7 ms·

If this is the most embarrassing document as part of this case then I don’t think anything is happening to Google.

scarface_74 3y ago
The entire Justice department under Lina Khan has been a failure, a first year law student could pose holes in most of her arguments. She has been slapped down repeatedly by judges.
grobbyy 3y ago
Perhaps. I don't think this reflects anything unethical on the part of Google, but it does represent that market dynamics aren't working. The point of antitrust isn't so much to punish bad people as to make for efficient markets. Under mainstream economic theory, Google ought to be regulated. That's good for everyone, Google employees and most Google investors included (by numbers and not dollars; most Google investors hold diverse portfolios). If the industry and economy as a whole grow, at the expense of Google, both my overall investments and my job options improve. Corporations aren't human beings with moral rights, and laws are there to keep them beneficial and efficient, but to preserve some abstract corporate freedom.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  No it’s not good for everyone when the government has more power. It’s usually bad and the government regulators always seem to want to regulate content that the party in power disagrees with. The government rarely understands technology and pays no thought to unintended consequences
  - djbusby 3y ago
    This is government using existing power.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Then maybe we should think about taking away existing power?
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        You think they should not be able to regulate monopolies? The free market only works with regulation or else we end up back in the 1800s Trust era where a few people owned all the industries and you couldn't get your shipments transported on rail lines owned by someone with a competing business interest.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        The difference is that people choose Google. You can go to any website you want to. Just like the asinine browser choice in the EU made absolutely no difference in the market share between browsers. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/12/windows-browser-ballot-comes-to-an-end-as-ec-obligation-expires/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/12/windo...
        nuancebydefault 3y ago
        Most people I know use Google but did not choose Google. They just bought a smartphone. There are limited options, buy a more expensive fancy apple, or a less expensive, a bit less fancy android. That is the only choice given/taken. I know, people on HN will counter argument that there are tons of other options, but most people I know that use Google, are not aware. In fact that is where this lawsuit at its core is about.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        So in the US, 60% of people buy iPhones and 95%+ buy non ChromeOS computers, yet Chrome is still the dominant browser. How is that of people didn’t make a choice. And it’s not like Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook who all tried to enter the smart phone market and failed were some poor underfunded startups.
- timmaxw 3y ago
  To clarify: what specific remedy do you want the court to impose on Google, and how would it make things better for everyone?
- pdonis 3y ago
  > The point of antitrust isn't so much to punish bad people as to make for efficient markets. That's the story those who favor antitrust want you to believe, but it's not true. Antitrust actions historically have made markets less efficient, not more. A classic case is the breakup of Alcoa aluminum, whose "offense" was to supply aluminum to its customers at lower prices and larger quantities than any of its competitors. The breakup both raised prices and reduced quantities, making things worse for customers. > Under mainstream economic theory, Google ought to be regulated. Even leaving aside the concerns above, Google is not a monopoly in the sense of antitrust law. The real economic problem with Google is that its users are not its customers; users are just a resource to be exploited to maximize profits due to ads. If the government were to do anything to "fix" this, the obvious thing would be to outlaw that business model.