10 ms·

I am not following these testimonies in anti-trust cases where they have a competitor of Google testify against Google. Isn’t testifying all about presenting ev

I am not following these testimonies in anti-trust cases where they have a competitor of Google testify against Google. Isn’t testifying all about presenting evidence? If I am accused of theft in a criminal court and my arch rival is brought for testimony against me, it doesn’t sound like a fair process to me. Of course if it’s a substantiated material it would make sense but otherwise it doesn’t just makes sense at all. Google as a search engine is far better than Bing and that’s just a fact.

havnagiggle 3y ago
I am with you on this one. What the hell is this? Why is DOJ peddling for other trillion dollar companies? Microsft CEO is concerned for _Google's shareholders_? Are you serious? I don't believe a word of this guy. I'll just add, Bingbot has the same crawling opportunities as Googlebot. Nobody is stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website. It's also been 20+ years: Windows OS is constantly manipulating defaults and Edge is still not uninstallable.
- JohnMakin 3y ago
  You’re confused why in an anti-trust case they may want to hear from competitors?
  - havnagiggle 3y ago
    No I am not confused about getting testimony from competitors. I am very interested in hearing from companies that probably have legitimate grievances: DDG, Kagi, Brave, etc. MS is not among those companies.
    - cmcaleer 3y ago
      Why shouldn't MS be in that group? Google pay far above the mark to be default search in FF, and own the most popular web browser.
      - havnagiggle 3y ago
        Because Microsoft is in the game of being a big business, and demonstrably is not in the group that needs a fair market to thrive. MS is/was willing to make the same deals as Google for defaults, it's just Google valued it more. They should be in hot seat #2. Smaller companies like DDG, Brave, Kagi are the ones trying to build narrow, competitive businesses in the search and browser space. If those are struggling due to anti-competitive practices I want to hear it.
        26fingies 3y ago
        Does microsoft testifying preclude any of those companies from testifying?
        AraceliHarker 3y ago
        If it is true that people are reluctant to change their default search engine, as Nadella says, doesn't that mean all Windows users are using Bing?
        deprecative 3y ago
        Us Windows folks are typically defaulted to Bing in Edge, but in any other browser you'll probably get tacked with Google or DDG(Bing).
        lolinder 3y ago
        Microsoft's size is part of what makes their testimony so valuable to the government here. If even Microsoft's CEO is willing to testify under oath that Google's practices make breaking into search impossible, that's extremely relevant to the case. Leaving that testimony out because there are smaller companies that are also hurt would be foolish. The ideal witness makeup would be composed of a combination of large, medium, and small competitors all saying the same thing.
        havnagiggle 3y ago
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      You want to hear from all those other search companies, but not from Bing?
- stefan_ 3y ago
  Well, actually, Google paying other companies to make Google the default is stopping Bing from getting traffic. That's why we are having this whole case, among other things. In general, making contracts with 3rd parties that negatively impact your competitors is sort of looked down upon.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    It's not just looked down upon it's called market splitting and it's patently illegal. This case exists because it's the opinion of the United States Department of Justice that this law was broken by Google.
  - cherrycherry98 3y ago
    I'm no fan of Google, but them bidding to be the default search engine on Apple devices seemed reasonable to me. If paying a third party to be the default is a crime they're both guilty of it. Microsoft and Google both made offers to Apple, Apple went with the one that paid them the most and also arguably offers the superior product. It's not like Bing is outright blocked on Apple devices, it's very easy to change. Satya crying about how Google outbid him seemed pretty disingenuous. "Do you think Google would continue to pay Apple if there was no search competition? Why would they do that?" Of course not and the reasons should be obvious. Microsoft being a competent competitor costs Google a lot of money. Lose the search dominance and the place basically shuts down, so they're willing to pay a lot to maintain it. “I would love an opportunity to sort of not have them pay — maybe on behalf of the Google shareholders.” Shut down Bing then and save Google shareholders a bunch of money, at the expense of Apple shareholders. He clearly doesn't want to spend what Google does for the same privilege. Google must perceives that the deal is worth it to do for their shareholders. I imagine his ideal outcome would be something like Microsoft was forced to do with browsers, having a screen during the setup process asking the user what browser (or in this case search engine) they want as the default. I honestly don't think it would move the needle at all unless Bing was demonstrably better than Google.