I am not following these testimonies in anti-trust cases where they have a competitor of Google testify against Google. Isn’t testifying all about presenting evidence? If I am accused of theft in a criminal court and my arch rival is brought for testimony against me, it doesn’t sound like a fair process to me. Of course if it’s a substantiated material it would make sense but otherwise it doesn’t just makes sense at all. Google as a search engine is far better than Bing and that’s just a fact.
In an antitrust trial your competitors are by definition victims of the monopolistic behavior that is being alleged. Yes, there will be a conflict of interest in their testimony that needs to be accounted for, but it's not unreasonable for the victim in a court case to testify of the manner in which they feel victimized.
Regarding your analogy, it would be more like if you're accused of stealing from your arch rival. Should they be barred from testifying against you on the grounds that there's bad blood between you? Certainly not! It's up to your lawyer to demonstrate their bias and persuade the jury to ignore their testimony.
The main way that Microsoft has been harmed by Google's actions is that they can no longer pay companies like mobile phone networks to lock search on their devices to Bing and prevent users from changing it, because Google outbid them. Google haven't even blocked users from changing their search engine like Microsoft did because their product is good enough that they don't need to. I think what Microsoft are hoping for is that Google will be legally barred from bidding against them so that they can go back to using this tactic unchallenged.
Edit: to clarify, I believe this is the actual legal basis of anti monopoly legislation. Protection of the interests of the public, not competitor companies.
Exactly. The point of an antitrust trial is not to transfer power and resources to competitors. It's to transfer power and resources to the voting public.
As guilty as Microsoft might be, it's rich of Microsoft with its monopolies (without which a lot of its subpar products like outlook and Teams and Edge would go poof) to be abdicating Google here.
I have used DDG for years, before switching to Kagi a year ago. Really happy with Kagi. I am happy to pay to show that there is a market for paid services.
No it doesn't. There's truth to your statement in the sense that there's now a generation of confused judges that think this is true. But the plain language of US antitrust statutes is pretty clear on this point, simply engaging in certain kinds of anti-competitive behavior is illegal, you definitely do not need to prove that the illegal behavior had specific effects.
The plain language of the statute doesn't matter much once legal precedent is entrenched. This is especially true when the plain language is incredibly underspecified.
For those who don't know, the Sherman antitrust act has only two key paragraphs (and six procedural paragraphs).
> Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or other- wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, at the discretion of the court.
> Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof; shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
If we strip out the penalties, the words defining what's illegal are literally just "contract, ...trust..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce" and "monopolize any part of the trade or commerce".
Given that ambiguity, it's inevitable that courts will essentially have to write the law themselves.
The law doesn't clearly state what's illegal. In this case, it barely mumbles and gestures at it. In applying the law, it is inevitable that it will have to be more precisely defined (or, worse, applied inconsistently).
The law isn't particularly confusing. There's just been a multi-decade lobbying effort funded by the most powerful and moneyed interests in the country to muddy the waters about this.
I didn't say "confusing". I said "unclear" and "underspecified". I'm looking I the words of the law myself and I have no idea what should and shouldn't be illegal.
"The consumer welfare standard gradually replaced the rule of reason principle as the dominant legal theory behind antitrust enforcement by the 1980s."
Maybe the judges are confused, but there was a shift in enforcement around the Reagan era. I also think "consumer welfare" in this context is taken to mainly maen low pricing. That is, if a monopoly causes higher prices, then we should go after them. The DOJ going after Google and Amazon is a bit of a return to the former standard. (Source: news programs I listen to such as The Majority Report.)
The other view is that you shouldn't wait until the consumer is harmed, because by then the competition might be so weak it's hard to restore to proper levels.
> If I am accused of theft in a criminal court and my arch rival is brought for testimony against me, it doesn’t sound like a fair process to me.
So, like, if you were arrested for assaulted your neighbor who you had a long-standing rivalry with, you wouldn't expect the court to hear from the neighbor? It's not like you wouldn't have your own chance to give your own testimony...
No, it's more like, if you and your neighbor have competing businesses, and you were accused of fraud, your neighbor testifies that you're an asshole. It's an opinion from someone who hates you/benefits from convicting you. Now, if they had actual evidence it'd be different (I assume not from the title, article is paywalled).
This is an antitrust case. Google's competitors are victims of the alleged monopolistic behavior. If you're going to make the analogy right, then the alleged crime needs to be that you defrauded your neighbor's business. I can't imagine a court barring your neighbor from testifying that you defrauded him just because he'd benefit financially from a ruling against you.
