←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 #
judge2020 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
1. brainwad ◴[] No.45112544{3}[source]
Chrome had nothing to do with the case, though; the prosecutors were grasping at straws. The obvious remedy is to ban Google from bidding for placement, which is what happened.