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    >Well, actually, Google paying other companies to make Google the default is stopping Bing from getting traffic. I cannot see how this is true. Microsoft, with its tens of billions in annual profits, can invest in all the advertising in the world, literally, to let people know how to change the default browser on their iOS or Android device. It is a trivial setting to change. What is not trivial, for Microsoft, is creating a competitive search engine and advertising business.
- belltaco 3y ago
  > Microsft CEO is concerned for _Google's shareholders_ Where does it say that?
  - havnagiggle 3y ago
    Maybe I miss-interpreted the quote at the end of the article. > At the end of Mr. Nadella’s appearance, a Justice Department lawyer asked why he thought Google paid Apple so much money to be the default search engine on Apple’s web browser Safari. > “That’s a great question,” Mr. Nadella said. “I would love an opportunity to sort of not have them pay — maybe on behalf of the Google shareholders.” I read that as: Nadella saying it cost Google's shareholders X in expenses. Reading it a second time, he is probably implying it increased Google's shareholders Y in revenue. But either way, CEO of a trillion dollar company making hypocritical remarks on another trillion dollar company. IMO it's just a poor decision of DOJ to use MS as a witness. I'd prefer they bring to light companies that are actually struggling, and not the company that can sign a $10 billion deal to boot strap new features into their competing product.
    - hackernewds 3y ago
      Further he argued why Bing should be the default, and even makes a pseudo business proposition of how they're prepared to lose $20B to harvest this data. Can't make this up.
- hackernewds 3y ago
  The article goes further into Nadella making a case for Bing being the default in Apple browsers. Ridiculous
- whiddershins 3y ago
  As I wrote in another comment, anti-trust is about protecting the consumer, the public. This isn’t about the government trying to help Microsoft or represent their interest. The whole point of anti-trust is that without competition prices go up and quality goes down. For the consumer.
- grvdrm 3y ago
  > Nobody is stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website I know your comment is about the bot, but the other side is, yes - Google is absolutely stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website. Not Google's bot, but Google's default deals on iOS, browsers, etc. Even if Bing's index was measurably better, most folks wouldn't think to switch given how easy it already is to stick with Google. Otherwise, re: Microsoft - you're absolutely right. The latest examples for me: - Teams as a crappy default - In Windows 11 I can't move my taskbar to another part of my window anymore? What the f. 10+ years of user-preference destroyed with one update.
majormajor 3y ago
> If I am accused of theft in a criminal court and my arch rival is brought for testimony against me, it doesn’t sound like a fair process to me. So, like, if you were arrested for assaulted your neighbor who you had a long-standing rivalry with, you wouldn't expect the court to hear from the neighbor? It's not like you wouldn't have your own chance to give your own testimony...
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  No, it's more like, if you and your neighbor have competing businesses, and you were accused of fraud, your neighbor testifies that you're an asshole. It's an opinion from someone who hates you/benefits from convicting you. Now, if they had actual evidence it'd be different (I assume not from the title, article is paywalled).
  - lolinder 3y ago
    This is an antitrust case. Google's competitors are victims of the alleged monopolistic behavior. If you're going to make the analogy right, then the alleged crime needs to be that you defrauded your neighbor's business. I can't imagine a court barring your neighbor from testifying that you defrauded him just because he'd benefit financially from a ruling against you.
  - throwaway892238 3y ago
    > It's an opinion from someone who hates you/benefits from convicting you. Hence why the opposing side gets the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and why it would be a really bad idea to put forward a witness who clearly has a grudge against the accused. In cross you just show they have a grudge and now their testimony is suspect. > Now, if they had actual evidence it'd be different It is actual evidence. I don't think you know what evidence is...
