3 ms·

> The DOJ just ends up re-litigating old contracts and continuations of them hoping that in the current political climate they can find an angle for the headsho

by dtech 3y ago

> The DOJ just ends up re-litigating old contracts and continuations of them hoping that in the current political climate they can find an angle for the headshot in front of a friendly judge Your whole argument hinges on this and I fail to find a problem in it. What's OK when you have 1% of the market is, by law and reason, not OK when you have 99% of the market. It seems fully logical that that also means old contracts and behavior might need change.

SllX 3y ago
No, my argument is that it’s a weak case, full stop, that hinges on Google growing from a 400 pound gorilla to an 800 pound gorilla by outcompeting their direct competitors in their core business that the company was founded on, making deals, acquiring other businesses in areas they needed to improve upon (or reasonably thought they did) and developing new search and ad products to expand their business. You can’t punish them for making a deal ex post facto because it was the winning strategy and their competitors turned out to be the greatest cultural lobster trap inventors[1] and the Windows company that has basically stopped innovating on the web the moment they stopped perceiving it as a threat (which they were so wrong about). Google’s core business is search and advertising and they have worked from the company’s inception to acquire users and customers in both, successfully, and more so than their competition both earlier in their history and later and they have developed business partners along the way who value that continued business relationship. Making deals isn’t illegal and businesses make deals all the time. The Sherman Antitrust Act declares contracts that restrain trade and commerce illegal, but Google isn’t restraining trade: they’re paying a fair market value for user acquisition and their largest competitors both know what that price is and are unwilling to outbid Google. Up until 2017, Microsoft even had their own deal with Apple where Siri used Bing results and you couldn’t change that (still can’t control what Siri uses actually, but Siri is garbage). Even so, you can still change the search provider in Safari and Apple only receives money from Google for Safari users when Safari users actually use Google making this more like an affiliate program. [1]: http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/2848 http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/2848

by dtech 3y ago

SllX 3y ago

No, my argument is that it’s a weak case, full stop, that hinges on Google growing from a 400 pound gorilla to an 800 pound gorilla by outcompeting their direct competitors in their core business that the company was founded on, making deals, acquiring other businesses in areas they needed to improve upon (or reasonably thought they did) and developing new search and ad products to expand their business. You can’t punish them for making a deal ex post facto because it was the winning strategy and their competitors turned out to be the greatest cultural lobster trap inventors[1] and the Windows company that has basically stopped innovating on the web the moment they stopped perceiving it as a threat (which they were so wrong about). Google’s core business is search and advertising and they have worked from the company’s inception to acquire users and customers in both, successfully, and more so than their competition both earlier in their history and later and they have developed business partners along the way who value that continued business relationship. Making deals isn’t illegal and businesses make deals all the time. The Sherman Antitrust Act declares contracts that restrain trade and commerce illegal, but Google isn’t restraining trade: they’re paying a fair market value for user acquisition and their largest competitors both know what that price is and are unwilling to outbid Google. Up until 2017, Microsoft even had their own deal with Apple where Siri used Bing results and you couldn’t change that (still can’t control what Siri uses actually, but Siri is garbage). Even so, you can still change the search provider in Safari and Apple only receives money from Google for Safari users when Safari users actually use Google making this more like an affiliate program. [1]: http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/2848 http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/2848