The rules of the judge in the case of illegal research monopoly from Google: You can keep Chrome

Google will not have to sell its Chrome browser in order to address its illegal monopoly on online research, a provincial court judge in the capital, Amit Mihata, on Tuesday. More than a year ago, Judge Mihita found that the research giant had had Sherman’s law to combat monopoly was violated; His rule now determines what Google should do in response.

Mehta refused to give some of the most ambitious proposals from the Ministry of Justice to treat Google’s behavior and restore competition to the market. In addition to allowing Google to keep Chrome, the company will also be allowed to follow up on distribution partners for pre -download or set search products or AI. But it is an order from Google with the participation of some valuable research information with competitors that can help start their ability to compete, and to ban the search giant from the contract of exclusive deals to distribute the search products or AI Assistant berdes in ways that may cut the distribution to the competitors.

It is the most important way to combat monopoly that has been governing the technology giant about 25 years ago, since the issue of the Ministry of Justice against Microsoft. Although he represents a major teacher in the case, Google can still be actually required to implement these solutions – if any. Now that Mihat has issued his remedies, Google can finally chase his basic discovery as illegal monopolistic. From there, the case can go to the Supreme Court.

Last year, the Ministry of Justice I presented a long wishes list To break the Google suspension on the online search market, and he argued that there is no one solution that will be enough to really unlock competition in space. Its most amazing proposals included Google to sell its Chrome browser, which it considers a major access point for search engines where Google can give priority to herself, and requires him to allow competitors to purchase inquiries about search and signals to feed their search engines in order to compete with competition.

Throughout the three -week reinforcement experience this spring, Mihita heard from Google CEO High -level executives from Apple, Openai, Perplexity and Tradition Search. Google has argued that Mihata should only prevent her from certain provisions of the contract and the judge found that he is excluded, and warned that the most amazing government proposals can be The user privacy is dangerousOpen source, and forced the browser engine, and forced Google to share knowledge with the competitors who worked hard to gain it. Apple and Firefox Mozilla, for their parts, Beware They become side effects If the Google judge prevents them from pushing them to make its search engine it is virtual on their services.

In his 230 -page rule, Mihata explained that although Google’s virtual case as a search engine on Chrome “there is no doubt that” Google’s dominance on public search “, forcing Google to sell it in the end” a bad seizure of this issue. The reason for its monopoly and the backwardness. Calculate the deterioration of large products and the loss of consumer care.

Mehta also feared that Google’s batches to the search platforms search for negative impacts rippped across the ecosystem. Mihata said that banning these types of payments for companies such as Apple and Mozilla to get their virtual position on their browsers and devices, can “stir melting melting that affects the need”, and even encouraging a company like Apple to enter the search market itself. But he concluded that he granted such a remedy the risks that damage the phone and browsers by depriving them of great revenues, while Google gets its money while probably kept from the base of its users. Although he acknowledged that the refusal of banning payments is an incomplete solution, but “allowing Google to continue paying payments is now more acceptable than when the stage of responsibility has ended,” given that a boom in financing projects for the IQ projects of obstetrics means that “companies are already in a better and technical position, technically, technically, any traditional research company (with exception

Mihata pointed out that the refusal to prevent Google from paying the price of the virtual settings “increase” in fact is the need to adopt a treatment that forces Google to share some search data with competitors. “Qualified competitors will have to continue to compete with Google for the price to gain distribution. Therefore, a competitive feature of innovation and the distinction of Google search services must come.” To do this, the search competitors need a scale that has been largely rejected by the Google search monopoly. So Mihata agreed to allow qualified competitors to buy at a single -time shot cost for a variety of search data collected by Google, which he says will allow these competitors to “identify and crawl more web pages with valuable content and do so more efficiently.”

This treatment is much shy about what the Ministry of Justice requested. Mahata only granted a narrow sub -group of research data that the Ministry of Justice wanted to share Google with competitors, only agreed to force Google to share it once, instead periodically for fresh data, which says, “reduces the risk of free passes that experts in Google and admitted by the plaintiffs.” Mihita has similarly granted the Ministry of Justice’s proposal to demand Google for the results of the search results for the competitors, but it narrowed the range, and allowed Google to pricing it over the marginal cost, and the requirements only made the past five years, instead of the ten government that it requested.

The CEO of Duckduckgo Gabriel Weinberg, who witnessed as a research competitor on behalf of the government, said in a statement that the rule of Mihita will not be effective. He wrote: “Google will be allowed to continue to use a monopoly for competitors, including in researching artificial intelligence. As a result, consumers will continue to suffer.” ))

The American Economic Freedoms project, a group that defended the enforcement of the strongest monopoly against the technology industry, criticized the rule of Miha as a “cowardice” work. “You do not find a guilty person to steal a bank and then a penalty for him to write a note of thanks for the stolen goods,” CEO Nadihai Higdy said in a statement. “Likewise, you do not find Google responsible for monopoly, then you write a treatment that allows him to protect his monopoly. This pure remedy to the most ambitious cases in the monopoly of the past quarter is a complete failure of his duty and must be upset.”

The complaint of the Ministry of Justice was originally filed in 2020, before it became artificial intelligence tools such as Openai’s Chatgpt available to the public. But by the time the trial of treatments occurred earlier this year, the role that artificial intelligence in the future of searching on the Internet would have become necessary for the talent. The government has called on the judge to verify anti -competition problems with Google’s research work Do not move simply in AI offers.

The Google Empire faced serious strikes from multiple courts this year. In late July, California The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the jury Against the company in a lawsuit against Epic Games against a mobile app store. Earlier this year, a federal judge in Virginia also found Google The market illegally monopolized some advertising technology tools He will present, and will return to that court to argue with possible treatments for this case in September. Google is still in the middle of these battles, but it looks more and more likely It will not last longer.