←back to thread

858 points colesantiago | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
fidotron ◴[] No.45109040[source]
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.

replies(14): >>45109129 #>>45109143 #>>45109176 #>>45109242 #>>45109344 #>>45109424 #>>45109874 #>>45110957 #>>45111490 #>>45112791 #>>45113305 #>>45114522 #>>45114640 #>>45114837 #
stackskipton ◴[] No.45109143[source]
Feels like judge was looking for any excuse not to apply harsh penalty and since Google brought up AI as competitor, the judge accepted it as acceptable excuse for very minor penalty.
replies(5): >>45109155 #>>45109230 #>>45109607 #>>45110548 #>>45111401 #
solardev[dead post] ◴[] No.45109155[source]
[flagged]
1. mandeepj ◴[] No.45109256[source]
How humorous it may sound, but there’s no pressure or binding on Google to hire that judge :-)
replies(1): >>45109367 #
2. whimsicalism ◴[] No.45109367[source]
sure except precedent/expectation-building