21–30 of 663 posts
The headline is not great because Google will obviously appeal the ruling to the appeals court of DC, and if they have to, the Supreme Court. A lot can happy from now and then. And this may take many years to grind through the court system. I wonder if there exists AI models of all the super senior and important judges so we can venture how this will play out through the court system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think it's better if all companies with competitive moats have a collapse in share price? I'm not really understanding what you're implying here.
I don't understand. The court has ruled this already a year ago: > Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly What should be the effect of antitrust enforcement to a monopolists share price? We are looking at something structural after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could the final vertict be worse for Google?
There are ways if could be, such as new evidence coming to light, but generally no. You don't want a system where people are punished for appealing.
The BBC is reporting the exact opposite of this headline. "It's also free to keep making payments to partners such as Apple, to secure placement of its browser - another closely watched and contentious part of the case." https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cg50dlj9gm4t Edit: Even the CNBC body text contradicts its own headline. The confusion seems to be what "exclusive" means. "The company can make payments to preload prod…
CNBC also says "illegally held a monopololy". When they can't spell, it's a sign the article was poorly rushed?
What does this mean for Mozilla? Where would Mozilla get their 80% of revenue from if Google now has to probably sever and end their search deal for Firefox? [0]. [0] https://www.theverge.com/news/660548/firefox-google-search-r...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand. The court has ruled this already a year ago: > Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly What should be the effect of antitrust enforcement to a monopolists share price? We are looking at something structural after all.
Why should shareholders have to suffer just because the Google engineers were good at their job?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand. The court has ruled this already a year ago: > Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly What should be the effect of antitrust enforcement to a monopolists share price? We are looking at something structural after all.
Why should shareholders have to suffer just because the Google engineers were good at their job?
However, for whatever reason, the judge decided that penalty was basically slap on the wrist and finger wagging.
This is an astonishing victory for Google, they must be very happy about it. They get basically everything they want (keeping it all in the tent), plus a negotiating position on search deals where they can refuse something because they can't do it now. Quite why the judge is so concerned about the rise of AI factoring in here is beyond me. It's fundamentally an anticompetitive decision.
Maybe because this remains Googles biggest threat. I'm still more impressed by other models. Public ones at least.
This is an astonishing victory for Google, they must be very happy about it. They get basically everything they want (keeping it all in the tent), plus a negotiating position on search deals where they can refuse something because they can't do it now. Quite why the judge is so concerned about the rise of AI factoring in here is beyond me. It's fundamentally an anticompetitive decision.