> It's an opinion from someone who hates you/benefits from convicting you.
Hence why the opposing side gets the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and why it would be a really bad idea to put forward a witness who clearly has a grudge against the accused. In cross you just show they have a grudge and now their testimony is suspect.
> Now, if they had actual evidence it'd be different
It is actual evidence. I don't think you know what evidence is...
If the testimony is easily dismissable, then submitting it would be bad for their case. They wouldn't submit it as evidence unless it could be backed up or was reasonable. It's a serious mistake to underestimate testimony as somehow less useful in a case.
The CCTV recording would be direct conclusive evidence. In the absence of such evidence, testimony that can't be disproven in cross and casts reasonable doubt will work just fine.
Even with a CCTV recording, you can use testimony to cast the CCTV recording in a light favorable to either the prosecution or defense. The circumstances surrounding evidence are weighed in order to come to a verdict or judgement.
Court cases are not about "who has the most incontrovertible proof", they are about convincing a judge or jury of an idea in order to get a specific outcome. Do not underestimate testimony (or really, any evidence that you think is inferior)
In the United States we have an adversarial system of justice. That means the prosecution gets to present their evidence and arguments, and the defense gets to respond and counter.
The defense will have ample opportunity to cross examine and present rebuttal whiteness.
And just because a witness is presented doesn't mean the fact finder (judge or jury) will find them credible.
My local jurisdiction has separate tracks for both vets and addicts. Because handling those cases in the "normal" court is inefficient and unproductive. (eg Most addicts need treatment, not jail time. Vets specific care, not jail time.)
IIRC, there's a separate bankruptcy court. Sounds smart. I don't expect laypersons to understand finance and such.
Methinks we need separate courts for both intellectual property and healthcare. Where the "jury of one's peers" is composed of actual domain expert peers.
I am with you on this one. What the hell is this? Why is DOJ peddling for other trillion dollar companies? Microsft CEO is concerned for _Google's shareholders_? Are you serious? I don't believe a word of this guy.
I'll just add, Bingbot has the same crawling opportunities as Googlebot. Nobody is stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website. It's also been 20+ years: Windows OS is constantly manipulating defaults and Edge is still not uninstallable.
No I am not confused about getting testimony from competitors. I am very interested in hearing from companies that probably have legitimate grievances: DDG, Kagi, Brave, etc. MS is not among those companies.
Because Microsoft is in the game of being a big business, and demonstrably is not in the group that needs a fair market to thrive. MS is/was willing to make the same deals as Google for defaults, it's just Google valued it more. They should be in hot seat #2.
Smaller companies like DDG, Brave, Kagi are the ones trying to build narrow, competitive businesses in the search and browser space. If those are struggling due to anti-competitive practices I want to hear it.
Microsoft's size is part of what makes their testimony so valuable to the government here. If even Microsoft's CEO is willing to testify under oath that Google's practices make breaking into search impossible, that's extremely relevant to the case. Leaving that testimony out because there are smaller companies that are also hurt would be foolish. The ideal witness makeup would be composed of a combination of large, medium, and small competitors all saying the same thing.
I'll be honest and say your interpretation is probably right, and that's how the NY times reporter interpreted it. However, my strong anti-MS + all conglomerates (i.e., bias that would probably would have disqualified me from being on the jury heh) sees a guy only concerned about MS stock, taking a hypocritical jab at his direct competitor.
I am mostly disappointed that it indicates to me (possibly incorrectly) that the DOJ is not simultaneously pursuing MS for related practices. Maybe it's not in the ads space, but MS is not without their own anti-competitive issues. Or maybe they are, and are able to walk and chew gum. But DOJ asking MS to be a witness is just not a good sign to me.
I’ll say what everyone is thinking but won’t say; Bing is a horrible name and is a theme of Microsoft’s lackluster approach to search and, well, anything internet. They slow-follow. So why should they have an easy time competing against Google?
Because Microsoft is doing worse things than what they are accusing Google of, such as forcing users to use Edge and Bing in Windows. Also, considering the fact that Bing's market share did not increase even when Microsoft signed a contract with Apple to make Bing the default search engine on iPhones, and the testimony that Apple did not acquire Bing because of its poor quality, Microsoft's argument is completely unacceptable.
Skipping the nonsense about not investigating and conducting a trial because other people might also be doing a crime.
> Because Microsoft is doing worse things than what they are accusing Google of, such as forcing users to use Edge and Bing in Windows.
Given that Google and other parties will have their chance at giving their evidence and testimony, would it not be better for Microsoft to be involved here where their own testimony will available for exploration?
