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

71–80 of 1001 posts

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

#71

Post by koolba »

ants_everywhere wrote: post #64
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

They’re probably advising a startup that does exactly that as a service. Lawfare-as-a-service would have incredible margins!

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

#72

Post by jeroenhd »

pvg wrote: post #29
amazingamazing wrote: post #25

Why not make all companies open up their data sets, and stop pay to play?

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

They don't have an illegal monopoly on AI data sets, though? This is attacking a random, unrelated Google branch.

The company that brought us AirBnB and Doordash arguing for fair and open markets should say enough about how honest their intentions are.

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

#73

Post by echelon »

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?

> Google is the reason for the current AI boom.

OpenAI is the reason for the current AI boom. Google wasn't productizing anything and didn't put any of this stuff out in the open. Where was their productization of the transformer?

If anything, it should show that Google malinvests. Maybe none of it would have seen the light of day. Only now that they've been threatened are they building products.

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

#74

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#75

Post by pvg »

jeroenhd wrote: post #72
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.

They don't have an illegal monopoly on AI data sets, though? This is attacking a random, unrelated Google branch. The company that brought us AirBnB and Doordash arguing for fair and open markets should say enough about how honest their intentions are.

I'm not talking about the merits of YC's brief, just the merits of the comment I'm replying to. "Why shouldn't we apply the proposed remedy for illegal behaviour on everyone" seems like a no-brainer to me.

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

#77

Post by mcherm »

xyzzy9563 wrote: post #47
chpatrick wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do basic research without being monopolistic.

There are many other search engine options, why should Google be punished for hiring the best people over decades to make the best one? Many consumers also switch their search to Google when presented with other options or defaults.

> why should Google be punished for hiring the best people over decades to make the best one?

Google should not be punished for having gained a near-monopoly by hiring the best people.

But perhaps their near-monopoly is due to other reasons like paying large amounts to ensure that they are the default option on various platforms. In this case, legal restrictions might be more appropriate.

How do we determine which of these proposed reasons for the near-monopoly is correct? We use a legal process where each side presents their evidence and a neutral party decides which is most credible.

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

#78

Post by jeroenhd »

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…

If developers bothered to put their apps on alternative stores with much lower rates, we wouldn't be in this mess. Amazon is shutting down their store because it turns out nobody is really all that interested in actual alternatives. Samsung has their own store but all I hear about it is people bitching that they already have Google Play and that it's "bloatware".

Huawei even sells phones without Google Play in the west! Of course the first thing people try to do on them is get Google Play working, because the cheap hardware is all people care about.

Sure, Apple has proven to be pretty shit about app cost, but Android does and always has offered alternative app stores, and it's the leading example of how much companies like Epic are lying through their teeth.

Consumers pay the 30% app tax on Android because the companies claiming to want to get rid of it don't actually want to invest in alternatives, they just want Apple and Google to host their games for free so they can make more money.

The same goes for a lot of these monopolies. People want options, but they don't want to pay for options. The result is a quick race to the bottom where only a few high-profit, low-margin companies dominate the market.

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

#79

Post by callc »

jeroenhd wrote: post #50
chpatrick wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do basic research without being monopolistic.

That's true, but if it weren't for Google's monopolist position, I doubt they'd have the money to throw at the wall for random research. For every AI transformer they revolutionized, there's a self-driving car project that's dragging on for decades. Had Google operated like a normal company, the risk/reward of this kind of research would've looked completely differently. Google's monopoly helped research along in the…

You certainly have a point. Places like google and bell labs have pushed innovation, apparently enabled by monopolies.

I would rather we don’t allow monopolies since they are so bad for society, regardless of some benefits.

Government funded research and private investment are still a thing, that doesn’t try to break the whole capitalism thing.

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

#80

Post by caesil »

brap wrote: post #67

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 a…

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.

Standard Oil is being competitive.

The U.S. oil refining and distribution industry is being anti-competitive.

Because they suck at competing against Standard Oil 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”.

And before someone tells me “that’s the Sherman Act”, 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.

(I hope this illustrates how easy it is to make this exact argument about literally any monopoly.)

Post reply on HN