Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- The US judges lack courage here. This means they help Google power through with its de-facto monopoly.
This is, interestingly, also against capitalism, since now you no longer have a truly free market; no real competition. It is just one giant blob contorlling (almost) everything. Every blind one sees how Google controls WAY too much. Youtube is part of Google too. It is a cash cow that excludes competitors.
by shevy-java - This isn't a matter of courage. They're doing what they want to do. Clinton's deregulation, especially of telecommunications, is what lead to our horrible present (he appointed this judge.) The judges that Obama appointed literally don't believe that antitrust should exist.by pessimizer
- At least there is Europe to enforce antitrust.by harrouet
- https://archive.is/rlAbY
Non-paywalled link
by GreenVulpine - > Google used anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in search and search advertising.by 2OEH8eoCRo0
- More information on the specific remedies in the USDOJ announcement: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-signi...
Sounds like it's not nothing, but also not much.
by bunderbunder - This is from last year (and a different trial).by minouye
- > said Attorney General Pamela Bondi.
That must have been in drafts for a while.
by bsimpson - While I lament another monopolistic tech giant yet again dodging the most meaningful regulatory consequences of their actions, the more useful meta-question is how these behomoths are now so reliably skirting major enforcement like break-ups. It's not that judges have gone soft or just that the current admin is nerfing enforcement (though they are), this trend goes back much further.
The biggest factor is that tech giants now 'pre-game' major anti-trust relevant actions through an internal compliance team staffed by former regulators. The result is the slam dunk smoking guns of 20 years ago are rare. Today's monopolists artfully push right up to the line between "red-handed" and "arguable". Then take measures to fuzz that line and kick up clouds of plausible deniability in the record. Imagine how hard it would be to convict an embezzler who was carefully coached during the crime by expert former prosecutors and forensic accountants.
by mrandish - Thank you for your thoughtful and eloquently crafted comment.by rkagerer
- That "Lake America" is doing a hell of a lot of work for Googleby jordanb
- As much as I love when people pretend Trump is the first government official to ever rename something, there is no evidence this had any impact on the court's decision.
- You mean by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema who was appointed by Clinton and has ruled against Trump policies/agenda regularly?by okdood64
- They didn't do anything special for "Lake America". Google's long standing maps policy is to show people the names that their government says they have. As soon as that name showed up in the US government's database it showed up for people in the US on Google Maps.
In Canada it shows up as "Lake Ontario" because that's what their government says it is. In the rest of the world it gets both names because the two governments whose territories it is in call it two different names.
by tzs - To all the people pissed about the "Lake America" stuff: why in the actual fuck do you want Google of all organizations to be arbiter of geographical info, instead of federal institutions that are (at least nominally) operated under democratic principles?
Don't you understand the horror of what you're suggesting: "I want Google to impose it's own personal value judgments over the government's."
Yes, I think it's incredibly stupid, 3rd grader childlike to call this "Lake America". But the problem is not Google, the problem is the ass hats we (collectively, even if not you/me personally) voted for. The problem is especially with our Congressional reps who have just neutered themselves in service to this stupidity. And I get it, our federal institutions have definitely showed their frailty lately, but I can't fathom then why people think the proper solution is to give more decision-making authority to Google.
- Isnt that updated by some national database and google just pulls that data? Apparently Apple Maps will also get it in a few days, since they get the data from them as well.by bitpush
- The judge was appointed by Clinton, so they've been in their role for decades now. It seems unlikely that someone who has served that long in her position would rule based on making the child in the White House happy.by strictnein
- > its ad tech business
now there's the euphemism of the day. Alphabet derives 75% of their revenue from Ads. It is their business.
by andsoitis - The article seems to distingish ads from ad tech, stating ads bring in a lot of revenue, but ad tech not. Kinda confused about what the difference is.by edg5000
- They lost in court, and were found to be a Monopoly. The solution is they tell the court, "sorry we will stop abusing our behaviour now", and then it's just all good?by crowcroft
- all the "donations" are working, hence this. same with the meta case too.by newtwentysix
- We should just progressively tax monopolies. Companies will break themselves up to compete, no decade long DOJ case needed.by siliconc0w
- You may be surprised to learn that the US corporate tax (yes, that one, the main one we already have and everyone pays) was originally introduced in 1909 specifically as an antitrust measure, to clip the wings of US Steel and Standard Oil.
Of course the best laid taxes always get abused or turn into something else entirely.
by hammock - Yes, this, and we need to have this progressive tax be over the company's total assets, including subsidiaries.by falcor84
- > Google’s ad tech business brought in $30 billion last year, or about 8 percent of the revenue for its parent company, Alphabet. Its ad tech revenue has declined for 16 straight quarters, and analysts estimate it accounts for less than 1 percent of the company’s profit... “This is a business no one cares about"
Can someone closer to GOOG explain this? The phrase "ad tech" seems to have a very specific meaning here. Does this 1% include all advertising around the Web? Basically all ad revenue outside of Google's own properties? The number is surprisingly low.
by xp84 - Classic capitalism move. It’s not directly making much profit therefore it’s not important! When something that gives you outsized influence or control.. sometimes you would lose money just to control.
Something can be unprofitable but still extremely valuable. These companies are playing strategy games at the geopolitical level and money is not the only resource they want to accumulate to win the game…
by randysalami - By "ad tech" they apparently mean AdX, the part of Google that used to monetize the old open third-party Internet we used to have. (That old Internet that Google itself killed in favor of their walled-garden ecosystem.)
- i think the distinction is between ads that google sells vs software infrastructure for 3rd part ads (ad tech). ie the revenue's from google's ads on search, maps, youtube, etc are still huge and important -- that's google's advertising business, the eyeballs they sell, if you will. ad tech is google's business brokering ads on other sites, helping others sell their eyeballs.
at least this is how i understand it currently, but i don't know very much. happy to be corrected by someone who does.
by rguzman - If it is a business no one cares about, then why has Google been fighting this?
- I haven't been in ads there in, like, over a decade and some but I believe what was under threat here was specifically Google's ad exchange network. Basically third party bidding for space in Google's display ad network. Basically a part of the business which sells excess "inventory" and which is a much smaller part of their ad business than AdWords and AdSense. Or whatever they call these things now.
I used to work in AdX (and AdMeld that Google acquired) but not since 2014 or so. I believe the AdMeld acquisition itself was one of the things under the microscope here.