11 ms·
Apple files emergency motion to become defendant in US vs. Google [pdf]
- chomp 2y agoTitle says Google vs US, but the case is actually US v Google, no one is suing the US.
- B1FF_PSUVM 2y agoNot to mention which is the defendant that Apple is siding with...
- ishtanbul 2y agoGoogle is defendant
- achierius 2y agoWhat do you mean? The US is not a defendant in this case, it's not ambiguous -- defendant just refers to the party/parties accused of a crime. You can have multiple defendants, but only one 'side' of the trial will contain any defendants -- the other side, the US in this case, is the plaintiff.
- yapyap 2y agoYes, they’re saying it was not clear who was the defendant in the title, it seemed like the US was.
- jonas21 2y agoThat's why it's important to list the parties in the correct order.
- freejazz 2y agoOn appeals, cases are listed based on which is the appellant which is the respondent.
- nightpool 2y agoRight, they're saying that the title is misleading/ ambiguous because it confuses the order of defendant and plaintiff, so if you just read Apple's motion you'd be confused about which is which and who Apple is arguing with
- dang 2y agoOk, we've swapped them in the title above. Thanks!
- jtbayly 2y agoSo what case is this? I’m assuming something app-store related?
- samcat116 2y agoI think its the search monopoly one. Likely due to the fact that it was ruled illegal for Google to pay Apple $20B for default search engine placement.
- perihelions 2y agoIt's the search engine kickbacks, I believe: - "This would leave Apple without the ability to defend its right to reach other arrangements with Google that could benefit millions of users and Apple’s entitlement to compensation for distributing Google search to its users." Also, https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-antitrust-ruling-may-pose-20-billion-risk-apple-2024-08-06/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-antitrust-ruling-m... ("Google antitrust ruling may pose $20 billion risk for Apple" (2024))
- matt_heimer 2y agoGoogle monopoly case. Apple is involved because Google pays Apple to set the default search engine in Safari to Google. Apple received 20 billion from Google in 2022 (1) and Google has floated the idea of loosening of its agreements with Apple to make the US government happy (2). Apple doesn't want to give up that Google money. 1. https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-seeks-defend-googles-billion-dollar-payments-search-case-2024-12-24/ 2. https://www.reuters.com/legal/google-says-it-could-loosen-search-deals-us-antitrust-case-2024-12-21/
- cyberax 2y agoIt's a part of it, for sure. Apple is apprehensive of monopoly findings, because it'll provide more ammo for the future lawsuits regarding its AppStore monopoly.
- frereubu 2y agoThis is the case referred to: "The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, and the States of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, and Texas, acting through their respective Attorneys General, bring this action under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, to restrain Google LLC (Google) from unlawfully maintaining monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising in the United States through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices, and to remedy the effects of this conduct." https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/1/united-states-of-america-v-google-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/1/united-state... Edit: NAL, but this seems to be at least partially about Apple bundling Google search in MacOS / iOS: (From the emergency motion) "Second, Apple will suffer clear and substantial irreparable harm if it is unable to participate in the remedies phase moving forward. Apple will be unable to participate in discovery and develop evidence in the targeted fashion it has proposed as this litigation progresses toward a final judgment. If Apple’s appeal is not resolved until during or after the remedies trial, Apple may well be forced to stand mute at trial, as a mere spectator, while the government pursues an extreme remedy that targets Apple by name and would prohibit any commercial arrangement between Apple and Google for a decade. This would leave Apple without the ability to defend its right to reach other arrangements with Google that could benefit millions of users and Apple’s entitlement to compensation for distributing Google search to its users. Further, Apple will be unable to present its own live testimony or cross-examine witnesses who opine about Apple’s interests and incentives with respect to the general search market."
- yogurtboy 2y agoThanks for the overview! Can't help but notice that this is all deep red states. Why might that be? From above, this seems pretty bipartisan and what Lina Khan (MVP) has been working on for the last four years.
- adam_arthur 2y agoSome issues are (largely) bipartisan. Over time the sentiment towards concentration of power in small number of big tech firms has rubbed both the Democrats and Republicans the wrong way. Somewhat for different reasons initially, but the end result/agreement converges.
- epikorean 2y agoMakes sense. Judge Mehta blocked Google from paying Apple. Apple wants to keep receiving billions of dollars from Google.
