Lennoniano
22/11/63
Parece un tagline.
- Autor vdky
- Fecha de inicio
Lennoniano
22/11/63
Tiempos complicados para las grandes tecnológicas.
Ayer salió la sentencia del caso U.S. et al. v. Google, en la que el juez Mehta (curiosa coincidencia con el competidor Meta), considera probado que Google es un monopolista, y ha actuado como tal para mantener su monopolio.
Podéis descargar la sentencia desde https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/598us2r25_i32j.pdf
Os dejo el enlace y el texto del artículo del New York Times, que es para suscriptores.
www.nytimes.com
Ayer salió la sentencia del caso U.S. et al. v. Google, en la que el juez Mehta (curiosa coincidencia con el competidor Meta), considera probado que Google es un monopolista, y ha actuado como tal para mantener su monopolio.
Podéis descargar la sentencia desde https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/598us2r25_i32j.pdf
Os dejo el enlace y el texto del artículo del New York Times, que es para suscriptores.
‘Google Is a Monopolist,’ Judge Rules in Landmark Antitrust Case
The ruling on Google’s search dominance was the first antitrust decision of the modern internet era in a case against a technology giant.
‘Google Is a Monopolist,’ Judge Rules in Landmark Antitrust Case
The ruling on Google’s search dominance was the first antitrust decision of the modern internet era in a case against a technology giant.
Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search, a federal judge ruled on Monday, a landmark decision that strikes at the power of tech giants in the modern internet era and that may fundamentally alter the way they do business.
Judge Amit P. Mehta of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said in a 277-page ruling that Google had abused a monopoly over the search business. The Justice Department and states had sued Google, accusing it of illegally cementing its dominance, in part, by paying other companies, like Apple and Samsung, billions of dollars a year to have Google automatically handle search queries on their smartphones and web browsers.
“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Judge Mehta said in his ruling.
The ruling is a harsh verdict on the rise of giant technology companies that have used their roots in the internet to influence the way we shop, consume information and search online — and indicates a potential limit of Big Tech’s power. It is likely to influence other government antitrust lawsuits against Google, Apple, Amazon and Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The last significant antitrust ruling against a tech company targeted Microsoft more than two decades ago.
“This is the most important antitrust case of the century, and it’s the first of a big slate of cases to come down against Big Tech,” said Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt University’s law school who studies antitrust. “It’s a huge turning point.”
The decision is a major blow to Google, which was built on its search engine and has become so closely associated with online search that its name has become a verb. The ruling could have major ramifications for Google’s success, especially as the company spends heavily to compete in the race over artificial intelligence. Google faces another federal antitrust case over ad technology that is scheduled to go to trial next month.
Monday’s ruling did not include remedies for Google’s behavior. Judge Mehta will now decide that, potentially forcing the company to change the way it runs or to sell off part of its business.
What the Judge Said in His Ruling
“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.”
Judge Mehta’s ruling capped a yearslong case — U.S. et al. v. Google — that resulted in a 10-week trial last year. The Justice Department and states sued in 2020 over Google’s dominance in online search, which generates billions in profits annually. The Justice Department said Google’s search engine conducted nearly 90 percent of web searches, a number the company disputed.
The company spends billions of dollars annually to be the automatic search engine on browsers like Apple’s Safari and Mozilla’s Firefox. Google paid Apple about $18 billion for being the default in 2021, The New York Times has reported.
“This landmark decision holds Google accountable,” Jonathan Kanter, the top Justice Department antitrust official, said in a statement. “It paves the path for innovation for generations to come and protects access to information for all Americans.”
Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs, said the company would appeal the ruling.
“This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” he said. “As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.”
During the trial, Microsoft’s chief executive, Satya Nadella, testified that he was concerned that his competitor’s dominance had created a “Google web” and that its relationship with Apple was “oligopolistic.” If Google continued undeterred, it was likely to become dominant in the race to develop artificial intelligence, he said.
Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, countered in his testimony that Google created a better service for consumers.
Users choose to search on Google because they find it useful, and the company has continued to invest to make it better, the company’s lawyers said.
“Google is winning because it’s better,” John Schmidtlein, Google’s lead courtroom lawyer, said during closing arguments, which were held months later in May.
The government argued that by paying billions of dollars to be the automatic search engine on consumer devices, Google had denied its competitors the opportunity to build the scale required to compete with its search engine. Instead, Google collected more data about consumers that it used to make its search engine better and more dominant.
