It is difficult to disintegrate (Google)

The dismantling of Google’s advertising technology monopoly, such as going to Mars or trying to replace Michael Jordan – is possible doubtful and a large amount of work.

These were some of the similar witnesses witnessed in Google’s defense of a federal judge this week because the company ascends its second attempt to avoid secession. After successful Overcoming this fate in the case of the Ministry of Justice researchGoogle She made her case To the local court judge, based in Virginia Lioni Bruntka, to allow her to preserve her work in the field of advertising technology as well. Along the way, Google Witnesses argued that he does not need to abandon the monopoly power to restore the affected competition, and the judge gave mixed signals on how it was judged.

The Ministry of Justice has spent the previous week in the debate that forcing ADX Exchange from Google and open sources from Doubleclick for Publishes (DFP) is technically possible, and The only way to ensure that Google does not find new ways to control its dominance At the account of the publisher’s customers. When Google presented her defense, she organized it in one of the executives and experts after another to explain the project scale, and warns that separation may simply indicate new problems.

“It is a huge mission,” the Google AD (GMNN Berntson) director. Even if the ADX stripping process does not include tearing other parts of the royal infrastructure of Google, it is only better in marginal. “Going to the moon is simpler than going to Mars.” Other witnesses on the long list of the ways in which Google says is more difficult than it seems to be technically complicated, and it is not clear whether Google staff will already go to ADX buyer or just leave, leave, Customers can be damaged in this process. “We are trying to replace Michael Jordan for databases,” Google Jasson Nih expert, pointing to one of the many royal services in Google that advertising technology tools will need to swap if it is from the company. “There is only Michael Jordan, and he cannot be dispensed with.”

Edge of the abyss I have already ruled that Google is illegally monopolizing two markets For ads tools, publishers depend on revenues, and illegally linking them to benefit from their own business. Throughout Google’s defense, it was sometimes easy to lose this. Google Economist Andres Lerner showed a similar segment of one Google who was used in her saying in the previous obligations trial, which aims to defend the efficiency of the accumulated nature in ADX and DFP, despite the fact that the edge of the border has already ruled that the tie was illegal and the detained publishers committed.

What is (not) ready to give up

Google has argued that Google’s targeted changes are the most effective and less dangerous way to restore competition, including through external witnesses like Wikihu CEO Tim Craycoft, the executive director of Google AD Tech, that Google was not originally provided by Google, saying that the company will be “very open to the official commitment” not to integrate its purchase tools directly into the DFP. But he will also not abide by his exile to reduce ADX rates by 20 percent, which the court ruled to be higher than it was in a competitive market.

Google will not give up some commercial practices that they say are not currently used. Google says do not use data from her other works such as YouTube or search to operate her business in the field of advertising technology, but she wants to be the option open if it becomes an important way to compete. In fact, Google should not even give up its monopolistic power, as long as you stop using it unfairly, according to Lerner. Later, he said that treatments should generally weaken the market of anti -competition behavior. “This is not in line with the concept that some monopolistic power can continue,” Brencka replied. “I see tension there.”

Lerner also rejected the idea that the treatment should prevent Google from creating a new anti-competition path, but it is not identical, to tie the illegal DFP-IDX, taking advantage of the advertiser’s request to purchase to achieve domination on the side of the publisher. This is because BRINKAMA did not find that the advertiser’s tool was anti -competitive in itself, as he said, and the way Google created was not illegal by nature, too.

To present its argument against this claim, the Ministry of Justice used a printed version that showed several ways to lead to the word “monopoly” in a large red box with the Google logo on top, and tried to show possible ways that Google can re -create its monopolistic power by overcoming the proposed treatments from Google. “All we need now is symbols, small homes,” Brenka mocked.

What does the judge think?

Two days ago, Brinkma raised what he called “the villa in the room” about whether the separation is really necessary. The first is that by the end of these procedures, BRINKAMA is expected to issue an order to the court that can be held Google in contempt for the court if it refuses to follow them. The second is that Google has already faces a set of lawsuits, and you are likely to face more. Will any of this company perform?

Google is certainly likely to comply with a court that restricts its behavior in the market technology markets that Rajeev Goel, the CEO of AD Exchang Pubmatic. But the problem is to ensure that the request includes a comprehensive list of all ways that Google may know how to benefit from itself in new or unknown ways now or in the future. When PubMatic raised a technical problem to Google that she was suffering from, Goel said he could not know whether the time it took to repair due to a road barrier, or to Google incentives to delay a solution to keep more money for himself. (Google Executive later witnessed the work and the regular updates it provided to PubMatic on the reform.)

BRINKEMA’s questions and comments in the last week of the trial sent mixed signals about how to think about the appropriate treatments, although it was difficult to know how much they gave her current thinking. On the one hand, after the lawyer of the Ministry of Justice said that the disintegration of AT & T helped accelerate the development of mobile phones, Brinkma said, “Yes, but we lost Bell Labs. This is what people hang.” On the other hand, it seemed later to take the witnesses of the Ministry of Justice, who were exposed to the importance of structural treatments to prevent the growth of Google’s monopoly. “Talking about behavior is not really important,” she said, when it prevents Google’s concern from getting dominance again.