- cyanydeez 2y ago[flagged]
- jedberg 2y agoCan someone with a law degree break this down for us?
- jerjerjer 2y agoNot a lawyer but looks fairly straightforward. Google payed Apple billions of $ to be the default iPhone search engine. US says it's an anti-competitive and is currently suing Google. Part of the suit is that plaintiffs proposed a remedial term unique to Apple that would forbid any “contract between Google and Apple in which there would be anything exchanged of value.” That means Apple is going to be out of $20 billions per year (or whatever Google pays to Apple) for the foreseeable future. Apple does not like this and tries to inject themselves into lawsuit on the side of Google.
- generj 2y agoIt seems the key sticking point is that the DOJ proposed forbidding “any contract between Apple and Google in which there would be anything exchanged of value.” In other words, give us our $15 -20 Billion a year.
- allcentury 2y ago> Plaintiffs proposed a remedial term unique to Apple that would forbid any “contract between Google and Apple in which there would be anything exchanged of value.” Wow
- brookst 2y agoYeah that seems a little extreme. Like some person at Apple signs up for Google Workspaces and the company's in violation.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- SAI_Peregrinus 2y agoOr Google wants to buy/license any Apple products, e.g. for developing apps to run on Apple devices.
- duskwuff 2y agoOr, for that matter - Apple is a major customer of GCP for iCloud storage. A court order requiring that business to cease would place an undue burden on Apple.
- CobrastanJorji 2y agoOoof. Google gives Apple like a third of its search revenue on iOS searches. Apple gets tens of billions of bucks from this. Presumably it is so much money in part because Microsoft would happily pay half that to be the default instead. But if Google isn't allowed to offer anything at all, Microsoft is free to offer only a sliver of what it otherwise would have, because what's Apple gonna do otherwise, send all of its users to Duck Duck Go?
- madars 2y agoDocket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/united-states-of-america-v-google-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/united-states-... The case is about prohibiting Google to enter search deals with distributors (both phone makers like Apple, carriers, and browser developers like Mozilla), see Bloomberg reporting: https://archive.is/sneIB https://archive.is/sneIB . The original complaint is the first PDF in the docket.
- jopsen 2y agoIf enforced wouldn't it make life hard for Mozilla? They can get other search deals, but their negotiation position would be a lot worse. disclaimer: opinions are my own.
- moonchrome 2y agoIs Mozilla really relevant anymore ? When they cut the devtools and rust/servo teams I view them as fragmenting the browser market and not driving web forward.
- granzymes 2y agoI’ve been following this case, and explained the history here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42889763 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42889763. The tile would be more accurate if it said “Apple requests a pause in US vs. Google while it attempts to intervene”.
- dmvdoug 2y agoYes, vastly better. The title as it now stands makes no sense at all.
- vessenes 2y agoInteresting; I wonder if DOJ approaches on this stuff will continue (Vance has been clear he's a big tech skeptic), or if things will chill out a little. In this case, the big complaint Apple has is that there was a really long trial, US v. Google, and one of the proposed remedies is a ban on a “contract between Google and Apple in which there would be anything exchanged of value.” Apple is like "hold on a minute here, we weren't party to this trial." When they asked to file some briefs, they were denied. Hence these motions, and also the PR push, I imagine. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like any party named in an order should at least be allowed to show up and say some things. We'll see.
- miltonlost 2y ago[flagged]
- vessenes 2y agoI mean, he was there like two years, very junior. Maybe he's Thiel's shadow puppet baby, but my money is on him being smart and having his own plans.
- mlinhares 2y agoHis own plans for what? What could he do without the money? The moment the money disappears he'd disappear as well.
- youngNed 2y ago> my money is on him being smart No snark; based on what?
- zachthewf 2y agoHe went to Yale and worked at a prestigious VC firm. Most people with those credentials are at least reasonably smart.
- 2y ago
- yapyap 2y agoDefendant, so on the side of US?
- abracadaniel 2y agoThe title was just updated as the original had them reversed. The defendant is Google.
- parsimo2010 2y agoNo, the title is (well, it was) misleading (now the title has been edited to read US vs Google when it previously said Google vs US). Apple wants to join Google as co-defendant, because if Google loses their monopoly case it won't be able to pay Apple to be the default search on iOS. Apple is therefore joining the case because it wants Google to be able to continue paying Apple billions of dollars.
