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

Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 236 posts

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#111

Post by deprecative »

havnagiggle wrote: post #91
lolinder wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft's size is part of what makes their testimony so valuable to the government here. If even Microsoft's CEO is willing to testify under oath that Google's practices make breaking into search impossible, that's extremely relevant to the case. Leaving that testimony out because there are smaller companies that are also hurt would be foolish. The ideal witness makeup would be composed of a combination of large, m…

I'll be honest and say your interpretation is probably right, and that's how the NY times reporter interpreted it. However, my strong anti-MS + all conglomerates (i.e., bias that would probably would have disqualified me from being on the jury heh) sees a guy only concerned about MS stock, taking a hypocritical jab at his direct competitor. I am mostly disappointed that it indicates to me (possibly incorrectly) that…

Isn't the FTC in court [0] with Microsoft over concerns of monopolist behavior?

[0] - https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-ftc-sets-date-internal-argu...

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#112

Post by jessriedel »

CPLX wrote: post #84
jpadkins wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

roughly: In the US, the state has to prove consumer harm. In the EU, the state has to prove competitor harm.

No it doesn't. There's truth to your statement in the sense that there's now a generation of confused judges that think this is true. But the plain language of US antitrust statutes is pretty clear on this point, simply engaging in certain kinds of anti-competitive behavior is illegal, you definitely do not need to prove that the illegal behavior had specific effects.

The plain language of the statute doesn't matter much once legal precedent is entrenched. This is especially true when the plain language is incredibly underspecified.

For those who don't know, the Sherman antitrust act has only two key paragraphs (and six procedural paragraphs).

> Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or other- wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, at the discretion of the court.

> Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof; shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-tr...

If we strip out the penalties, the words defining what's illegal are literally just "contract, ...trust..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce" and "monopolize any part of the trade or commerce".

Given that ambiguity, it's inevitable that courts will essentially have to write the law themselves.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#113

Post by enraged_camel »

anon25783 wrote: post #64
0xDEF wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny how eager Americans are to break up the Big Tech companies that happen to be the only reason the US economy is not a complete dumpster fire. Look at GDP growth for the US vs. the Eurozone since 2008. The high level of integration, both horizontal and vertical, is what makes the US Big Tech companies so economically productive and valuable. But sure. Kill your software industry. Does the US even know how to…

> the only reason the US economy is not a complete dumpster fire. The US economy is a complete dumpster fire for those of us worth less than seven figures. Big tech monopolization does not strengthen our productive capacity, and breaking up the big tech companies won't weaken it. If anything, it will strengthen the economy by making it more viable to found a tech startup without the explicit goal of being bought out.…

I’m all for breaking them up but I’m not convinced it will revitalize the industry. Google is enormous. Even if it is broken up, the resulting pieces will still be massive, and almost impossible to compete against.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#114

Post by deprecative »

PumpkinSpice wrote: post #25
didntknowya wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

though chatGPT seem to have had no trouble scraping data from everywhere

In the past couple of years, many large tech companies developed a legal theory that scraping the public web for "internal" purposes is OK, and that any ToS-based or technical restrictions are just suggestions that they don't have to follow. These "internal" purposes included growing your social network, monitoring or reverse-engineering the algorithms of competing search engines, and now, it includes training ML. Wh…

Technology patents create a complex MAD situation. At the end of the day Alphabet will be paying tons of money to Microsoft who will pay it to Apple who will pay it to Samsung who will pay it to probably Nokia or Xerox or Nintendo or whatever. And this goes on for each and every company with wealth in these spaces.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#115

Post by nielsbot »

CPLX wrote: post #84
jpadkins wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

roughly: In the US, the state has to prove consumer harm. In the EU, the state has to prove competitor harm.

No it doesn't. There's truth to your statement in the sense that there's now a generation of confused judges that think this is true. But the plain language of US antitrust statutes is pretty clear on this point, simply engaging in certain kinds of anti-competitive behavior is illegal, you definitely do not need to prove that the illegal behavior had specific effects.

"The consumer welfare standard gradually replaced the rule of reason principle as the dominant legal theory behind antitrust enforcement by the 1980s."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_welfare_standard

Maybe the judges are confused, but there was a shift in enforcement around the Reagan era. I also think "consumer welfare" in this context is taken to mainly maen low pricing. That is, if a monopoly causes higher prices, then we should go after them. The DOJ going after Google and Amazon is a bit of a return to the former standard. (Source: news programs I listen to such as The Majority Report.)

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#116

Post by lsh123 »

timmg wrote: post #90
BirAdam wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different CEO, probably different board, probably different majority share holders, different attitude toward customers, different products and principles, essentially a completely different company.

You forgot: different defendant.

Their unlawful spies and our brave intelligence officers.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#117

Post by aidenn0 »

bettercallsalad wrote: post #27

I am not following these testimonies in anti-trust cases where they have a competitor of Google testify against Google. Isn’t testifying all about presenting evidence? If I am accused of theft in a criminal court and my arch rival is brought for testimony against me, it doesn’t sound like a fair process to me. Of course if it’s a substantiated material it would make sense but otherwise it doesn’t just makes sense at…

I mean in the Activision case, the judge took the same person's testimony that they wouldn't make Activision games X-Box exclusives completely at face value, so there's precedent that they are completely honest even when conflict of interests are involved /s

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#118

Post by lotsofpulp »

stefan_ wrote: post #48
havnagiggle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am with you on this one. What the hell is this? Why is DOJ peddling for other trillion dollar companies? Microsft CEO is concerned for _Google's shareholders_? Are you serious? I don't believe a word of this guy. I'll just add, Bingbot has the same crawling opportunities as Googlebot. Nobody is stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website. It's also been 20+ years: Windows OS is constantly manipulating defau…

Well, actually, Google paying other companies to make Google the default is stopping Bing from getting traffic. That's why we are having this whole case, among other things. In general, making contracts with 3rd parties that negatively impact your competitors is sort of looked down upon.

>Well, actually, Google paying other companies to make Google the default is stopping Bing from getting traffic.

I cannot see how this is true.

Microsoft, with its tens of billions in annual profits, can invest in all the advertising in the world, literally, to let people know how to change the default browser on their iOS or Android device.

It is a trivial setting to change.

What is not trivial, for Microsoft, is creating a competitive search engine and advertising business.

Re: Microsoft CEO testifies that Google’s power in search is ubiquitous

#120

Post by whiddershins »

CPLX wrote: post #78
whiddershins wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The victims are the public. Edit: to clarify, I believe this is the actual legal basis of anti monopoly legislation. Protection of the interests of the public, not competitor companies.

For the most part the most direct victims of unfair competition practices are competitors.

The government doesn’t (or shouldn’t) care if a business beats another business in business.

They care if doing so harms the consumer by the route of lack of competition leading to higher prices and/or inferior product.

Post reply on HN