←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 #
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 #
x0x0 ◴[] No.45110548[source]
While I'd love to see google harshly penalized, nobody has proposed an answer that doesn't end with the destruction of essentially the world's only browser. Or it's sale to extremely sketchy people, which I guess also ends in destruction plus with OpenAI or whomever buys it hoovering up as much personal data as they can.

So I get not liking this answer, but I haven't heard a better one.

replies(3): >>45111065 #>>45111803 #>>45113178 #
1. ocdtrekkie ◴[] No.45111065[source]
The entire world would be better off if it was destroyed. That is sort of the point. We have very unqualified people making decisions that force the entire Internet to comply because the monopoly says to. The Internet could hardly be in a worse place than it is now.