Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 1001 posts

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#61

Post by jeroenhd »

darth_avocado wrote: post #6

So they want Google’s datasets and search index to be available for other companies and want to prevent Google from being a dominant player in AI based search. I wonder why a VC firm who is quite heavily invested in AI based startups file an amicus brief like that… Edit: before this gets downvoted into oblivion, the comment is not against antitrust enforcement. It’s about VC firms having very specific ideas about wha…

You're right, YC is far from a neutral party here. But then again, I don't think any for-profit organisation spending the money on lawyers to write amicus briefs is.

They're looking for free data for their AI startups to make money off of, and with Google being in the middle of an antitrust catastrophe that may very well collapse web browser variety to two options in the next years, there's a lot of money to be made by stoking the flames.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#62

Post by Workaccount2 »

echelon wrote: post #19
legitster wrote: post #11

None of the proposed remedies benefit consumers.

We have two major phone operating systems and they charge a tax of 30%, which gets passed onto consumers. This should be zero if there was unlimited competition or web installation. There's also so much innovation happening in the mobile space right now. It's not like they're parked and reaping untold benefits. By having search monopolies, they've gamified paying for placement above your competitor's trademarks. Rath…

Ironically, Google has always allowed people to side-step the 30% tax.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#63

Post by bryanrasmussen »

dtech wrote: post #46
bloppe wrote: post #31

Google is the reason for the current AI boom. Without the transformer architecture they invented by funding basic research, there would be no modern LLMs. YC is arguing that their incentive for funding that basic research should be taken away in order to spur innovation?

[flagged]

the argument seems to be basically that if Google hadn't had a dominant position they would not have had the money to make a new technology that was important for the current AI wave, and they should have the right to exploit this technology that they helped create - disregarding that in the American system this is what patents exist to enable.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#64

Post by ants_everywhere »

hu3 wrote: post #49

These are the key points as I understand them: Amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief is being submitted by Y Combinator to pile on the US vs Google anti-trust case. YC asks court to basically cripple Google in their Search, Advertising and AI endeavours: - Open access to Google's datasets and search index. - Restrict Google's expansion into AI through monopolistic practices. - Limit Google exclusive agreements an…

Are they considering the ramifications of encouraging courts to let businesses loot their rivals for profit?

Seems like the court system may not be the best way to compete

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#65

Post by pvg »

amazingamazing wrote: post #45
pvg wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because all companies haven't been found to be illegal monopolies? Just like we don't fine everyone with a car for speeding.

Pay to play is inherently anti competitive though. All cars that speed are fined, not just the “big” ones. It’s also a fact that all companies opening up their data would make things more competitive. Moats are inherently anti competitive.

Pay to play is a really broad term (just skim the wikipedia page) and describing it as 'inherently anticompetitive' isn't saying much. There are also plenty of political, social and business arrangements that are deliberately anticompetitive by wide agreements of various sorts.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#66

Post by [deleted] »

hu3 wrote: post #49

These are the key points as I understand them: Amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief is being submitted by Y Combinator to pile on the US vs Google anti-trust case. YC asks court to basically cripple Google in their Search, Advertising and AI endeavours: - Open access to Google's datasets and search index. - Restrict Google's expansion into AI through monopolistic practices. - Limit Google exclusive agreements an…

[deleted]

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#67

Post by brap »

It’s amazing how twisted the term “anti-competitive” has become. Where anti-competitive companies push for anti-competitive regulations under the false pretense of preventing anti-competitiveness.

Google is being competitive.

YC is being anti-competitive.

Because they suck at competing against Google and they want to get unfair, unethical advantage themselves.

Imagine spending years and billions building something and then I show up and say “hey man that’s not fair, give me a slice of that thing for free. Oh and also I’m probably going to sell it back to you someday for a lot of money”.

And before someone tells me “that’s the law”, I don’t care. If that’s the law then it should be changed. Laws have been written (and lobbied) for all sorts of reasons and surprisingly not all of them are fair and ethical.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#68

Post by [deleted] »

hu3 wrote: post #49

These are the key points as I understand them: Amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief is being submitted by Y Combinator to pile on the US vs Google anti-trust case. YC asks court to basically cripple Google in their Search, Advertising and AI endeavours: - Open access to Google's datasets and search index. - Restrict Google's expansion into AI through monopolistic practices. - Limit Google exclusive agreements an…

[deleted]

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#69

Post by Zak »

amazingamazing wrote: post #28
echelon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have two major phone operating systems and they charge a tax of 30%, which gets passed onto consumers. This should be zero if there was unlimited competition or web installation. There's also so much innovation happening in the mobile space right now. It's not like they're parked and reaping untold benefits. By having search monopolies, they've gamified paying for placement above your competitor's trademarks. Rath…

The solution is for people to make web apps which are agnostic to platform and device, no?

A finding that preventing or discouraging installation of apps from anywhere but the first-party store constitutes use of market power to exclude competitors and fix prices in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act sounds like a great solution to me.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#70

Post by Workaccount2 »

voytec wrote: post #54
xyzzy9563 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they only have high market share because people want to use Google instead of the competitors. Many consumers switch their search engine to Google when presented with other defaults. Because Google search works the best and people know that.

The aggressive marketing of Chrome on Google Search website to users using other browsers was a significant part of Chrome adoption success. And no - some people didn't willingly and consciously switched to their search engine. It was pushed down their throats by browser vendors being paid-off by Google for setting it as the default one. Mozilla has overwritten user-changed search engine setting in Firefox with sever…

I don't know if you remember but it was just a few years ago that using search engines like bing was a shameful meme.
Post reply on HN