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    A classic case is the breakup of Alcoa aluminum, whose "offense" was to supply aluminum to its customers at lower prices and larger quantities than any of its competitors. The breakup both raised prices and reduced quantities, making things worse for customers. Much the same story with Standard Oil. What young people learn in school from left-leaning economics professors often diverges quite radically from what actually happened.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      Yes, Standard Oil is another classic case, with much the same results after the breakup: higher prices and smaller quantities available to customers.
belltaco 3y ago
Then why did they fight so hard to keep it secret.
- dgfitz 3y ago
  I have a hunch. https://www.simplethread.com/looks-great-lose-the-duck/ https://www.simplethread.com/looks-great-lose-the-duck/
  - nuancebydefault 3y ago
    Never heard that story. It is funny. I have to try out this technique some time. Add an obvious flaw or oddity, which is easy to leave out afterwards, to a deliverable, so it covers up other problems or imperfections.
lolinder 3y ago
The degree to which a document is embarrassing if shown to the general public is not necessarily related to its legal significance in an antitrust trial. The court may very reasonably conclude that this is weak evidence given the context, but it could still be extremely embarrassing when compressed into meme form. Conversely, evidence that is far too dry to make a good embarrassing meme could be the conclusive proof the court needs to take action.
akira2501 3y ago
The case isn't "Did Google do embarrassing things?" The case is "Did Google break federal law?"
- thewildginger 3y ago
  If your company execs are basically bragging about ignoring fundamental principles of a healthy capital based market due to total control of said market, in an anti trust hearing, then yeah that's some pretty solid evidence you are breaking the law.
somenameforme 3y ago
I'm curious how we can read the same thing and come to such different conclusions. Can you elaborate on your view? When I read this, I see a company effectively gloating about establishing such a firm monopoly, in part through "marketing/distribution investments", that they could effectively ignore their customers, and focus instead on entirely exploiting them. The document voluntarily choosing to parallel their level of control over their users as something normally only obtained by illicit industries, like drug dealers is, to me, just one of those 'wow I can't believe you were stupid enough to put this into text' type things. In your mind, what would be reasonably viable smoking gun for a monopoly pursuing corporation to write down? The Sherman Antitrust Act is described by Wiki [1] as prohibiting "1) anticompetitive agreements and 2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market." It goes on to mention that "[a] monopoly achieved solely by merit, is legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not." [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
- pdonis 3y ago
  > they could effectively ignore their customers, and focus instead on entirely exploiting them Google's users are not customers. Google is exploiting their users precisely because they are not customers, so their only value to Google is as a resource for maximizing their profits due to ads. Which actually makes them worse than, say, cigarette manufacturers, since at least their users were their customers, choosing to purchase a product.
  - nuancebydefault 3y ago
    Whether Google users are customers or not, is just wording. They are part of the eco system, just like the OS, the servers, the HW or SW devs, the agencies paying for advertising and so on. Google needs to keep all members of that eco system content and treat them respectfully, labeled customer or not.
    - pdonis 3y ago