    - jojobas 3y ago
      By "actual evidence" people usually mean evidence that can't be discarded as easily as testimony.
patmorgan23 3y ago
In the United States we have an adversarial system of justice. That means the prosecution gets to present their evidence and arguments, and the defense gets to respond and counter. The defense will have ample opportunity to cross examine and present rebuttal whiteness. And just because a witness is presented doesn't mean the fact finder (judge or jury) will find them credible.
- hackernewds 3y ago
  What is the alternate form of justice, if not adversarial?
  - hotnfresh 3y ago
    Another big one is the inquisitorial system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system
    - stock_toaster 3y ago
      Nobody ever expects this one.
    - fransje26 3y ago
      Guilty until proven innocent VS. Innocent until proven guilty..
- hackernewds 3y ago
  You could definitely argue the jury are humans are public opinions are easily swayed by emotion
- Woshiwuja 3y ago
  why does the US still use common people during jury is beyond me tho
  - specialist 3y ago
jowea 3y ago
I have no idea how to prove he is lying, but theoretically there would be criminal consequences for lying in this case.
lolinder 3y ago
In an antitrust trial your competitors are by definition victims of the monopolistic behavior that is being alleged. Yes, there will be a conflict of interest in their testimony that needs to be accounted for, but it's not unreasonable for the victim in a court case to testify of the manner in which they feel victimized. Regarding your analogy, it would be more like if you're accused of stealing from your arch rival. Should they be barred from testifying against you on the grounds that there's bad blood between you? Certainly not! It's up to your lawyer to demonstrate their bias and persuade the jury to ignore their testimony.
- whiddershins 3y ago
  The victims are the public. Edit: to clarify, I believe this is the actual legal basis of anti monopoly legislation. Protection of the interests of the public, not competitor companies.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    For the most part the most direct victims of unfair competition practices are competitors.
    - whiddershins 3y ago
      The government doesn’t (or shouldn’t) care if a business beats another business in business. They care if doing so harms the consumer by the route of lack of competition leading to higher prices and/or inferior product.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        The other view is that you shouldn't wait until the consumer is harmed, because by then the competition might be so weak it's hard to restore to proper levels.
      - CPLX 3y ago
        That’s not true. The government also cares if firms engage in illegal anti competitive behavior. The way we know they care is they are literally suing dozens of companies right now on that principle.
anon25783 3y ago
To give the benefit of the doubt to the court, it might be justifiable on the grounds that the big tech giants form an oligopoly, i.e. that they aren't really competing businesses so much as a half-formal conglomerate of corporations whose separateness is a legal fiction to ward off antitrust. But I share your confusion. The case for Microsoft and Google being part of an oligopoly together doesn't really hold water, considering that Google appears to be competing with Microsoft in the consumer market for web browsers, operating systems, office productivity software, and machine learning.
- lolinder 3y ago
  Why would Google's competitors be barred from testifying in a case that hinges on whether Google is using unfair advantages to beat its competitors? The competition is one of the primary victims of the alleged antitrust violations, of course the government is going to ask them to testify and explain how they've been hurt by Google's behavior!
  - anon25783 3y ago
    Good point
  - sensanaty 3y ago
    Is it unfair if they're both scummy companies with infinitely deep pockets? Micro$oft just doesn't pay as much as Google does to make Google the default search, but knowing M$, they'd happily do the same shit if it made sense for them. If DDG or Kagi were the ones complaining here, then that makes sense because indeed their pockets don't run as deep as Google's or M$'s and that's unfair, but M$ complaining just sounds like the one comically evil megacorp taking advantage of the situation to get the other comically evil megacorp in trouble for shit they're doing themselves on a smaller scale.
throwaway892238 3y ago
Courts quite frequently convict people based on circumstantial evidence. Conviction is based on the determination of either a jury or a judge, and neither are required to have or use direct evidence.