- columb 2y agoSo Apple is also scared of the US breaking monopoly like the EU did with the app store? We all know that this isn't just a search here at play. Maybe the end of walled gardens... One can only hope!
- MBCook 2y agoWas that an issue in this case?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- arvinsim 2y agoI have read somewhere that the money Google pays Apple for being the default is a relatively big chunk of Apple's profit margins. If true, then it is understandable why Apple is fighting hard for it.
- IncreasePosts 2y agoAlso, what will apple do - make Google not the default? Giving users bing or whatever will just piss off a lot of people.
- dumbfounder 2y agoDevelop their own crappy version and rely on most people not noticing. (Apple Maps)
- Cumpiler69 2y agoGoogle search has already become crappy enough. I doubt Apples would do so much worse at this point.
- sthatipamala 2y agoYour info might be outdated. Apple Maps is actually better than Google Maps in many ways (e.g. it says "pass this light and at the next one, turn left" instead of "in 300 feet, turn left")
- lotsofpulp 2y agoI notice that I don’t see ads in Apple Maps.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoOption 1: Present the choices on the Setup screen when you install the new iOS. Option 2: Leave the default NULL and when the user first hits search in iOS (and default is NULL), present the list of search providers.
- 2y ago
- parhamn 2y agoWho would Apple choose as their search provider even if Google didn't pay them? If they gave users a choice up-front I'm sure 99% would choose Google too. Can someone explain how this isn't a big deal for Google?
- asadotzler 2y agoIt opens the possibility that not-Google web search services could sell their way into various apps and service. Right now, Google has exclusive global contracts. A company with a product that's paid for Google's web search must use Google at every search access point and in every country they sell into where Google does business. If Google's restricted from those contracts, local web search has a chance, user web search choice has a chance, the web itself has a chance. Sure, Apple may keep Google in the US, but they might start swapping in Siri for some search access points, or swapping in ChatGPT search in others, or switching away from Google in Korea or Brazil or other markets with strong local services. Who knows, maybe we'd have a compelling Apple Web Search today, like we have Apple Maps as an alternative to Google Maps, but that couldn't have happened because of these incentives. Take away the $20B+ a year Google pays Apple for that placement and maybe Apple provides a better service with more privacy protections and less spam. Maybe not, but if we don't change how this all works, we'll never know.
- wbl 2y agoThe product of competitors is somehow not better enough to cause people to navigate a click away.
- threeseed 2y ago> but they might start swapping in Siri for some search access points They've been doing this for years now. AppleBot has been crawling away powering the Safari Suggestions engine.
- hindsightbias 2y agoprep for court judgement release: "In lieu of the court ruling, Apple today announces the availability of Apple Scout and Apple AdSight. Apple Scout will serve as the new default search engine in MacOS and iOS." "Markets were shaken today as Alphabet plunged 20%..."
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- granzymes 2y agoI think people have the wrong idea when they see “defendant” in the title. Here’s what happened: Apple has been watching this case closely from the beginning because it implicates the enormous amounts of money that Google pays them to be the default search engine on Apple devices. They’ve been involved as a nonparty, providing witnesses and documents requested by Google and the United States and have had lawyers present to observe from the gallery throughout the proceedings. Until recently, Apple and Google were on the same side. Google was incentivized to win the case, which is also what Apple wanted because that would preserve the revenue share. But then Google lost the liability phase of the trial, and the government asked for truly extraordinary remedies including a divestiture of Chrome, significant changes to Android contracts, and a 10 year ban on any contract of any value whatsoever between Apple and Google. Apple feels that its interests are no longer perfectly aligned with Google’s. First, Google has bigger fish to fry than its Apple revenue share because it needs to defend its Chrome and Android businesses. Second, it would actually benefit Google if they weren’t able to pay Apple revenue share if Apple kept Google as the default search engine because it’s the best on the market and Apple doesn’t want to provide an inferior option to its users. So Apple filed a motion to intervene for the limited purpose of defending its right to contract during the remedies phase of the trial. That doesn’t make Apple a defendant. The Court can’t order Apple to do anything in its final remodels order. But it would allow Apple to present evidence during the remedy phase, call and cross-examine witnesses, and participate in the post-hearing briefing. Apple says its purpose in participating in the remedies phase is to present evidence that neither Google nor the government is equipped to provide: information on Apple’s future plans. Apple says, regardless of what the Court does, it has no plans to invest the billions of dollars that would be required to enter the general search market. The government’s ban on Apple working with Google is premised at least in part on that competitive entry, which Apple aims to demonstrate is a fantasy. The Court partially denied Apple’s request, fearing that other parties would also want to intervene. The Court will not allow Apple to call or cross-examine witnesses, but Apple can submit up to two affidavits from fact witnesses and participate in writing post-hearing briefs. The government has represented to Apple that it will challenge the Court’s decision to give Apple that limited role during the remedies phase, and so the linked document is a request for a pause of the remedies phase while Apple appeals the partial denial of its motion to intervene to the D.C. Circuit. Happy to answer any questions about the legal standards involved or the procedural history of the case.