Given that Bing powers DDG and Brave at least, and I assume Kagi consumes Bing also, I see no reason why the only other competitor to Google (in Search) should not be present.
> Nobody is stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website
I know your comment is about the bot, but the other side is, yes - Google is absolutely stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website. Not Google's bot, but Google's default deals on iOS, browsers, etc.
Even if Bing's index was measurably better, most folks wouldn't think to switch given how easy it already is to stick with Google.
Otherwise, re: Microsoft - you're absolutely right. The latest examples for me:
- Teams as a crappy default
- In Windows 11 I can't move my taskbar to another part of my window anymore? What the f. 10+ years of user-preference destroyed with one update.
Well, actually, Google paying other companies to make Google the default is stopping Bing from getting traffic. That's why we are having this whole case, among other things.
In general, making contracts with 3rd parties that negatively impact your competitors is sort of looked down upon.
I'm no fan of Google, but them bidding to be the default search engine on Apple devices seemed reasonable to me. If paying a third party to be the default is a crime they're both guilty of it. Microsoft and Google both made offers to Apple, Apple went with the one that paid them the most and also arguably offers the superior product. It's not like Bing is outright blocked on Apple devices, it's very easy to change. Satya crying about how Google outbid him seemed pretty disingenuous.
"Do you think Google would continue to pay Apple if there was no search competition? Why would they do that?"
Of course not and the reasons should be obvious. Microsoft being a competent competitor costs Google a lot of money. Lose the search dominance and the place basically shuts down, so they're willing to pay a lot to maintain it.
“I would love an opportunity to sort of not have them pay — maybe on behalf of the Google shareholders.”
Shut down Bing then and save Google shareholders a bunch of money, at the expense of Apple shareholders. He clearly doesn't want to spend what Google does for the same privilege. Google must perceives that the deal is worth it to do for their shareholders.
I imagine his ideal outcome would be something like Microsoft was forced to do with browsers, having a screen during the setup process asking the user what browser (or in this case search engine) they want as the default. I honestly don't think it would move the needle at all unless Bing was demonstrably better than Google.
>Well, actually, Google paying other companies to make Google the default is stopping Bing from getting traffic.
I cannot see how this is true.
Microsoft, with its tens of billions in annual profits, can invest in all the advertising in the world, literally, to let people know how to change the default browser on their iOS or Android device.
It is a trivial setting to change.
What is not trivial, for Microsoft, is creating a competitive search engine and advertising business.
If the search-engine is a tool which creates ad-impressions which company#A can charge to advertisers (creating profit company#A can then spend for making the search-engine the default, perpetually driving even more attention), I don't think breaking this cycle by company#B "just spending more money than company#A earns" is a system of fair competition.
Enough people are willing to change it that just paying to be the default wasn't all that effective for Bing or Yahoo. Microsoft's previous strategy was to pay to make Bing the default and remove people's ability to change it. In particular, they took advantage of the mobile phone provider oligopoly in the US and other countries to pay off all the major providers to do this, so that consumers didn't really have a choice to not have their devices send searches to Bing. Google ruined that strategy by outbidding them without even imposing the same kind of lock-in that Microsoft did, and so Microsoft are trying to get the US government to ban them from bidding.
Sure, let’s change it to “it is trivial for Microsoft to spend its greater than Google’s profit to buy the default search position on Apple devices.”
So they can other have a just as good as Google’s product that they do not want to spend enough on to make default, or they do not offer enough of a value proposition for people to go to settings -> Safari -> default search -> bing.
Maybe I miss-interpreted the quote at the end of the article.
> At the end of Mr. Nadella’s appearance, a Justice Department lawyer asked why he thought Google paid Apple so much money to be the default search engine on Apple’s web browser Safari.
> “That’s a great question,” Mr. Nadella said. “I would love an opportunity to sort of not have them pay — maybe on behalf of the Google shareholders.”
I read that as: Nadella saying it cost Google's shareholders X in expenses. Reading it a second time, he is probably implying it increased Google's shareholders Y in revenue. But either way, CEO of a trillion dollar company making hypocritical remarks on another trillion dollar company. IMO it's just a poor decision of DOJ to use MS as a witness. I'd prefer they bring to light companies that are actually struggling, and not the company that can sign a $10 billion deal to boot strap new features into their competing product.
Further he argued why Bing should be the default, and even makes a pseudo business proposition of how they're prepared to lose $20B to harvest this data. Can't make this up.
> Google as a search engine is far better than Bing and that’s just a fact.
It was better than Bing...