joedevon 3y ago
"Google as a search engine is far better than Bing and that’s just a fact." Is it? I just tried a couple of searches on Bing. "Market Size of Apple Watch" Both Bing and Google didn't answer, providing market share instead. "novak djokovic age when he won first grand slam" both said 20 in an infobox on top. In my experience it's evened out, with Bing better at image and video search. OK just tried 3 more. Almost identical with tiny edge to Google, but seriously, not by much. Try 5 searches yourself.
- free652 3y ago
  Random stuff: >how many times russia surrendered moscow Google provides links about the history of Russian wars. Bing talks about the current Ukrainian affair. Bing = garbage
cptskippy 3y ago
> Google as a search engine is far better than Bing and that’s just a fact. I have been using DDG for several years now and honestly can't stand Google's results anymore. It seems like you can no longer search for an exact term and at every opportunity they try to slip in a merchant selling something as a result.
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  I have been using DDG for a few years, and most of the time end up doing !g to go to Google and get good answers. Nothing specific comes to mind right now, but the pattern is like this: me: Who's that guy with a big hat? DDG: showing results for bug hat IN UNITED KINGDOM: 1) Daily Mail woman wearing ladybird hat absolutely destroys woke liberal you won't believe. 2) Best hair cuts for guys who wear hats - generic-seo-spamsite.com. 3) Who's who in the world of business 2023 update. 4) Don't be "that guy"! tips for dating. me: !g Google: He's Crocodile Dundee. me: how the heck did you know that. Google isn't always that good, but DDG is all too often that bad. It's bad in a very Bing-way with search results that kinda touch on the right words but are low relevance and high SEO/spam. (And adamant that whatever I'm searching for - cat pictures, cities in California, Caesar Salad recipes, prices of things in America, I must want the results from UNITED KINGDOM because that's where I am. Which, incidentally, is a frustration of Google maps: "I wonder whats in California? Google maps, let me see the world..." "THIS IS YOUR HOUSE, THIS IS A ZOOMED IN MAP OF WHERE YOU LIVE, I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE". "Calm down, I know what things look like round here, I live here. I wanted to look somewhere else, like, obviously?").
  - lolinder 3y ago
    I know it probably gets tiring to hear it on every thread about search, but Kagi gets just as good results for that hat query, and tends to do better than Google on more serious work. Pinning and blocking domains is a huge deal—it's got a great list of blocked domains natively, and after just a little bit of customization my SEO spam has basically disappeared.
  - theshrike79 3y ago
    Google works better than DDG with natural language questions like that But if you're like me and never evolved from the oldschool search engines and still use the same format of listing key words, DDG is better than or equal to Google.
aidenn0 3y ago
I mean in the Activision case, the judge took the same person's testimony that they wouldn't make Activision games X-Box exclusives completely at face value, so there's precedent that they are completely honest even when conflict of interests are involved /s
firecall 3y ago
> Google as a search engine is far better than Bing and that’s just a fact. It was better than Bing... Two things: 1) HN and elsewhere constantly point out how bad Google Search is lately 2) The introduction of ChatGPT and DALL-E powered Bing into Edge, the new Windows Sidebar and elsewhere has changed the game. The new Windows 11 Bing/ChatGPT/DALL-E sidebar is so good that my hot-take is that it's going to put a dent into Google's Search dominance at a depth that Bing and others never have. My final wild out-there prediction: MS ditch the Bing brand and pivot to using Copilot as their search and discovery brand.
- vishnugupta 3y ago
  I switched over to DDG couple of years ago. When I recently used Google search for something I was shocked to see just how bad the entire UI had become, maybe the search result quality hasn’t taken a similar hit but the UI was extremely jarring. Perhaps it’s coz I’ve minimized my footprint in Google ecosystem but then it just goes to show to what extent Google now relies on personal data to serve search results.
- em500 3y ago
  > 1) HN and elsewhere constantly point out how bad Google Search is lately I've been reading this on Slashdot back in the days, before HN or Reddit even existed.
- mjan22640 3y ago
  1) HN and elsewhere constantly point out how bad Google Search is lately The internet is bad. There is a constant amount of good stuff and an exponentially increasing amount of garbage.

