This is necessary now, but it should have been done years back. Nowadays, many companies backed up by investors with very deep pockets are doing this in all markets: start to buy middle-man companies in a space, it does not matter which one, dominate the market thanks to monopolistic power. Screw the clients making them pay too much, screw the providers paying them too little. Go for the next market. Google does this…
| This should be impossible, because there are laws against it. That’s what so remarkable: we have a robust system of antitrust laws in this country, they just haven’t been enforced in decades. Thank god the Biden admin started trying to use them again, and that Trump hasn’t stopped these cases in their tracks.
Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
331–340 of 510 posts
Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Look at the hundreds of millions wasted on the Windows / IE monopoly trial. That trial found Microsoft guilty of antitrust practices and ordered the company to be broken up. What caused it to be a waste of time was that Microsoft appealed the decision, which bought them enough time that the 2000 election happened and the Bush DoJ decided to give them a slap on the wrist instead of continuing to pursue a breakup.
An appellate court overturned & greatly limited the Microsoft decision and found that the judge had engaged in misconduct. An appellate court has nothing to do with the administration in charge at the time
>>An appellate court has nothing to do with the administration in charge at the time
I know nothing about the Microsoft decision nor the politics involved. I am simply commenting upon the quote above. An Appellate Court rules, in large part, based upon the record before the trial court and the arguments presented to the App Ct. It is therefore certainly possible for a change in administration to impact an App Ct's decision if the change in administration changed the nature of the briefs and oral argument presented by the DOT to the App Ct.
Again, I have absolutely no knowledge of the details in this case. I'm just pointing out that a change in administration can certainly have an impact upon an Appellate Court's ultimate decision by altering the nature of the presentation to the Court.
Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#333Pretty crazy how this case gets the full support of thr DOJ, along with actions against Harvard, Colombia ect. I dont mind Google being broken up, but how am i supposed to respect the law when the same DOJ lets out ponzi schemers and bond villians because they donated 500k to a Trump friendly super pac. If im Google or anoother tech company im going to be Divesting from the United States as much as possible.
Who are these people that are let out (of jail? prison?) because they donated to a super PAC? Not arguing, just curious
You can start with the Mayor of NYC
Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of their products helped the sector they are in. They didn't "dump" into it. Google continually improved areas where other companies previously refused to, even if they were charging for their services. Mail. Internet browsers? Does it really need to be stated? Open source. Kubernetes. Open source. Tensor architecture. Freely released. I don't see the argument for breaking Google up other than people are holding…
I think you misunderstand what 'dumping' means in this market context. Sure, free software like Linux is great. But if you didn't have that preconceived notion, a competitor dumping free software on the market to make others' initiatives unprofitable would look like an anti-trust violation, rather than a charitable act of community.
I understand perfectly fine. I think your statement however is quite ignorant about the state of things at the time these actions were taken.
Do yourself a favor and research a little bit.
Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could just go to a different ad network? At that amount of money you're not on the ad exchange. I don't see how this is ruining your business. A vendor is not playing well with you, just go to another one?
The key factor is the timing. During the primary week where this product generates income, Google completely screwed me over with no warning and no answers about what's going on. I am of course looking into alternatives, but that takes time, and 3 days from now it'll be too late.
You have no contract with Google though. You're literally siphoning on what is a really low-barrier, dare I say free service.
They didn't screw you over. You chose to use them. You didn't pay them, they're paying you.
If you don't like that arrangement, feel free to join a partner agency that can buy and sell ads for you on the ad exchange or go to a different ad network.
Then, if they do something you don't like, you actually have very real power to compel them to do something.
Remember, you get what you pay for.
Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#336What are the odds this case will continue to be pursued honestly under the Trump administration?
Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were really smart guys. But smart guys don’t stand a chance in the face of all that money because it attracts people who know how to manipulate and control smart people . Smart people think they’re at the top of the totem pole. But really its those without ethics who sit at the top in our society. This is a conundrum humanity must address if we’re to survive over the long term, IMO.
A powerful argument against excessively large corporations. When the companies are competing fiercely, the amoral folks can't game the system.
They get the amoral politicians to rig the system.
Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#338Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One where the market maker is taking up the cost of providing a market Does a landlord on a literal physical market take 30% of revenue? I find that unlikely. How did we arrive here, where supposedly ‘efficient’ digital marketplace is a form of rent higher than actually building physical rent, and expenses on wages and materials for a typical business?
Unfortunately a lot of economic activity in general today is just money-on-money financialism. It is all just gambling and rent seeking and dishonesty. These practices are whitewashed and given various names. The one for rent-seeking is "market making". Ad platforms too are fundamentally about letting someone perceive ROI lesser than their real ROI, for your own benefit. For me, it falls under the same category as al…
Competing ad/fill markets fix the problem.
Which is why market makers like Google quietly work very hard to discourage, prevent, interfere or buy their competition.
Re: Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
And crucially, there are leaked emails, other evidence that demonstrate (at the very least historical and occasional) corruption of this dual- (multi?) agency arrangement. Among the allegations: The Google ad exchange favored its own platforms, limiting the ability of other exchanges to compete fairly in bidding for ad inventory. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s... In limiting the number o…
> In limiting the number of bidders, Google inflated the prices for ad inventory. This part doesn't make sense to me. Limiting bidders should drive the price down, because fewer advertisers are competing for the same potential ad impression. The article describes Google's influence as "Google controls the auction-style system," which is a bit more open-ended about the specific alleged practices.
I think they meant that Google managed to limit the number of bidders for ad placement - they shut out other advertising groups -, so they could then charge what they want to those who need to advertise their business or perish, and take what they want from websites that publish ads as well (take a larger cut from the 'ad inventory' understood either as ad space or ads to be published). In this sense the linked article states:
"The US argues that Google used its financial power to acquire potential rivals and corner the ad tech market, leaving advertisers and publishers with no choice but to use its technology."