4 ms·

DOJ asks for judgement requiring Google to divest Chrome [pdf]

32 points by stefan_ 2y ago

tyleo 2y ago
I wonder if Google will be able to get out of this by making a concession to Trump like boosting or dampening search results for some topics.
- 9283409232 2y ago
  Much like Tiktok getting a reprieve for suppressing negative videos about Trump or Elon.
  - rcpt 2y ago
    Hadn't heard about that what happened?
    - 9283409232 2y ago
      A couple publications posted stories that anti Trump searches were hidden after Tiktok came back online but anti Biden ones were not. https://www.ibtimes.com/anti-trump-searches-appear-hidden-tiktok-after-app-comes-back-online-tiktok-now-trumps-3760257 https://www.ibtimes.com/anti-trump-searches-appear-hidden-ti...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
roenxi 2y ago
Anyone can go build a web browser if they want to. Google just happens to be the company with the best overlap between competence and motivation to make it comfortable for users to use the internet. Since the world has a pretty good read on which company has the best competence/motivation overlap, it is silly to try and ban them from maintaining a web browser. The next best alternative isn't going to be as good. Also, would it kill the lawyers to include an abstract that doesn't use the words "whereas" and MENTALLY unsound STYLE capitalisation?
- cosmic_cheese 2y ago
  The problem is that it also has massive conflicts of interest, which probably shouldn’t be ignored.
- ajross 2y ago
  Almost literally everyone that tried to build a web browser gave up and just reskins Chrome now. Of the two outliers, one exists only because its very successful hardware vendor preloads it and disallows competitors, and the other is mostly funded by Chrome's owner anyway. Basically: without Chrome, Firefox dies (Mozilla is mostly a zombie now already) and Apple closes up shop on Safari a-la IE6. The end result of an order like this will be the death of the world wide web as a platform for new applications.
  - nickpsecurity 2y ago
    Didn't Mozilla make it's money on search? If so, how would Chrome disappearing kill Firefox which is independently developed and funded differently? On responding Chrome, I'll add that's partly because Google controlled Search and Chrome which helped Chrome get dominant. Then, web site owners made pages good for Chrome by default. Then, it was harder to compete with Chrome since everyone had to imitate it. If it's independent (or even weakened), that might reverse a bit. Might not.
    - 9283409232 2y ago
      Saying Mozilla made its money on search is misleading. It made money because Google paid to be the default search engine. Without that deal Mozilla would be in a much worse state. It's why Mozilla is scrambling to become an ad company.
      - somanyphotons 2y ago
        Perhaps Mozilla could build an ad-supported search engine, seeing that google appears to be giving up search
      - 2y ago
greyface- 2y ago
Full docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/united-states-of-america-v-google-llc/?order_by=desc https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/united-states-...
perihelions 2y ago
Also, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42177767 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42177767 ("DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome (bloomberg.com)", 3 months ago, 1450 comments)
9283409232 2y ago
I assumed that Sundar budding up to Trump was to get this killed in the water among other benefits so I wonder if this will pan out or if Trump will step in.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  It's been a transition, but, one of the parts I've learned to be thankful for, as a newly experienced citizen under fascism, is the link between paternal fascism and bread and circus. I missed in my 2008 era Poli Sci that there was a link between the two
- creato 2y ago
  Trump is going to demand a lot more than the few million Google donated for that. I doubt Trump would settle for anything less than a public grovelling to every Google/YouTube user (like TikTok), serious and significant pro-Trump tinkering with the ranking algorithms, or maybe a few billion purchase of $TRUMP.
  - 9283409232 2y ago
    I'm sure he'd settle for downranking every journalist he doesn't like and increasing the rank of every news source that fellates him.
comrade1234 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mritun 2y ago
“Divesting” Chrome does not even make much sense. Divestment means owner must sell the assets to an unrelated party so $$$ must trade hands in exchange for something of value. Here is me “thinking aloud”, I don’t have that kind of money to buy Chrome. Assuming someone has the funds to buy Chrome, they will end up buying the IP and brand. The IP is copyright on the code which is mostly open source, proprietary Google services integration bits, and then the brand. I can see value in buying the patents & copyright to the codebase and taking it private to build a proprietary State of the art browser to sell or bundle for free with Ads. Nobody is going to pay for a browser in 2025 so Mritun’s Chrome (my brand - I can’t call it Google Chrome anymore) is going to be ad supported. I might have to think of paid V8 runtimes like Mritun’s Electron and Mritun’s NodeJS to extract maximum value from my investment. All in, in these high interest-rate environment, I do not see someone buying Chrome to fund it for free - however a lot of ecosystems depend on Chrome, so the best bet would be to use copyright and patents to go after the users. If I have money, I can totally see buying Chrome for approx $100M and then going after monetization.
- drivingmenuts 2y ago
  A lot of the value of Chrome is in the expertise of it's developers - so whoever buys it better get those devs or they're not going to get far. Might not be necessary, though. A quick transfusion of cash to our sitting President will bring that action to a screeching halt.
- xnx 2y ago
  There is soooo much scummy surveillance and data stealing that a nefarious owner of Chrome could achieve. People say Google is "evil" but that isn't a fraction of the total tracking and wholesale private content harvesting a different owner would monetize.
  - mritun 2y ago
    Frankly there isn’t much money in surveillance - with the “Google” and the four colors gone I doubt the “Chrome” brand is going to be worth much. “Blackrock Private Equity LLC Chrome” just does not have the ring. The money is in Chrome patents and copyright. One can go to town and blitzkrieg the NodeJS ecosystem which has super deep pockets. SCO will look baby-talk.
morninglight 2y ago
Google should sell Chrome to Microsoft, and Microsoft should sell Edge to Google. Sounds like a plan only the DOJ would love.