havnagiggle 3y ago

I am with you on this one. What the hell is this? Why is DOJ peddling for other trillion dollar companies? Microsft CEO is concerned for _Google's shareholders_? Are you serious? I don't believe a word of this guy. I'll just add, Bingbot has the same crawling opportunities as Googlebot. Nobody is stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website. It's also been 20+ years: Windows OS is constantly manipulating defaults and Edge is still not uninstallable.

JohnMakin 3y ago
You’re confused why in an anti-trust case they may want to hear from competitors?
- havnagiggle 3y ago
  No I am not confused about getting testimony from competitors. I am very interested in hearing from companies that probably have legitimate grievances: DDG, Kagi, Brave, etc. MS is not among those companies.
  - cmcaleer 3y ago
    Why shouldn't MS be in that group? Google pay far above the mark to be default search in FF, and own the most popular web browser.
    - havnagiggle 3y ago
      Because Microsoft is in the game of being a big business, and demonstrably is not in the group that needs a fair market to thrive. MS is/was willing to make the same deals as Google for defaults, it's just Google valued it more. They should be in hot seat #2. Smaller companies like DDG, Brave, Kagi are the ones trying to build narrow, competitive businesses in the search and browser space. If those are struggling due to anti-competitive practices I want to hear it.
      - 26fingies 3y ago
        Does microsoft testifying preclude any of those companies from testifying?
        AraceliHarker 3y ago
        If it is true that people are reluctant to change their default search engine, as Nadella says, doesn't that mean all Windows users are using Bing?
        deprecative 3y ago
        Us Windows folks are typically defaulted to Bing in Edge, but in any other browser you'll probably get tacked with Google or DDG(Bing).
      - lolinder 3y ago
        Microsoft's size is part of what makes their testimony so valuable to the government here. If even Microsoft's CEO is willing to testify under oath that Google's practices make breaking into search impossible, that's extremely relevant to the case. Leaving that testimony out because there are smaller companies that are also hurt would be foolish. The ideal witness makeup would be composed of a combination of large, medium, and small competitors all saying the same thing.
        havnagiggle 3y ago
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    You want to hear from all those other search companies, but not from Bing?
stefan_ 3y ago
Well, actually, Google paying other companies to make Google the default is stopping Bing from getting traffic. That's why we are having this whole case, among other things. In general, making contracts with 3rd parties that negatively impact your competitors is sort of looked down upon.
- CPLX 3y ago
  It's not just looked down upon it's called market splitting and it's patently illegal. This case exists because it's the opinion of the United States Department of Justice that this law was broken by Google.
- cherrycherry98 3y ago
  I'm no fan of Google, but them bidding to be the default search engine on Apple devices seemed reasonable to me. If paying a third party to be the default is a crime they're both guilty of it. Microsoft and Google both made offers to Apple, Apple went with the one that paid them the most and also arguably offers the superior product. It's not like Bing is outright blocked on Apple devices, it's very easy to change. Satya crying about how Google outbid him seemed pretty disingenuous. "Do you think Google would continue to pay Apple if there was no search competition? Why would they do that?" Of course not and the reasons should be obvious. Microsoft being a competent competitor costs Google a lot of money. Lose the search dominance and the place basically shuts down, so they're willing to pay a lot to maintain it. “I would love an opportunity to sort of not have them pay — maybe on behalf of the Google shareholders.” Shut down Bing then and save Google shareholders a bunch of money, at the expense of Apple shareholders. He clearly doesn't want to spend what Google does for the same privilege. Google must perceives that the deal is worth it to do for their shareholders. I imagine his ideal outcome would be something like Microsoft was forced to do with browsers, having a screen during the setup process asking the user what browser (or in this case search engine) they want as the default. I honestly don't think it would move the needle at all unless Bing was demonstrably better than Google.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  >Well, actually, Google paying other companies to make Google the default is stopping Bing from getting traffic. I cannot see how this is true. Microsoft, with its tens of billions in annual profits, can invest in all the advertising in the world, literally, to let people know how to change the default browser on their iOS or Android device. It is a trivial setting to change. What is not trivial, for Microsoft, is creating a competitive search engine and advertising business.
belltaco 3y ago
> Microsft CEO is concerned for _Google's shareholders_ Where does it say that?
- havnagiggle 3y ago
  Maybe I miss-interpreted the quote at the end of the article. > At the end of Mr. Nadella’s appearance, a Justice Department lawyer asked why he thought Google paid Apple so much money to be the default search engine on Apple’s web browser Safari. > “That’s a great question,” Mr. Nadella said. “I would love an opportunity to sort of not have them pay — maybe on behalf of the Google shareholders.” I read that as: Nadella saying it cost Google's shareholders X in expenses. Reading it a second time, he is probably implying it increased Google's shareholders Y in revenue. But either way, CEO of a trillion dollar company making hypocritical remarks on another trillion dollar company. IMO it's just a poor decision of DOJ to use MS as a witness. I'd prefer they bring to light companies that are actually struggling, and not the company that can sign a $10 billion deal to boot strap new features into their competing product.
  - hackernewds 3y ago
    Further he argued why Bing should be the default, and even makes a pseudo business proposition of how they're prepared to lose $20B to harvest this data. Can't make this up.
hackernewds 3y ago
The article goes further into Nadella making a case for Bing being the default in Apple browsers. Ridiculous
whiddershins 3y ago
As I wrote in another comment, anti-trust is about protecting the consumer, the public. This isn’t about the government trying to help Microsoft or represent their interest. The whole point of anti-trust is that without competition prices go up and quality goes down. For the consumer.
grvdrm 3y ago
> Nobody is stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website I know your comment is about the bot, but the other side is, yes - Google is absolutely stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website. Not Google's bot, but Google's default deals on iOS, browsers, etc. Even if Bing's index was measurably better, most folks wouldn't think to switch given how easy it already is to stick with Google. Otherwise, re: Microsoft - you're absolutely right. The latest examples for me: - Teams as a crappy default - In Windows 11 I can't move my taskbar to another part of my window anymore? What the f. 10+ years of user-preference destroyed with one update.

