I find this endless string of government investigations wrong-headed, pointless, and, frankly, even anti-American,
Google's an aggressive company. It has big reach, got a lot of power, operates in many markets. But I defy you to find any regular people in this country who think of Google as a bad actor,
It might score some headlines, but it’s a legal non-starter. The DOJ is throwing out remedies that go far beyond the judge’s ruling, and history tells us that broad remedies won’t survive the appeals process,
The proposed privacy and data accumulation remedies would give Google the choice to either share all the data it collects or stop gathering the data in the first place. As it will likely choose the former, that could strengthen its competitors and possibly create new competition,
The last thing Google needs right now in the broader AI battle is having to fight with one hand tied behind their backs by regulators,
The DOJ has reverse-engineered Google’s formula for success and is intent in dismantling it,
The framework understands that no single remedy can undo Google’s illegal monopoly, it will require a range of behavioural and structural remedies to free the market,
The DOJ is throwing remedy spaghetti at the wall,
What's clear is that the market isn't worried. This risk has been known for a long time and investors don't appear to believe a forced break-up will happen,
In the hands of a different company without strong security practices, bad actors could access [this data] to identify you and your search history."
We believe that today's blueprint goes well beyond the legal scope of the Court's decision about Search distribution contracts. Government overreach in a fast-moving industry may have negative unintended consequences for American innovation and America's consumers. We look forward to making our arguments in court,
Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly."
It means that Apple, Mozilla, Samsung, et al. will still choose Google as the default, even if Google is forbidden from paying them a revenue share (or even a set price) to do so—they will just forego the revenue from doing so, and Google will get a windfall,
We want to make it very, very seamless and easy for users to use our service,
That same market reality means that no remedy prohibiting Google from entering into such agreements will rectify the situation,
Splitting off Chrome or Android would break them - and many other things,
For more than a decade, Google has controlled the most popular distribution channels, leaving rivals with little-to-no incentive to compete for users,
Plaintiffs are considering behavioural and structural remedies that would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features – including emerging search access points and features, such as artificial intelligence –over rivals or new entrants.”
This case is about a set of search distribution contracts. Rather than focus on that, the government seems to be pursuing a sweeping agenda that will impact numerous industries and products, with significant unintended consequences for consumers, businesses and American competitiveness.”
There are enormous risks to the government putting its thumb on the scale of this vital industry — skewing investment, distorting incentives, hobbling emerging business models — all at precisely the moment that we need to encourage investment,