32 points by stefan_ 2y ago

I wonder if Google will be able to get out of this by making a concession to Trump like boosting or dampening search results for some topics.

9283409232 2y ago
Much like Tiktok getting a reprieve for suppressing negative videos about Trump or Elon.
- rcpt 2y ago
  Hadn't heard about that what happened?
  - 9283409232 2y ago
    A couple publications posted stories that anti Trump searches were hidden after Tiktok came back online but anti Biden ones were not. https://www.ibtimes.com/anti-trump-searches-appear-hidden-tiktok-after-app-comes-back-online-tiktok-now-trumps-3760257 https://www.ibtimes.com/anti-trump-searches-appear-hidden-ti...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

roenxi 2y ago

Anyone can go build a web browser if they want to. Google just happens to be the company with the best overlap between competence and motivation to make it comfortable for users to use the internet. Since the world has a pretty good read on which company has the best competence/motivation overlap, it is silly to try and ban them from maintaining a web browser. The next best alternative isn't going to be as good. Also, would it kill the lawyers to include an abstract that doesn't use the words "whereas" and MENTALLY unsound STYLE capitalisation?

cosmic_cheese 2y ago
The problem is that it also has massive conflicts of interest, which probably shouldn’t be ignored.
ajross 2y ago
Almost literally everyone that tried to build a web browser gave up and just reskins Chrome now. Of the two outliers, one exists only because its very successful hardware vendor preloads it and disallows competitors, and the other is mostly funded by Chrome's owner anyway. Basically: without Chrome, Firefox dies (Mozilla is mostly a zombie now already) and Apple closes up shop on Safari a-la IE6. The end result of an order like this will be the death of the world wide web as a platform for new applications.
- nickpsecurity 2y ago
  Didn't Mozilla make it's money on search? If so, how would Chrome disappearing kill Firefox which is independently developed and funded differently? On responding Chrome, I'll add that's partly because Google controlled Search and Chrome which helped Chrome get dominant. Then, web site owners made pages good for Chrome by default. Then, it was harder to compete with Chrome since everyone had to imitate it. If it's independent (or even weakened), that might reverse a bit. Might not.
  - 9283409232 2y ago
    Saying Mozilla made its money on search is misleading. It made money because Google paid to be the default search engine. Without that deal Mozilla would be in a much worse state. It's why Mozilla is scrambling to become an ad company.
    - somanyphotons 2y ago
      Perhaps Mozilla could build an ad-supported search engine, seeing that google appears to be giving up search
    - 2y ago

greyface- 2y ago

Full docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/united-states-of-america-v-google-llc/?order_by=desc https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/united-states-...

perihelions 2y ago

Also, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42177767 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42177767 ("DOJ will push Google to sell off Chrome (bloomberg.com)", 3 months ago, 1450 comments)

9283409232 2y ago

I assumed that Sundar budding up to Trump was to get this killed in the water among other benefits so I wonder if this will pan out or if Trump will step in.

refulgentis 2y ago
It's been a transition, but, one of the parts I've learned to be thankful for, as a newly experienced citizen under fascism, is the link between paternal fascism and bread and circus. I missed in my 2008 era Poli Sci that there was a link between the two
creato 2y ago
Trump is going to demand a lot more than the few million Google donated for that. I doubt Trump would settle for anything less than a public grovelling to every Google/YouTube user (like TikTok), serious and significant pro-Trump tinkering with the ranking algorithms, or maybe a few billion purchase of $TRUMP.
- 9283409232 2y ago
  I'm sure he'd settle for downranking every journalist he doesn't like and increasing the rank of every news source that fellates him.

comrade1234 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mritun 2y ago

“Divesting” Chrome does not even make much sense. Divestment means owner must sell the assets to an unrelated party so $$$ must trade hands in exchange for something of value. Here is me “thinking aloud”, I don’t have that kind of money to buy Chrome. Assuming someone has the funds to buy Chrome, they will end up buying the IP and brand. The IP is copyright on the code which is mostly open source, proprietary Google services integration bits, and then the brand. I can see value in buying the patents & copyright to the codebase and taking it private to build a proprietary State of the art browser to sell or bundle for free with Ads. Nobody is going to pay for a browser in 2025 so Mritun’s Chrome (my brand - I can’t call it Google Chrome anymore) is going to be ad supported. I might have to think of paid V8 runtimes like Mritun’s Electron and Mritun’s NodeJS to extract maximum value from my investment. All in, in these high interest-rate environment, I do not see someone buying Chrome to fund it for free - however a lot of ecosystems depend on Chrome, so the best bet would be to use copyright and patents to go after the users. If I have money, I can totally see buying Chrome for approx $100M and then going after monetization.

drivingmenuts 2y ago
A lot of the value of Chrome is in the expertise of it's developers - so whoever buys it better get those devs or they're not going to get far. Might not be necessary, though. A quick transfusion of cash to our sitting President will bring that action to a screeching halt.
xnx 2y ago
There is soooo much scummy surveillance and data stealing that a nefarious owner of Chrome could achieve. People say Google is "evil" but that isn't a fraction of the total tracking and wholesale private content harvesting a different owner would monetize.
- mritun 2y ago
  Frankly there isn’t much money in surveillance - with the “Google” and the four colors gone I doubt the “Chrome” brand is going to be worth much. “Blackrock Private Equity LLC Chrome” just does not have the ring. The money is in Chrome patents and copyright. One can go to town and blitzkrieg the NodeJS ecosystem which has super deep pockets. SCO will look baby-talk.

morninglight 2y ago

Google should sell Chrome to Microsoft, and Microsoft should sell Edge to Google. Sounds like a plan only the DOJ would love.