majormajor 3y ago

> If I am accused of theft in a criminal court and my arch rival is brought for testimony against me, it doesn’t sound like a fair process to me. So, like, if you were arrested for assaulted your neighbor who you had a long-standing rivalry with, you wouldn't expect the court to hear from the neighbor? It's not like you wouldn't have your own chance to give your own testimony...

Ferret7446 3y ago
No, it's more like, if you and your neighbor have competing businesses, and you were accused of fraud, your neighbor testifies that you're an asshole. It's an opinion from someone who hates you/benefits from convicting you. Now, if they had actual evidence it'd be different (I assume not from the title, article is paywalled).
- lolinder 3y ago
  This is an antitrust case. Google's competitors are victims of the alleged monopolistic behavior. If you're going to make the analogy right, then the alleged crime needs to be that you defrauded your neighbor's business. I can't imagine a court barring your neighbor from testifying that you defrauded him just because he'd benefit financially from a ruling against you.
- throwaway892238 3y ago
  > It's an opinion from someone who hates you/benefits from convicting you. Hence why the opposing side gets the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and why it would be a really bad idea to put forward a witness who clearly has a grudge against the accused. In cross you just show they have a grudge and now their testimony is suspect. > Now, if they had actual evidence it'd be different It is actual evidence. I don't think you know what evidence is...
  - jojobas 3y ago
    By "actual evidence" people usually mean evidence that can't be discarded as easily as testimony.

