←back to thread

858 points colesantiago | 1 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 #
bbarnett ◴[] No.45109344[source]
So... Google's punishment is to stop paying Apple and Mozilla for default search deals?!

Well I guess that'll help?!

(Yes, judges can search for best market solutions)

replies(2): >>45109482 #>>45112173 #
dragonwriter ◴[] No.45109482[source]
No, the actual remedy is not yet decided in detail (though sharing some search data is going to be part of it), this ruling was basically setting some parameters of what is on and off the table and then ordering the parties to meet on details before further court action.
replies(2): >>45109856 #>>45110109 #
1. makeitdouble ◴[] No.45110109[source]
It basically rules out structural remedies, so what's left is pinky promises of not misbehaving again. Whatever these promises are, that closes the case for me.