- tolerance 2y agoIt’s impressive how a decision as banal-on-the-surface as a default search engine can kick open the strongbox of big business, unravel anti-trust suits and crook the neck and knee of businessmen to the State.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- narenkeshav 2y agoNuclear warfare that Steve jobs wanted.
- supermatt 2y agoGoogle still win if/when they lose this case. They won’t be able to pay 3rd parties, but those 3rd parties will still end up referring their users to google and google pockets the fees they previously paid. The whole “choice” process is a farce in the EU. People still choose google because they don’t know any different.
- NotPractical 2y ago> The whole “choice” process is a farce in the EU. What do you suggest? Forcing people to use DuckDuckGo against their will?
- supermatt 2y agoRemoving google from the list entirely. If people want it they should actively seek it out to install, like every other search engine other than the “curated” 6.
- Kuinox 2y agoIt will allow me to use the search engine I use in the os integration. Currently it open google, I use Kagi, which should be soon an option.
- bradyd 2y agoYou can already choose a different search engine than Google. You are given the option of Google, Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, and Ecosia. But it would be nice if you could add your own.
- Kuinox 2y agoThat why I said "it will", I pay for Kagi, and soon Kagi will be in this list (they need a download count threshold on their app)
- schnable 2y agoYes, in a vacuum, but there are other antitrust cases and remedies in play against Google that have the goal of further reducing their dominance in search and advertising.
- jmyeet 2y agoHow this case works out for Apple and Google depends entirely on the remedy. IF the court ends up banning ANY search engine paying for being the default search engine then that (IMHO) it's a massive win for Google. Why? Because nobody else can pay for being the default. And Google will save billions of dollars. Apple loses billions of dollars, which is why they're trying to intervene. IF the court simply restricts Google from paying for being the default search engine then that's less good for Google and slightly better but still bad for Apple because nobody can write checks like Google can. We have some direct data of how others paying for being the default search engine hasn't worked out so great. I'm specifically referring to the Firefox-Bing deal that didn't last all that long. Could this prompt Apple to make their own search? I'm inclined to say "no". Apple already took this step with Apple Maps. It's been 12 years and, depending on country, there are still some massive gaps to Google Maps. I think it's (finally) pretty decent in the US. In others it's almost unusable however. I also think that Apple will probably bet on AI Assistants as the future. I also think that Google maintains its marketshare because, despite pearl-clutching about how Google has fallen off by tech people who never seem to substantiate that with actual examples, Google is still the best option for most people. And it's not even close.
- tempodox 2y agoMonopolists of all countries, unite!
- danju 2y ago[dead]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago"Trust beneficiary objects to trust busting."
- nostromo 2y agoApple has known their deal with Google was on shaky legal ground for some time. They should have been buying search engine startups and developing one internally for at least a decade now.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y agoThe title is not accurate. This is a motion for a stay pending an appeal. Apple already moved to intervene ("become a defendant") back on December 23, 2024. It was not an emergency motion. That motion was denied on January 27, 2025. Read the Opinion: https://ia800602.us.archive.org/6/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.223205/gov.uscourts.dcd.223205.1153.0.pdf https://ia800602.us.archive.org/6/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.223... Apple now wishes to appeal. The top comment states "When they asked to file some briefs they were denied." In fact, the court will allow Apple to file an amicus brief: "The court hereby grants Apple permission to participate as amicus curiae and file a posthearing brief alongside the parties. If Mr. Cue is called to testify at the evidentiary hearing, Apple may also submit an affidavit from one additional fact witness that addresses facts not covered by Mr. Cue's testimony. If Mr. Cue is not called to testify, Apple may submit two affidavits from fact witnesses, in addition to a post-hearing brief."