patmorgan23 3y ago

In the United States we have an adversarial system of justice. That means the prosecution gets to present their evidence and arguments, and the defense gets to respond and counter. The defense will have ample opportunity to cross examine and present rebuttal whiteness. And just because a witness is presented doesn't mean the fact finder (judge or jury) will find them credible.

hackernewds 3y ago
What is the alternate form of justice, if not adversarial?
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  Another big one is the inquisitorial system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system
  - stock_toaster 3y ago
    Nobody ever expects this one.
  - fransje26 3y ago
    Guilty until proven innocent VS. Innocent until proven guilty..
hackernewds 3y ago
You could definitely argue the jury are humans are public opinions are easily swayed by emotion
Woshiwuja 3y ago
why does the US still use common people during jury is beyond me tho
- specialist 3y ago

jowea 3y ago

I have no idea how to prove he is lying, but theoretically there would be criminal consequences for lying in this case.

lolinder 3y ago

In an antitrust trial your competitors are by definition victims of the monopolistic behavior that is being alleged. Yes, there will be a conflict of interest in their testimony that needs to be accounted for, but it's not unreasonable for the victim in a court case to testify of the manner in which they feel victimized. Regarding your analogy, it would be more like if you're accused of stealing from your arch rival. Should they be barred from testifying against you on the grounds that there's bad blood between you? Certainly not! It's up to your lawyer to demonstrate their bias and persuade the jury to ignore their testimony.

whiddershins 3y ago
The victims are the public. Edit: to clarify, I believe this is the actual legal basis of anti monopoly legislation. Protection of the interests of the public, not competitor companies.
- CPLX 3y ago
  For the most part the most direct victims of unfair competition practices are competitors.
  - whiddershins 3y ago
    The government doesn’t (or shouldn’t) care if a business beats another business in business. They care if doing so harms the consumer by the route of lack of competition leading to higher prices and/or inferior product.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      The other view is that you shouldn't wait until the consumer is harmed, because by then the competition might be so weak it's hard to restore to proper levels.
    - CPLX 3y ago
      That’s not true. The government also cares if firms engage in illegal anti competitive behavior. The way we know they care is they are literally suing dozens of companies right now on that principle.

anon25783 3y ago

To give the benefit of the doubt to the court, it might be justifiable on the grounds that the big tech giants form an oligopoly, i.e. that they aren't really competing businesses so much as a half-formal conglomerate of corporations whose separateness is a legal fiction to ward off antitrust. But I share your confusion. The case for Microsoft and Google being part of an oligopoly together doesn't really hold water, considering that Google appears to be competing with Microsoft in the consumer market for web browsers, operating systems, office productivity software, and machine learning.

lolinder 3y ago
Why would Google's competitors be barred from testifying in a case that hinges on whether Google is using unfair advantages to beat its competitors? The competition is one of the primary victims of the alleged antitrust violations, of course the government is going to ask them to testify and explain how they've been hurt by Google's behavior!
- anon25783 3y ago
  Good point
- sensanaty 3y ago
  Is it unfair if they're both scummy companies with infinitely deep pockets? Micro$oft just doesn't pay as much as Google does to make Google the default search, but knowing M$, they'd happily do the same shit if it made sense for them. If DDG or Kagi were the ones complaining here, then that makes sense because indeed their pockets don't run as deep as Google's or M$'s and that's unfair, but M$ complaining just sounds like the one comically evil megacorp taking advantage of the situation to get the other comically evil megacorp in trouble for shit they're doing themselves on a smaller scale.

throwaway892238 3y ago

Courts quite frequently convict people based on circumstantial evidence. Conviction is based on the determination of either a jury or a judge, and neither are required to have or use direct evidence.

joedevon 3y ago

"Google as a search engine is far better than Bing and that’s just a fact." Is it? I just tried a couple of searches on Bing. "Market Size of Apple Watch" Both Bing and Google didn't answer, providing market share instead. "novak djokovic age when he won first grand slam" both said 20 in an infobox on top. In my experience it's evened out, with Bing better at image and video search. OK just tried 3 more. Almost identical with tiny edge to Google, but seriously, not by much. Try 5 searches yourself.

