5 ms·

Strictly speaking, it is over the companies monopoly in search. Google also lives in other markets where there is competition, so this may be about those market

by saynay 3y ago

Strictly speaking, it is over the companies monopoly in search. Google also lives in other markets where there is competition, so this may be about those markets not search.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago
Google is a monopoly in most of those verticals too.
taeric 3y ago
A common antitrust concern is about leveraging a monopoly in one area to gain oversized advantage in another.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  Yes, but that doesn't give the DOJ a free ride to use an antitrust trial in one area to punish a company in other more competitive areas by revealing trade secrets. That is extrajudicial, and not far off from a dirty cop harassing an innocent party "You may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride". The trial itself should not be a punishment under a half-decent justice system.
  - taeric 3y ago
    But companies also shouldn't get a free ride with "trade secret." At some level, they are free to pick their defense. And, charity to the actual ruling, I'm assuming that better arguments were made behind closed doors to get to this point? I don't think it should be a problem to have parts of the process closed, at all. I do find it odd to have such a large blockout, though.
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      > But companies also shouldn't get a free ride with "trade secret" They don't - the judge determines what should be sealed by weighing public interest against potential harm. In this instance, the article author disagrees with the judge's decisions.
      - taeric 3y ago
        Right, which is why I had my second paragraph. It is far too easy to assume the pedal is completely moved to one end. I think it is fair to question judgements of people. Even judges and article authors. Do we have any way of assessing how fair these judgements were? Do you have any way of showing that the DOJ was trying to get a "free ride" on revealing trade secrets?
Jensson 3y ago
But Google probably have a lot of data about their competitors that they would like to present to the judges. Making that data public would make it look like Google is smearing the competition, I can see why a judge would agree to keep that secret. For example, Apple maybe had an auction to bid for default search spot on their platforms. Google bid the highest as we know, but we don't know what the competition bid and Google probably want to present that as evidence that this was just a normal auction similar to bidding for advertisement spots. For example, if Bing bid 90% of the current Google bid, then it is pretty clear that Google wasn't paying Apple to keep competition out but rather paying Apple for a premium spot in a fair market. Nobody argues that Apple is anti competitive when they pay Google to put ads on top of certain search results, so why would Google be anti competitive when they pay Apple for a premium spot? They don't pay Apple to keep others out, just for the premium spot, you can still use other search engines.

by saynay 3y ago

Strictly speaking, it is over the companies monopoly in search. Google also lives in other markets where there is competition, so this may be about those markets not search.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago

Google is a monopoly in most of those verticals too.

taeric 3y ago

A common antitrust concern is about leveraging a monopoly in one area to gain oversized advantage in another.

sangnoir 3y ago
Yes, but that doesn't give the DOJ a free ride to use an antitrust trial in one area to punish a company in other more competitive areas by revealing trade secrets. That is extrajudicial, and not far off from a dirty cop harassing an innocent party "You may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride". The trial itself should not be a punishment under a half-decent justice system.
- taeric 3y ago
  But companies also shouldn't get a free ride with "trade secret." At some level, they are free to pick their defense. And, charity to the actual ruling, I'm assuming that better arguments were made behind closed doors to get to this point? I don't think it should be a problem to have parts of the process closed, at all. I do find it odd to have such a large blockout, though.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    > But companies also shouldn't get a free ride with "trade secret" They don't - the judge determines what should be sealed by weighing public interest against potential harm. In this instance, the article author disagrees with the judge's decisions.
    - taeric 3y ago
      Right, which is why I had my second paragraph. It is far too easy to assume the pedal is completely moved to one end. I think it is fair to question judgements of people. Even judges and article authors. Do we have any way of assessing how fair these judgements were? Do you have any way of showing that the DOJ was trying to get a "free ride" on revealing trade secrets?

Jensson 3y ago

But Google probably have a lot of data about their competitors that they would like to present to the judges. Making that data public would make it look like Google is smearing the competition, I can see why a judge would agree to keep that secret. For example, Apple maybe had an auction to bid for default search spot on their platforms. Google bid the highest as we know, but we don't know what the competition bid and Google probably want to present that as evidence that this was just a normal auction similar to bidding for advertisement spots. For example, if Bing bid 90% of the current Google bid, then it is pretty clear that Google wasn't paying Apple to keep competition out but rather paying Apple for a premium spot in a fair market. Nobody argues that Apple is anti competitive when they pay Google to put ads on top of certain search results, so why would Google be anti competitive when they pay Apple for a premium spot? They don't pay Apple to keep others out, just for the premium spot, you can still use other search engines.