←back to thread

Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

(www.nytimes.com)
863 points IdealeZahlen | 4 comments | 17 Apr 25 14:47 UTC | HN request time: 0.527s | source
Show context
tonymet ◴[17 Apr 25 16:39 UTC] No.43719240[source]▶
the FTC is like Jim Cramer. Once they judge a business to be a monopoly, the business falls apart and the monopoly is irrelevant. Look at the hundreds of millions wasted on the Windows / IE monopoly trial. the AT&T break up set American technology back by decades and killed our domestic chip production.
replies(9): >>43719392 #>>43719443 #>>43719692 #>>43719749 #>>43720427 #>>43720556 #>>43720569 #>>43720697 #>>43720705 #
1. ndiddy ◴[17 Apr 25 18:19 UTC] No.43720427[source]▶
> 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.

replies(2): >>43720734 #>>43720869 #
2. hash872 ◴[17 Apr 25 18:51 UTC] No.43720734[source]▶
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
replies(1): >>43723207 #
3. dabockster ◴[17 Apr 25 19:05 UTC] No.43720869[source]▶
9/11 also happened during that time. Punishing the people that declared war upon the United States and destroyed the Twin Towers was the larger priority than breaking up one company.
4. keernan ◴[17 Apr 25 23:11 UTC] No.43723207[source]▶
>>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.