Google’s anti -monopoly experience begins with a battle around chrome, money and Amnesty International

Close to the beginning of his opening arguments, David Dackest, a lawyer for the US Department of Justice, showed a slide that he described as a “evil cycle” of Google. It goes like this: Google pays billions of dollars to make the virtual search engine in practice everywhere, and therefore it gets more search quotes, and therefore he gets better data, and therefore he is able to improve its results, and therefore it earns more money, and therefore he can bear more backwardness. Google is not really different with this evaluation – but in his saying, this is a Virtuous turn. Another way to describe is the virtuous cycle that makes Google search very strong: Google believes it has been created an ideal system; The Ministry of Justice believes it is a nightmare. The judge will make the final call.

DahlQuist’s statements were the opening of the treatments The United States against Google, A case of a teacher to combat monopoly that ended with Judge Amit Mihata last year Google search engine is a monopoly. The question in the courtroom this time, to be litigant within the next two weeks, is What to do to fix it. According to Dahlquist, the process must start by stopping each part of the cycle of spinning.

The Ministry of Justice requests three broad things. First, it wants to prevent Google from hitting any type of deal to place the main search engine. The most obvious version of this deal, and a central character in the original experience, is Google pays $ 20 billion annually To be the default search engine in Safari. But Google has deals like this about industry, and other things that make the research place a condition for other Google services. The Ministry of Justice wants to close them all.

Second, that You want Google stripping ChromeAnd it was called DahlQuist, “an important search gate … and a starting point for 35 percent of user inquiries.” According to one of the scale shown in the trial, Chrome has more than four billion users, and government lawyers have argued that it should be a completely separate entity. Google believes that Chrome is not self -employment, and has no meaning except as part of Google, but Jonathan Salit, the lawyer who represents the states, has argued that he would like to get any big person. He said: “This type of asset does not come often until companies get.

The third thing that the Ministry of Justice wants is to demand Google to license all practical search data, from the search index to its results, to any competitor who wants it. So far, this seems to be the ruling that has sparked Google’s attention.

John Schmidlin, one of the main lawyers who represent Google in the case, argued in his editorial notes that what the Ministry of Justice requires will basically mean white marks and make it available to competitors throughout the industry. In the long run, Schmidelin has argued, competitors will be able to use the Google Search Index to create and train their own products, while Google is mainly forbidden (thanks to other parts of the treatments) of contracting deals and investments required to continue to win. But even in the short term, he said: “While they discover all of this, you can cut and paste Google search results and contact them yourself.” The SchMEDTLEIN has also argued that Google’s search data includes huge amounts of special information, which would be dangerous for other companies.

One of the main questions in this experience will be the shape that the fair search market already looks. The Google case has always been a dominant player in the search simply by being the best search engine, and that it would be to tamper with the court to allow competitors to create their Google without much additional work.

Google has abandoned only one place: its virtual position deals with companies like Apple. He argues that the last trial dominated by questions about these deals, and prevent them (but only if they are Exclusive The agreements, in particular, will settle the stadium. Moreover, SchMedtleIn described Doj treatments as “a list of wishes for competitors who are looking to obtain the benefits of” Google’s work.

On the other hand, the argument of the Ministry of Justice is that Google has almost built itself through its illegal actions, so the only just thing to do is helping competitors to catch up with the knees. Microsoft Satya Nadella CEO during the original experiment witnessed that the only way to build a great search engine is an almost unimaginable amount of search data – Google is confirmed that it is the only company that has this data. It seems that the early Mihata questions indicate that it believes that some of the provisions of the data sharing and their license will reach a “structural treatment”, which requires a higher proof. But there will be a lot of questions about how to make the battle exhibition.

During the trial in 2023, the artificial intelligence market sometimes appeared, but now it seems that it was The front and the middle of both sides. Dackest has argued that the proposed treatments by the Ministry of Justice are very severe, because “Google uses the same strategy they did to search and apply it to Gemini.” But he was also keen to say that he does not believe that artificial intelligence and research are the same, and that the rise of Chatgpt in particular should not convince the court that the research market is actually competitive.

Google, of course, argues that Chatgpt proves accurately The search market is actually a great competitiveness. Schmidlin indicated How was the viral ChatgptAnd Openai internal documents that the company feels “We have what we need to win.” “These companies compete well without the treatments of the plaintiffs.”

Talk AI will be a player in the courtroom in the next two weeks. Sisi Hussiao, who previously led Gemini, will be on the platform of witnesses. Therefore, executive managers from Openai and Perplexity, and a series of experts who will try to explain how artificial intelligence corresponds to and overcoming research work. He was telling us that the first trial witness was an artificial intelligence expert, Greg Dorit, who spent most of his testimony to explain how technology works.

There is still a lot of trial and a lot of negotiation, of course, but as on both sides they are noticeably separated. Google, who plans to resume the entire case, believes that everything will be fair as long as it is easier to choose your search engine. The government believes that Google cannot be allowed in its current form. Judge Mihata, who asked a number of questions about some of these requests, appears to be constantly treating his tolerance in complete change. If there is an easy way to reach some of the middle lands that work for everyone, then they did not come in court.