Is it possible to trust Google without disintegration?

On the third day of the two -week recession trial in the case of the Advertising Technology of the Ministry of Justice against Google, Judge Leonu Brentka reduced the argument to one major case: confidence. BRINKAMA has stopped testimony from the Ministry of Justice expert with a default: Should you issue a strict matter to modify Google’s behavior, can it solve the problems raised if you have confidence that Google will actually spend in good faith? “

The question was particularly felt, given how BRINKAMA was revealing Google’s experience last year. For three weeks, the Ministry of Justice I have repeatedly provided examples of Google employees who claim to use chat messages To avoid leaving a paper path to discover. Brenta later said that the practice was “a regular ignorance of the rules of proof.” While she chose not to punish Google because of her equal approach to maintaining evidence, she warned not to make her decision as overlooking the behavior.

Soon after, BRINKAMA will decide how difficult it is to make a decision in its remedy in Google in TECH. This decision may depend on whether it believes that it will follow the rules this time.

The proposal of Google’s recession includes a governed matter prohibiting specific commercial practices and requires him to engage in the advertising auction process similar to their competitors. But the Ministry of Justice says this leaves it easily capable of monopolizing the market again. The government wants to take power from Google’s hands completely by making it revolve around Exchange ADX and an open source part of (and may even sell) its DFP tool for web publishers.

This is the second time in just a few months that the judge faces the issue of breaking Google. In a separate case about Google’s research monopoly, Judge Amit Mihita RefuseChoose low -height treatments such as prohibiting anti -competition practices and data sharing. The facts that prompted Mihata to make a decision against separation from this issue. Her opening statement. However, BRINKAMA can be an indication of the great warning of judges, as more cases revolve against large technology companies towards trial.

The Ministry of Justice was still in the midst of its members on Friday, but Google’s lawyers were already leading in their basic argument: that the government is flowing to how difficult it is to request and its risks. Tim Craycruit, the executive director of the advertisement company, witnessed that the proposals of the Ministry of Justice were “naive” and “unsessed”. This thinking line seemed to land with the judge by mid -week. “Satan is in detail.”. After comparing the change of the Google Tech Tech tools by changing the tires on the car, BRINKAMA indicated that the change in ice frames can lead to the user’s “dowry” riding.

But during the CRAYCROFT certificate, BRINKAMA seemed to enjoy a more extreme option that the government did not request: stop ADX completely. Craycruit said this apparently something that Google considers itself over the past few years in an analysis called “Project Monday”.

“Why is this not a very simple and elegant solution?” Brinkma asked, after Craycroft noticed that other large technology can buy ADX and create its monopoly. Although there are many advertising exchanges today, the court has found that it was rejected from a flat stadium due to tactics such as maintaining the full access of the tender in the actual time to the huge advertiser base of Google through its own tools. Publishers have seen the responsibility experience that made it almost impossible to leave, although ADX was receiving a 20 % competitiveness on transactions. Krikroft told the judge that ADX’s neglect Be able to Be an elegant solution, but this would also get rid of other beneficial features in the product.

BRINKAMA has made it clear that she wants to know what is already possible, because she is options for settling the field of play without damaging publishers and advertisers who rely on Google products.

Craycruit said that Google has found the so -called ADX business would be possible within two years, including IP emptying, transfer of customer contracts, and providing reference code to direct the buyer by repeating the product functions in its own systems. But he stressed that Google was unable to provide the source code realisticly guaranteed to work in a technical staple unknown to the buyer, as the Ministry of Justice is required. Former Facebook Bjedov former Facebook and Whatsapp deportation during the acquisitions, that the reference source code will be sufficient for full deportation. If BRINKAMA finds that getting rid of investments is possible, it will have to decide whether to trust Google enough to not force one.

Even after helping Google’s attorneys to formulate their treatments, Craycroft, the lawyer for the Ministry of Justice, told Matthew Hubert that he could not adhere to the ADX 20 percent reduction, which the judge spent a higher competitive level, and said that the draw between DFP and reaching ADX bids in the actual time, which is a point attached to fishermen, was “the product was not designed.”

The answer to the BRINKAMA question about confidence was not necessarily reassuring on Google. Robin Lee, an economist at Harvard University, said the problem is the number of different ways that Google can revolve around the court’s order. He told me that there is an almost unexpected list of ways to tilt the standards for Google, and it has every incentive to take it.

Critics in Google have long been disappointed after the secession was not included. If BRINKAMA has a similar conclusion, the revenue manager at the Jed Deederick Office has witnessed, “I think there will be a feeling that they have moved away from it.”