free652 3y ago
Random stuff: >how many times russia surrendered moscow Google provides links about the history of Russian wars. Bing talks about the current Ukrainian affair. Bing = garbage

cptskippy 3y ago

> Google as a search engine is far better than Bing and that’s just a fact. I have been using DDG for several years now and honestly can't stand Google's results anymore. It seems like you can no longer search for an exact term and at every opportunity they try to slip in a merchant selling something as a result.

jodrellblank 3y ago
I have been using DDG for a few years, and most of the time end up doing !g to go to Google and get good answers. Nothing specific comes to mind right now, but the pattern is like this: me: Who's that guy with a big hat? DDG: showing results for bug hat IN UNITED KINGDOM: 1) Daily Mail woman wearing ladybird hat absolutely destroys woke liberal you won't believe. 2) Best hair cuts for guys who wear hats - generic-seo-spamsite.com. 3) Who's who in the world of business 2023 update. 4) Don't be "that guy"! tips for dating. me: !g Google: He's Crocodile Dundee. me: how the heck did you know that. Google isn't always that good, but DDG is all too often that bad. It's bad in a very Bing-way with search results that kinda touch on the right words but are low relevance and high SEO/spam. (And adamant that whatever I'm searching for - cat pictures, cities in California, Caesar Salad recipes, prices of things in America, I must want the results from UNITED KINGDOM because that's where I am. Which, incidentally, is a frustration of Google maps: "I wonder whats in California? Google maps, let me see the world..." "THIS IS YOUR HOUSE, THIS IS A ZOOMED IN MAP OF WHERE YOU LIVE, I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE". "Calm down, I know what things look like round here, I live here. I wanted to look somewhere else, like, obviously?").
- lolinder 3y ago
  I know it probably gets tiring to hear it on every thread about search, but Kagi gets just as good results for that hat query, and tends to do better than Google on more serious work. Pinning and blocking domains is a huge deal—it's got a great list of blocked domains natively, and after just a little bit of customization my SEO spam has basically disappeared.
- theshrike79 3y ago
  Google works better than DDG with natural language questions like that But if you're like me and never evolved from the oldschool search engines and still use the same format of listing key words, DDG is better than or equal to Google.

aidenn0 3y ago

I mean in the Activision case, the judge took the same person's testimony that they wouldn't make Activision games X-Box exclusives completely at face value, so there's precedent that they are completely honest even when conflict of interests are involved /s

firecall 3y ago

> Google as a search engine is far better than Bing and that’s just a fact. It was better than Bing... Two things: 1) HN and elsewhere constantly point out how bad Google Search is lately 2) The introduction of ChatGPT and DALL-E powered Bing into Edge, the new Windows Sidebar and elsewhere has changed the game. The new Windows 11 Bing/ChatGPT/DALL-E sidebar is so good that my hot-take is that it's going to put a dent into Google's Search dominance at a depth that Bing and others never have. My final wild out-there prediction: MS ditch the Bing brand and pivot to using Copilot as their search and discovery brand.

vishnugupta 3y ago
I switched over to DDG couple of years ago. When I recently used Google search for something I was shocked to see just how bad the entire UI had become, maybe the search result quality hasn’t taken a similar hit but the UI was extremely jarring. Perhaps it’s coz I’ve minimized my footprint in Google ecosystem but then it just goes to show to what extent Google now relies on personal data to serve search results.
em500 3y ago
> 1) HN and elsewhere constantly point out how bad Google Search is lately I've been reading this on Slashdot back in the days, before HN or Reddit even existed.
mjan22640 3y ago
1) HN and elsewhere constantly point out how bad Google Search is lately The internet is bad. There is a constant amount of good stuff and an exponentially increasing amount of garbage.