The entire Justice department under Lina Khan has been a failure, a first year law student could pose holes in most of her arguments. She has been slapped down repeatedly by judges.

grobbyy 3y ago

Perhaps. I don't think this reflects anything unethical on the part of Google, but it does represent that market dynamics aren't working. The point of antitrust isn't so much to punish bad people as to make for efficient markets. Under mainstream economic theory, Google ought to be regulated. That's good for everyone, Google employees and most Google investors included (by numbers and not dollars; most Google investors hold diverse portfolios). If the industry and economy as a whole grow, at the expense of Google, both my overall investments and my job options improve. Corporations aren't human beings with moral rights, and laws are there to keep them beneficial and efficient, but to preserve some abstract corporate freedom.

scarface_74 3y ago
No it’s not good for everyone when the government has more power. It’s usually bad and the government regulators always seem to want to regulate content that the party in power disagrees with. The government rarely understands technology and pays no thought to unintended consequences
- djbusby 3y ago
  This is government using existing power.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Then maybe we should think about taking away existing power?
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      You think they should not be able to regulate monopolies? The free market only works with regulation or else we end up back in the 1800s Trust era where a few people owned all the industries and you couldn't get your shipments transported on rail lines owned by someone with a competing business interest.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        The difference is that people choose Google. You can go to any website you want to. Just like the asinine browser choice in the EU made absolutely no difference in the market share between browsers. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/12/windows-browser-ballot-comes-to-an-end-as-ec-obligation-expires/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/12/windo...
        nuancebydefault 3y ago
        Most people I know use Google but did not choose Google. They just bought a smartphone. There are limited options, buy a more expensive fancy apple, or a less expensive, a bit less fancy android. That is the only choice given/taken. I know, people on HN will counter argument that there are tons of other options, but most people I know that use Google, are not aware. In fact that is where this lawsuit at its core is about.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        So in the US, 60% of people buy iPhones and 95%+ buy non ChromeOS computers, yet Chrome is still the dominant browser. How is that of people didn’t make a choice. And it’s not like Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook who all tried to enter the smart phone market and failed were some poor underfunded startups.
timmaxw 3y ago
To clarify: what specific remedy do you want the court to impose on Google, and how would it make things better for everyone?
pdonis 3y ago
> The point of antitrust isn't so much to punish bad people as to make for efficient markets. That's the story those who favor antitrust want you to believe, but it's not true. Antitrust actions historically have made markets less efficient, not more. A classic case is the breakup of Alcoa aluminum, whose "offense" was to supply aluminum to its customers at lower prices and larger quantities than any of its competitors. The breakup both raised prices and reduced quantities, making things worse for customers. > Under mainstream economic theory, Google ought to be regulated. Even leaving aside the concerns above, Google is not a monopoly in the sense of antitrust law. The real economic problem with Google is that its users are not its customers; users are just a resource to be exploited to maximize profits due to ads. If the government were to do anything to "fix" this, the obvious thing would be to outlaw that business model.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  A classic case is the breakup of Alcoa aluminum, whose "offense" was to supply aluminum to its customers at lower prices and larger quantities than any of its competitors. The breakup both raised prices and reduced quantities, making things worse for customers. Much the same story with Standard Oil. What young people learn in school from left-leaning economics professors often diverges quite radically from what actually happened.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    Yes, Standard Oil is another classic case, with much the same results after the breakup: higher prices and smaller quantities available to customers.

belltaco 3y ago

Then why did they fight so hard to keep it secret.

dgfitz 3y ago
I have a hunch. https://www.simplethread.com/looks-great-lose-the-duck/ https://www.simplethread.com/looks-great-lose-the-duck/
- nuancebydefault 3y ago
  Never heard that story. It is funny. I have to try out this technique some time. Add an obvious flaw or oddity, which is easy to leave out afterwards, to a deliverable, so it covers up other problems or imperfections.

lolinder 3y ago

The degree to which a document is embarrassing if shown to the general public is not necessarily related to its legal significance in an antitrust trial. The court may very reasonably conclude that this is weak evidence given the context, but it could still be extremely embarrassing when compressed into meme form. Conversely, evidence that is far too dry to make a good embarrassing meme could be the conclusive proof the court needs to take action.

akira2501 3y ago

The case isn't "Did Google do embarrassing things?" The case is "Did Google break federal law?"

thewildginger 3y ago
If your company execs are basically bragging about ignoring fundamental principles of a healthy capital based market due to total control of said market, in an anti trust hearing, then yeah that's some pretty solid evidence you are breaking the law.

somenameforme 3y ago

I'm curious how we can read the same thing and come to such different conclusions. Can you elaborate on your view? When I read this, I see a company effectively gloating about establishing such a firm monopoly, in part through "marketing/distribution investments", that they could effectively ignore their customers, and focus instead on entirely exploiting them. The document voluntarily choosing to parallel their level of control over their users as something normally only obtained by illicit industries, like drug dealers is, to me, just one of those 'wow I can't believe you were stupid enough to put this into text' type things. In your mind, what would be reasonably viable smoking gun for a monopoly pursuing corporation to write down? The Sherman Antitrust Act is described by Wiki [1] as prohibiting "1) anticompetitive agreements and 2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market." It goes on to mention that "[a] monopoly achieved solely by merit, is legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not." [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

pdonis 3y ago
> they could effectively ignore their customers, and focus instead on entirely exploiting them Google's users are not customers. Google is exploiting their users precisely because they are not customers, so their only value to Google is as a resource for maximizing their profits due to ads. Which actually makes them worse than, say, cigarette manufacturers, since at least their users were their customers, choosing to purchase a product.
- nuancebydefault 3y ago
  Whether Google users are customers or not, is just wording. They are part of the eco system, just like the OS, the servers, the HW or SW devs, the agencies paying for advertising and so on. Google needs to keep all members of that eco system content and treat them respectfully, labeled customer or not.
  - pdonis 3y ago