Two things:
1) HN and elsewhere constantly point out how bad Google Search is lately
2) The introduction of ChatGPT and DALL-E powered Bing into Edge, the new Windows Sidebar and elsewhere has changed the game.
The new Windows 11 Bing/ChatGPT/DALL-E sidebar is so good that my hot-take is that it's going to put a dent into Google's Search dominance at a depth that Bing and others never have.
My final wild out-there prediction: MS ditch the Bing brand and pivot to using Copilot as their search and discovery brand.
I switched over to DDG couple of years ago. When I recently used Google search for something I was shocked to see just how bad the entire UI had become, maybe the search result quality hasn’t taken a similar hit but the UI was extremely jarring.
Perhaps it’s coz I’ve minimized my footprint in Google ecosystem but then it just goes to show to what extent Google now relies on personal data to serve search results.
To give the benefit of the doubt to the court, it might be justifiable on the grounds that the big tech giants form an oligopoly, i.e. that they aren't really competing businesses so much as a half-formal conglomerate of corporations whose separateness is a legal fiction to ward off antitrust.
But I share your confusion. The case for Microsoft and Google being part of an oligopoly together doesn't really hold water, considering that Google appears to be competing with Microsoft in the consumer market for web browsers, operating systems, office productivity software, and machine learning.
Why would Google's competitors be barred from testifying in a case that hinges on whether Google is using unfair advantages to beat its competitors? The competition is one of the primary victims of the alleged antitrust violations, of course the government is going to ask them to testify and explain how they've been hurt by Google's behavior!
Is it unfair if they're both scummy companies with infinitely deep pockets? Micro$oft just doesn't pay as much as Google does to make Google the default search, but knowing M$, they'd happily do the same shit if it made sense for them.
If DDG or Kagi were the ones complaining here, then that makes sense because indeed their pockets don't run as deep as Google's or M$'s and that's unfair, but M$ complaining just sounds like the one comically evil megacorp taking advantage of the situation to get the other comically evil megacorp in trouble for shit they're doing themselves on a smaller scale.
> Google as a search engine is far better than Bing and that’s just a fact.
I have been using DDG for several years now and honestly can't stand Google's results anymore. It seems like you can no longer search for an exact term and at every opportunity they try to slip in a merchant selling something as a result.
I have been using DDG for a few years, and most of the time end up doing !g to go to Google and get good answers. Nothing specific comes to mind right now, but the pattern is like this:
me: Who's that guy with a big hat?
DDG: showing results for bug hat IN UNITED KINGDOM: 1) Daily Mail woman wearing ladybird hat absolutely destroys woke liberal you won't believe. 2) Best hair cuts for guys who wear hats - generic-seo-spamsite.com. 3) Who's who in the world of business 2023 update. 4) Don't be "that guy"! tips for dating.
me: !g
Google: He's Crocodile Dundee.
me: how the heck did you know that.
Google isn't always that good, but DDG is all too often that bad. It's bad in a very Bing-way with search results that kinda touch on the right words but are low relevance and high SEO/spam. (And adamant that whatever I'm searching for - cat pictures, cities in California, Caesar Salad recipes, prices of things in America, I must want the results from UNITED KINGDOM because that's where I am. Which, incidentally, is a frustration of Google maps: "I wonder whats in California? Google maps, let me see the world..." "THIS IS YOUR HOUSE, THIS IS A ZOOMED IN MAP OF WHERE YOU LIVE, I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE". "Calm down, I know what things look like round here, I live here. I wanted to look somewhere else, like, obviously?").
Google works better than DDG with natural language questions like that
But if you're like me and never evolved from the oldschool search engines and still use the same format of listing key words, DDG is better than or equal to Google.
Well in some cases, like searching for an error message when troubleshooting, Google's NLP is a hindrance because it will alter or change your query in attempts to provide results.
So for example if I search for "Error 12345: Something bad happened", Google might remove the "12345" because it increases the number of results. They take the stance that more is better.
I know it probably gets tiring to hear it on every thread about search, but Kagi gets just as good results for that hat query, and tends to do better than Google on more serious work. Pinning and blocking domains is a huge deal—it's got a great list of blocked domains natively, and after just a little bit of customization my SEO spam has basically disappeared.
Courts quite frequently convict people based on circumstantial evidence. Conviction is based on the determination of either a jury or a judge, and neither are required to have or use direct evidence.
I mean in the Activision case, the judge took the same person's testimony that they wouldn't make Activision games X-Box exclusives completely at face value, so there's precedent that they are completely honest even when conflict of interests are involved /s
