4 ms·

Interesting that Google isn’t particularly concerned about this antitrust trial. “They basically don’t feel the doj has a real case”: >The DOJ filed its compla

Interesting that Google isn’t particularly concerned about this antitrust trial. “They basically don’t feel the doj has a real case”: >The DOJ filed its complaint against Google in this case on October 20, 2020. A couple days later, another Samsung employee suggested to Chang that the lawsuit might cause Google to loosen its interpretations of its contracts with Samsung. >Chang responded: “Actually the COMPLETE opposite. Google just did a f*ck you to Samsung. After the doj filings, they submitted a new redline that went backwards om all negotiations with Samsung and was even more aggressive in being restrictive….They basically don’t feel the doj has a real case.”

faeriechangling 3y ago
I've seen the DOJ lose every antitrust case its filed recently. All they're doing is at worst generating bad PR for large companies and airing their dirty laundry. The US Government might actually need to pass legislation if it wants effective anti-trust enforcement.
- FormerBandmate 3y ago
  This has always been true. Antitrust failed hard until the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed. Courts can’t just do things without the law backing them up
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    It's not just that they can't, it's that the American courts have a long and storied history of nullifying antitrust law.
- gmerc 3y ago
  The supreme court has been captured by business interests so no, it’s game over
  - worik 3y ago
    > The supreme court has been captured by business interests Has it? Definitely captured by conservatives, not the same
    - Animats 3y ago
      That's going to be interesting. If you think the current Court is inclined towards originalism and following the text, antitrust enforcement today should be back to how tough it was under Teddy Roosevelt. This is the actual text of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act: Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or other- wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, at the discretion of the court. Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof; shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Sec. 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Passed the House and Senate almost unanimously, by the way. One dissenting vote in the Senate. Yes, jail.
- yathaid 3y ago
  The situation is way more complicated than what you seem to have understood. From https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/never-seen-anything-like-it-the-biggest https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/never-seen-anything-like-...: > Last summer, I noted that it takes time for agencies to act, but that they had put a bunch of torpedos in the water, and they would be exploding over the next year and a half. That’s exactly what’s happened. And the consequences are real. The most significant one is that the merger boom that started in the 2010s is now over. > You wouldn’t realize this success if you listen to the conventional wisdom in politics, because Wall Street is pushing a public narrative that antitrust agencies are losing in courts, and therefore they are losing their ability to stop deals. But this isn’t true, because if it were, you wouldn’t see regular reports from business publications lamenting the decline in deals, and writing things like “The average size of mergers completed is now at the lowest level in 20 years.” And you wouldn’t have deal-makers on CNBC calmly describing how hard it is to get mergers done. _________ Progress is slow because the judiciary is stacked with ex corporate lawyers and lobbyists who will not interpret the law the way its written but have their own imaginary version based on the Chicago School of Economics' made up models on how the economy works.
  - 7speter 3y ago
    Are mergers low because of DOJ “torpedoes” or because debt isnt as cheap as it was 3 years ago?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dclowd9901 3y ago
Can someone help me out… what’s that word f*ck supposed to be?
makeitdouble 3y ago
It might be a case of not caring about the consequences, as they're already facing similar issue with the EU commission and have promised to do something about it 3 years ago [0]. Either they'll keep doing nothing, and so an additional lawsuit won't change that, either they've got changes on the way but will milk it up as long as they can before finally moving on. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/20/18273888/google-eu-browser-search-choice https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/20/18273888/google-eu-browse...
- jsnell 3y ago
  As far as I know those changes happened in EU. It wasn't just promises. Do you have a source saying otherwise?
dalbasal 3y ago
I think managing antitrust cases is a core competency for Google. They've learned that antitrust isn't scary. The worst that might happen is a fine or a court ordered policy-change. The fines are the minor cost associated with monopolistic business practices. In this case, the practice is Google's profitable and strategic SE-OEM deals in this case. Those have been litigated before, and win or lose, it is trivially better to continue the practices and just deal with the heat when it comes.

faeriechangling 3y ago

I've seen the DOJ lose every antitrust case its filed recently. All they're doing is at worst generating bad PR for large companies and airing their dirty laundry. The US Government might actually need to pass legislation if it wants effective anti-trust enforcement.

FormerBandmate 3y ago
This has always been true. Antitrust failed hard until the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed. Courts can’t just do things without the law backing them up
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  It's not just that they can't, it's that the American courts have a long and storied history of nullifying antitrust law.
gmerc 3y ago
The supreme court has been captured by business interests so no, it’s game over
- worik 3y ago
  > The supreme court has been captured by business interests Has it? Definitely captured by conservatives, not the same
  - Animats 3y ago
    That's going to be interesting. If you think the current Court is inclined towards originalism and following the text, antitrust enforcement today should be back to how tough it was under Teddy Roosevelt. This is the actual text of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act: Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or other- wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, at the discretion of the court. Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof; shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Sec. 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Passed the House and Senate almost unanimously, by the way. One dissenting vote in the Senate. Yes, jail.
yathaid 3y ago
The situation is way more complicated than what you seem to have understood. From https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/never-seen-anything-like-it-the-biggest https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/never-seen-anything-like-...: > Last summer, I noted that it takes time for agencies to act, but that they had put a bunch of torpedos in the water, and they would be exploding over the next year and a half. That’s exactly what’s happened. And the consequences are real. The most significant one is that the merger boom that started in the 2010s is now over. > You wouldn’t realize this success if you listen to the conventional wisdom in politics, because Wall Street is pushing a public narrative that antitrust agencies are losing in courts, and therefore they are losing their ability to stop deals. But this isn’t true, because if it were, you wouldn’t see regular reports from business publications lamenting the decline in deals, and writing things like “The average size of mergers completed is now at the lowest level in 20 years.” And you wouldn’t have deal-makers on CNBC calmly describing how hard it is to get mergers done. _________ Progress is slow because the judiciary is stacked with ex corporate lawyers and lobbyists who will not interpret the law the way its written but have their own imaginary version based on the Chicago School of Economics' made up models on how the economy works.
- 7speter 3y ago
  Are mergers low because of DOJ “torpedoes” or because debt isnt as cheap as it was 3 years ago?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dclowd9901 3y ago

Can someone help me out… what’s that word f*ck supposed to be?

makeitdouble 3y ago

It might be a case of not caring about the consequences, as they're already facing similar issue with the EU commission and have promised to do something about it 3 years ago [0]. Either they'll keep doing nothing, and so an additional lawsuit won't change that, either they've got changes on the way but will milk it up as long as they can before finally moving on. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/20/18273888/google-eu-browser-search-choice https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/20/18273888/google-eu-browse...

jsnell 3y ago
As far as I know those changes happened in EU. It wasn't just promises. Do you have a source saying otherwise?

dalbasal 3y ago

I think managing antitrust cases is a core competency for Google. They've learned that antitrust isn't scary. The worst that might happen is a fine or a court ordered policy-change. The fines are the minor cost associated with monopolistic business practices. In this case, the practice is Google's profitable and strategic SE-OEM deals in this case. Those have been litigated before, and win or lose, it is trivially better to continue the practices and just deal with the heat when it comes.