could switch, but any negotiations with apple to stay default are discoverable. If any of them note they fear losing share, that is pretty damning. Note I fully agree with you on difficulty of position. But you don't pay billions for status that you think you earn on your merits. Especially if you then charge other players to be top search spot for their own name.

candiddevmike 3y ago

It's not free, but you aren't paying money for it.

huitzitziltzin 3y ago
In other words… it’s free. Google search is free. All of this “… then you are the product” stuff is totally meaningless legally and economically.
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  Wikipedia is free, Google search is not. You are paying for Google Search. People need to realize their privacy has value, a lot of value actually, otherwise Google Search and every other privacy invasive platform would cost money.
  - huitzitziltzin 3y ago
    >> People need to realize their privacy has value, a lot of value actually, I mean… maybe? (How much is your data worth to google in dollars? Probably not that much.) But I think consumers understand how google makes their money. If your argument in court is “consumers are misunderstanding in dollar terms how much this is harming them,” then you are going to lose.
  - enigmurl 3y ago
    If it's truly the case that you're paying for Google Search, that would be an even bigger incentive for consumers to leave to a different search engine (in essence, they would be paid to switch).

Apofis 3y ago

I love this part of the article and it definitely describes what's going on with AI assisted research: "So if the government wins, we’ll see immense innovation and new entrants. If Google wins, however, then machine learning/AI will be deployed consistent with how Google, and perhaps Microsoft, chooses to deploy them, which is to say, slowly, un-creatively, and in service to monopoly power." Specifically, the "slowly, un-creatively" part, which is what I really care about.

fredgrott 3y ago

And if I was a gov lawyer I would submit proof of: 1. the browser blocks in using free email accounts, for example Google makes it impossible to use gmail accounts from a non Google browser. MS also has a similar things with Edge. Not the only example, but an example most of us had dealt with.... If you are locking a product down so that I cannot choose why are you afraid of fair competition in a free marketplace Google?

huitzitziltzin 3y ago
I have logged into gmail via safari recently so I’m not entirely sure I know what you’re referring to here???
willi59549879 3y ago
it is not blocked, but i get an annoying pop up that tells me i should use chrome.

ameister14 3y ago

>On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) is this: we (google) give our product away for free and so do our competitors. What’s more, the cost of switching search engines is literally zero: just type Bing instead of Google. That's not a defense, though. So the government is unlikely to prove anti-competitive outcomes by arguing an increased cost to consumer, but that's not what they seem to be arguing. Going from Ohio v. Amex, The other relevant ways to prove anti-competitive outcomes are through a decrease in product quality in the relevant market or market power and evidence of harms to competition. The government appears to be arguing that product quality is lower and that Google has market power and has engaged in conduct that harms competition. If those are results from anti-competitive behavior then that is an antitrust violation, and should be.

huitzitziltzin 3y ago
It is a defense. It is the defense that they will use and probably the only one they need. The government lost Ohio vs. Amex, which was in any event about a two sided market. Google is definitely active in two sided markets but this case does not make those claims. Good luck to DoJ if they are arguing that the quality of the product is lower! They are going to fall on their faces. I’m not saying google doesn’t engage in anticompetitive behavior. There is a good case to be made on various things they do. But to go at google for “monopolizing the search market” is just pointless. The DoJ should bring a stronger case! Such cases can be made.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  For your information, it actually is being made by the DOJ, just not on this lawsuit. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-googl... The press release doesn't mention it, but the actual court document asks the court to: "Order the divestiture of, at minimum, the Google Ad Manager suite, including both Google’s publisher ad server, DFP, and Google’s ad exchange, AdX, along with any additional structural relief as needed to cure any anticompetitive harm"

HWR_14 3y ago

I tried rewriting your comment as it could have been written a few decades ago: > On the other hand, the case that Microsoft is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) is this: we (Microsoft) give our product away for free and so do our competitors. What’s more, the cost of switching browsers is literally zero: just download Netscape instead of Internet Explorer. > If customers are choosing our browser among two free options, then our product is better. It’s going to be very difficult to establish that there’s an abuse of dominant position in that case. (There is other behavior by Microsoft which is more questionable, but in browsers they are on firm ground.)

huitzitziltzin 3y ago
Bundling IE was anticompetitive for the same reason bundling Teams now is anticompetitive. They (= Microsoft) deserved to lose that case (as they deserve to lose a similar case about Teams). This is not the same. Notably the claim is being made that the search market is being monopolized, not that there is a bundle at issue. If the government thinks there’s a bundle here they can make that claim.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  It's legal in the US to have an awesome product that monopolizes the market as long as it wins on it's own merits. The government is claiming that the search market is being monopolized, not by having the best results, but by paying $45 billion dollars/year to various browser suppliers to make Google the default browser. That's the illegal act. > "Essentially, Google has bought up all of the shelf space where search is placed in front of consumers, which is to say browsers and phones. This behavior is very similar to what Microsoft did in the 1990s, when it bundled its browser with its operating system, and signed deals with ISPs to block its browser rival Netscape from getting access to customers. The analogy isn’t a coincidence, as the Microsoft case is controlling precedent. "
  - huitzitziltzin 3y ago
    >> The government is claiming that the search market is being monopolized, not by having the best results, but by paying $45 billion dollars/year to various browser suppliers to make Google the default browser. That's the illegal act. And google is going to say correctly that consumers are free to switch search engines. They are free to enter “bing.com” in google chrome and it will take them right where they want to go: to another search engine! I note above that I am not sure google’s payments are pro-competitive. They probably aren’t. It’s fair to be uncomfortable with them. But to make an antitrust case on monopolization of search you are going to need more evidence than those payments.

mr_toad 3y ago

> we (google) give our product away for free Sure, like a farmer gives his cows pasture. If one farmer bought up all the land, and then tried to claim he was giving away grass for free I doubt any jury would be fooled.

sam0x17 3y ago

> we (google) give our product away for free and so do our competitors. This is hogwash though. They take an 80% cut of the advertising profits (could be more now, this is just my dated figure that I know from a decade ago). Are the courts really incapable of dealing with an ad-supported monopoly in 2023?