Judge Mehta sided with the government, saying Google had a monopoly over general online search services. The company’s agreements to be the automatic search engine on devices and web browsers hurt competition, making it harder for rivals to challenge Google’s dominance.
For more than a decade, those agreements “have given Google access to scale that its rivals cannot match,” Judge Mehta wrote.
The government also accused Google of protecting a monopoly over the ads that run inside search results. Government lawyers said Google had raised the price of ads beyond the rates that should exist in a free market, which they argued was a sign of the company’s power. Search ads provide billions of dollars in annual revenue for Google.
Judge Mehta ruled that Google’s monopoly allowed it to inflate the prices for some search ads. That, in turn, gave the company more money to pay for its search engine to get prime placement, he said.
“Unconstrained price increases have fueled Google’s dramatic revenue growth and allowed it to maintain high and remarkably stable operating profits,” he said in the ruling.
Judge Mehta ruled in Google’s favor on some lesser claims. Google offers advertisers many tools, including one that they use to manage advertising on different search engines. State attorneys general argued during the trial that Google had illegally excluded Microsoft’s search engine, Bing, from aspects of those tools. But Judge Mehta ruled against their claim.
Legal scholars expect this decision to influence government antitrust lawsuits against the other tech giants. All of those investigations, conducted by the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department, began during the Trump administration and have ramped up under President Biden.
The Justice Department has sued Apple, arguing that the company made it difficult for consumers to ditch the iPhone, and brought the other case against Google. The F.T.C. has separately sued Meta, claiming the company stamped out nascent competitors, and Amazon, accusing it of squeezing sellers on its online marketplace.
With those cases, the government is testing hundred-year-old laws originally used to rein in utility and other monopolistic companies like Standard Oil.
A victory for the government provides credibility for its broader attempt to use antitrust laws to take aim at corporate America, said William Kovacic, a former chairman of the F.T.C.
“It creates momentum that supports their other cases,” he said in an interview in June.
Google has also faced antitrust scrutiny in Europe, where officials charged the company last year with undermining rivals in online advertising.
The last major U.S. court ruling on a tech antitrust case — in the Justice Department’s 1990s lawsuit against Microsoft — cast its own shadow over the Google arguments. Judge Mehta repeatedly pressed lawyers to explain how the specifics of the case against Google could fit into the legal precedents.
The Microsoft antitrust case alleged that the tech giant combined practices like bullying industry partners and leveraging the popularity of its digital platform, from which users typically didn’t switch, to stifle competition.
A District Court judge initially ruled against Microsoft on most counts of possible antitrust violations and ordered a breakup of the company, but an appeals court reversed some of those decisions. President George W. Bush’s administration settled with the company in 2001.
Steve Lohr contributed reporting from New York.
krell4u
Miembro habitual
Es que lo de Google, entre otras, clama al cielo.
EL PAÍS
elpais.com
Enviado desde mi CPH2247 mediante Tapatalk
Dividir Google: las autoridades estadounidenses estudian soluciones para romper el monopolio de la tecnológica
El navegador Chrome, el sistema operativo Android y la plataforma de publicidad Adwords están entre los principales negocios que podrían ser escindidas del negocio de Alphabet, asegura Bloomberg
elpais.com
Enviado desde mi CPH2247 mediante Tapatalk
Romper Google: el plan que Estados Unidos baraja para acabar con el monopolio del buscador
La Justicia estadounidense podría forzar al gigante tecnológico a compartir datos a buscadores rivales o a desprenderse de negocios como el sistema operativo Android o el navegador Chrome
www.elperiodico.com
Enviado desde mi CPH2247 mediante Tapatalk
EL PAÍS
elpais.com
Ya podrían usar esos datos para mejorar Discover.
Enviado desde mi CPH2247 mediante Tapatalk
Google es un monopolio
La sentencia que condena al gigante digital por posición dominante supone un paso clave para regular el poder de las tecnológicas
elpais.com
Ya podrían usar esos datos para mejorar Discover.
Enviado desde mi CPH2247 mediante Tapatalk
Ese es un problema, por ejemplo si les hace por ejemplo desprenderse de Android y los acuerdos que quizás hagan que los teléfonos salgan más a cuenta. Porque para lo bueno y para lo malísimo, ha logrado formar un ecosistema que no es sustituible. Es un monopolio, sobretodo fuera de EEUU dónde el monopolio está en Apple y Google integrado que puede que tenga en ecosistema IOS más importancia que las propias soluciones de Apple.
