In the 'Rocket Docket' court, the Google trial starts with fights over market definition. If Google is a monopoly, why does it compete with a host of other platforms, like Meta, Amazon, and TikTok?
Thanks for being there! I feel like the government is letting BS fly by.
Mr. Casale testified that it was not common for publishers to create their own ad servers, citing the complexities and expertise involved, and that in today’s day and age a publisher would likely also need to itself be a tech company in order to do so. NOT TRUE this is pretty low level stuff. I bet you could do it with the help of AI in a month.
He also testified that it is not common for publishers to switch ad servers, describing how entrenched ad servers become in a publisher at a business level, making it onerous to switch, creating high switching costs and structural disincentives. NOT TRUE. It's the management tool that's embedded, the servers are simply called by the tool.
Why I can say this with total confidence.....In the mid 2000s ad servers were popping up like weeds. My teeny tiny company (rebounding from being disappeared on Google search) created software that allowed publishers to manage/work with multiple ad servers. It took us just a few months to repurpose our bespoke system (that worked with DoubleClick, Google, etc. etc.) as a service. During that time, Google bought Double Click and altered their ad manager to ostensibly work with others and then made changes so that their ad server would not work outside their management tool forcing publishers into their system. We never brought our service to market but I still have a box of ADQ pens we had made for our first trade show.
Thanks for being there! I feel like the government is letting BS fly by.
Mr. Casale testified that it was not common for publishers to create their own ad servers, citing the complexities and expertise involved, and that in today’s day and age a publisher would likely also need to itself be a tech company in order to do so. NOT TRUE this is pretty low level stuff. I bet you could do it with the help of AI in a month.
He also testified that it is not common for publishers to switch ad servers, describing how entrenched ad servers become in a publisher at a business level, making it onerous to switch, creating high switching costs and structural disincentives. NOT TRUE. It's the management tool that's embedded, the servers are simply called by the tool.
Why I can say this with total confidence.....In the mid 2000s ad servers were popping up like weeds. My teeny tiny company (rebounding from being disappeared on Google search) created software that allowed publishers to manage/work with multiple ad servers. It took us just a few months to repurpose our bespoke system (that worked with DoubleClick, Google, etc. etc.) as a service. During that time, Google bought Double Click and altered their ad manager to ostensibly work with others and then made changes so that their ad server would not work outside their management tool forcing publishers into their system. We never brought our service to market but I still have a box of ADQ pens we had made for our first trade show.
Is there a way to call more attention to the denial of electronic devices in the courtroom? Its ridiculous and an abuse of judicial power.
Again, thank you! Important reading,
I'm a bit bewildered by Mr. Casale's statements under cross. He seems to be undermining the government's case...or am I over-analyzing his testimony?