Judge in charge of Google’s fate does not prefer that

Since the second stage of the Google Ad Tech trial has ended, Judge Leoni Bernaka was still hoping to take Google and the Ministry of Justice the decision of her hands.

The lawyers said about both sides shortly before the courtroom was postponed after more than 10 days of trial in the treatment case. Ruling in April Google has illegally monopolized the market for publisher ads servers and exchange ads, and has illegally linked its products to make it difficult for customers to move to competitors’ options. As it turned out, this ruling may be the easy part – after two weeks of arguments, BRINKEA is now charged with deciding what to do to restore competition to the markets that Google suffocated for a decade. This includes hours of technical certificates that experts were in contradiction What is possible until separation Of Google Special Systems without creating new problems. With this in mind, it is not difficult to understand why Brinkma told lawyers that this is the type of case “that must be stabilized”.

There is no sign yet that such a settlement is coming, and by the end of the experiment, Google and DOJ seemed miles away from what is possible and required to restore competition. The government wants to impose BRINKAMA to sell the ADX exchange of Google, open the logical source that lives within its DFP server and decides to provide ads, and leave the open option to sell the rest of DFP If this does not work well enough. Google proposes a series of restrictions imposed on its behavior, and the requirements of its advertising technology to work in new ways it says will fulfill the main clients from the stage of responsibility in the experiment.

Without a settlement, Brinkma will be left in the same unimaginable position, as Judge Amit Mihita was previously in the case of the Ministry of Justice against the search for the search for Google: Determining how to re -engineer the market to move forward in the account of the past damage. Mihata ultimately emphasized the judicial humility in the therapy decision He refused to go further From Google’s Chrome browser. Although BRINKAMA can still choose to walk on a different path, her comments at the end of the experience indicate the challenge that many suspended technology monopolys may face even if the government won its initial battles.

The rulings of Mihita and Brenca, which were described as Google as an illegal monopoly, were historical, which represents the provisions of the first technology monopoly in the issue of the government brought more than 20 years ago. They have shown that courts can understand technical companies and anti -competition mechanisms buried in code lines or databases as an anti -monopoly law that he wrote more than a century ago.

But determining whether the company has broke the law, the law is likely to be more comfortable for the judge rather than redesigning a broken market for the future – especially those that depend on at least a degree of artwork for change. Throughout the trial, BRINKAMA of expert witnesses on both sides about the technical feasibility of breaking the Google advertising technology systems. Often, they seemed completely opposed – government experts said the changes will be implemented and they do not see any reason for the deteriorating jobs, while Google experts drew the task as very difficult, with no promise of a similar product on the other side.

If you give up any structural changes, BRINKAMA can still set a screen to ensure Google’s compliance with behavioral treatments. Even so, she was concerned that the wrong step could destroy the result. “This is part of the key to making everything that is the final work,” said Brunta. “I will be very worried about any screen that may have any share in the result.”