←back to thread

Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

(www.cnbc.com)
858 points colesantiago | 2 comments | 02 Sep 25 20:26 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
fidotron ◴[02 Sep 25 21:05 UTC] 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 ◴[02 Sep 25 21:13 UTC] 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 #
judge2020 ◴[02 Sep 25 21:22 UTC] No.45109230[source]▶
I mean, it’s a legitimate concern. Google is bleeding so hard right now from Gen Z and especially Gen Alpha deciding to use ChatGPT first and foremost when asking questions that Google would’ve answered previously. Whether or not that means they should keep Chrome as a product is up for debate.
replies(4): >>45109287 #>>45109516 #>>45109846 #>>45121256 #
stackskipton ◴[02 Sep 25 21:28 UTC] No.45109287[source]▶
Under good Monopoly law, you would remedy the situation that got them to this point, not worry about their future. Chrome + Deals got to them to this point so that's what you unwind. If it causes Google to get weakened and AI finishes them off, that's just creative destruction at work and oh well.
replies(3): >>45109320 #>>45109477 #>>45112544 #
tick_tock_tick ◴[02 Sep 25 21:43 UTC] No.45109477{3}[source]▶
> Under good Monopoly law, you would remedy the situation that got them to this point, not worry about their future.

I mean but it appears to be being remedy'd by itself why would the court proscribe something for a problem that no longer exists?

replies(2): >>45109551 #>>45111216 #
1. stackskipton ◴[02 Sep 25 21:49 UTC] No.45109551{4}[source]▶
Because it happened. If I was stealing cable but then all shows I wanted to watch switched to streaming, should I be let off the hook because situation remedy'd itself? I'd imagine most people would say no, the fact you can no longer do the crime in the future does not change the fact you did the crime in the past.
replies(1): >>45109656 #
2. jonas21 ◴[02 Sep 25 21:58 UTC] No.45109656[source]▶
This is a civil case. The point is to remedy the situation, not to punish a crime.