If the side data is not important, then Google will not be harmed if Judge Mehta orders it to be shared. (This is a type of ad hominem argument--take the person’s position to its logical conclusion to show their argument does not hold water.)
Without taking anything away from this stack’s original writer, I’d just like to say you guys are doing an amazing job of writing of late. The quality, clarity, and expressiveness have all really gone up. I’ve read this stack from day one, so don’t misunderstand--it’s always been great. But what a resource you’re creating.
Something I have read: Is it correct that Microsoft lost the case under Democrat Party control but settled it with the newly elected Republican Party and thus didn't face the damage it could have faced it the Democrat Party stayed in power ?
It has been a long time so my memory might be off, but there are two important points. 1. Because Microsoft did not foresee the importance of the internet, the case against them was already practically mute. 2. I think it was Fred McChesney that pointed out that Microsoft did little or no lobbying until the antitrust case against them. That is they were not paying off the government not to take action against them. He calls this rent extraction. They learned their lesson.
Anyway, if Google loses the interesting thing will be whether the penalties actually make consumers better off or are imposed to give government more power to extract money from them.
Google is monopolistic, but I'm not so sure Oard is right in the specific context of Google versus Bing. I'd be pretty surprised if there's *that* much marginal value in the extra user interaction data that Google has versus Bing. If there is I'd expect that it's more due to bias in the Bing data (towards very un tech savvy oldsters who use the default Explorer/Edge browser on their windows machines and don't change the default search) rather than Bing not having enough data.
I'd say the monopolistic practice is the cartel aspect of making Google by default the far dominant search choice such that they are essentially a monopsony in the ad market. Google search has gotten worse and worse and worse as they continue to shift towards optimizing for Google margin rather than search quality. So I'd say arguing about the source of Google search quality is the wrong question.
If the side data is not important, then Google will not be harmed if Judge Mehta orders it to be shared. (This is a type of ad hominem argument--take the person’s position to its logical conclusion to show their argument does not hold water.)
Without taking anything away from this stack’s original writer, I’d just like to say you guys are doing an amazing job of writing of late. The quality, clarity, and expressiveness have all really gone up. I’ve read this stack from day one, so don’t misunderstand--it’s always been great. But what a resource you’re creating.
Thank you for a very nice summary of the case.
is lawyer David Boies right that the DOJ is not attacking Google's credibility enough?
https://www.economist.com/business/2023/11/16/how-to-think-about-the-google-anti-monopoly-trial
Something I have read: Is it correct that Microsoft lost the case under Democrat Party control but settled it with the newly elected Republican Party and thus didn't face the damage it could have faced it the Democrat Party stayed in power ?
It has been a long time so my memory might be off, but there are two important points. 1. Because Microsoft did not foresee the importance of the internet, the case against them was already practically mute. 2. I think it was Fred McChesney that pointed out that Microsoft did little or no lobbying until the antitrust case against them. That is they were not paying off the government not to take action against them. He calls this rent extraction. They learned their lesson.
Anyway, if Google loses the interesting thing will be whether the penalties actually make consumers better off or are imposed to give government more power to extract money from them.
Will one of the largest corporations on the planet be able to lie, cheat and buy their way out of be called what they are, a full blown monopoly!
Professor Oard’s response to Professor Fox’s central conclusion: “I disagree and I’m surprised Professor Fox doesn’t disagree with this conclusion.”
I surmise Fox would throw his grandmother under a bus for a Google payday.
Google is monopolistic, but I'm not so sure Oard is right in the specific context of Google versus Bing. I'd be pretty surprised if there's *that* much marginal value in the extra user interaction data that Google has versus Bing. If there is I'd expect that it's more due to bias in the Bing data (towards very un tech savvy oldsters who use the default Explorer/Edge browser on their windows machines and don't change the default search) rather than Bing not having enough data.
I'd say the monopolistic practice is the cartel aspect of making Google by default the far dominant search choice such that they are essentially a monopsony in the ad market. Google search has gotten worse and worse and worse as they continue to shift towards optimizing for Google margin rather than search quality. So I'd say arguing about the source of Google search quality is the wrong question.