Pero fuera de ahí, y del planeta chino que no podemos comprender, Google es determinante en todo. No por las GAPPS, sino esas cositas que podemos denominar APIS de Google y que están también muy integradas en aplicaciones de tercero que "deben" ir de base en cualquier teléfono como la mensajería de Meta. O las soluciones de seguridad para pagos.
Son pequeñas cositas por las que una persona normal pasa.
Pero fuera de ahí, y del planeta chino que no podemos comprender, Google es determinante en todo. No por las GAPPS, sino esas cositas que podemos denominar APIS de Google y que están también muy integradas en aplicaciones de tercero que "deben" ir de base en cualquier teléfono como la mensajería de Meta. O las soluciones de seguridad para pagos.
Son pequeñas cositas por las que una persona normal pasa.
El problema es mantener el monopolio con prácticas abusivas, no el monopolio per se. Y ese es el problema de Google.
Ya, pero el dilema es ¿qué haces? Has dejado que esto se vaya reforzando años y años sin haber hecho nada. ¿Ahora surge la urgencia desde la justicia? ¿Ahora? ¿Desde EEUU dónde además Android es un gran desconocido? ¿Cómo afecta esto al resto del mundo?
Vamos a dejar primero un punto claro, a mí Google como si la sede sale ardiendo. Ayer viendo Alien Romulus iba con el Alien, como cualquier persona racional, pero cuando hablamos de empresas, que una tenga ese poder que incluso ya hubiera querido para sí Bill Gates, pues me la pela. Ya lo he criticado varias veces y ya he dicho, que está todo muy, muy localizado en torno a Google, y todo debe funcionar como ellos te digan, en su fondo y en su forma, con un Android libre extrañamente cerrado en dispositivos adaptados al hardware mediante javas y mierdas, y que fuera de la base con sus Apis, pues se convierte en ladrillos para gente con sombreritos de papel albal.
Pero ahora romper eso puede tener consecuencias, porque en Europa hemos dejado que Google tenga el mercado por ejemplo. No hemos logrado poner un ecosistema propio, aunque sea a partir de AOSP que haga que lo marcado por Google no sea la norma. Pero no, aquí estamos... lo máximo que hemos hecho es Spotify y el navegador Vivaldi que no usa nadie.
Vamos a dejar primero un punto claro, a mí Google como si la sede sale ardiendo. Ayer viendo Alien Romulus iba con el Alien, como cualquier persona racional, pero cuando hablamos de empresas, que una tenga ese poder que incluso ya hubiera querido para sí Bill Gates, pues me la pela. Ya lo he criticado varias veces y ya he dicho, que está todo muy, muy localizado en torno a Google, y todo debe funcionar como ellos te digan, en su fondo y en su forma, con un Android libre extrañamente cerrado en dispositivos adaptados al hardware mediante javas y mierdas, y que fuera de la base con sus Apis, pues se convierte en ladrillos para gente con sombreritos de papel albal.
Pero ahora romper eso puede tener consecuencias, porque en Europa hemos dejado que Google tenga el mercado por ejemplo. No hemos logrado poner un ecosistema propio, aunque sea a partir de AOSP que haga que lo marcado por Google no sea la norma. Pero no, aquí estamos... lo máximo que hemos hecho es Spotify y el navegador Vivaldi que no usa nadie.
Tim
Miembro habitual
- Mensajes
- 32.981
- Reacciones
- 24.889
Hay juicio de dos semanas previsto para abril. Google ha de vender Chrome a otra empresa o separarlo en otra entidad donde ellos no tengan toda la parte de la empresa. Parece que una alternativa podría ser que Google deje de pagar a terceros para que usen su buscador como predeterminado (como en dispositivos Apple). Pero lo llevan crudo. Y esto no viene de la malvada Unión Europea, lo está llevando el Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos. Veremos en qué acaba, pero puede ser uno de los cambios más importantes en la industria en muchos años.
Tim
Miembro habitual
- Mensajes
- 32.981
- Reacciones
- 24.889
Google ingresa al menos 20.000 millones de dólares anuales a Apple, porque además de pagar por ser el buscador predeterminado, les pagan un porcentaje de la publicidad generada a través de Safari. Poca coña que les corten este grifo, teniendo en cuenta que Apple gasta unos 30.000 millones al año en I+D.
No te preocupes que Apple lo compensará, como la inflación... +200 cada teléfono 