A let off or tougher than it looks? What the Google monopoly ruling means

During the modern internet, several cases of monopoly have been examined in and beyond in the Silicon Valley, the turning point of the US government’s dominance of Google’s online search.

In 1998, the US V and the US V Microsoft has felt that Big Teh was so threatened.

However, a year after deciding that Google was a “monopoly”, Judge Amite Mehta suggested a series of drugs that some of them think that they have left Google slightly, although not everyone.

Here’s what you need to know.

The possibility of a company distribution seemed great during the drug phase of the case. Ultimately, Judge Mehta decided not to force Google to return the world’s most popular browser Chrome, as government lawyers requested.

The US Department of Justice proposed the supervision of the company’s android operating system to avoid using the company’s ecosystem for “general exploration services and avoiding using it for searching text ads”.

Both Chrome and Android appeared in the decision of Judge Mehta.

“[T]Hortum, Northeastern University Professor of Economics John Kwoka, shares, mechanisms to prevent the emergence of new competitors and earn money from the search monopoly.

Organizers will be forced to leave later in the drug phase of a different antitröst case that the US government opposes Google through the sovereignty of the US government’s advertising technology.

The Ministry of Justice opened this case against Google in 2020. At that time, very few consumers, despite being used, heard productive artificial intelligence (AI).

“The emergence of Genei changed the course of this case,” the judge Mehta wrote in his decision, how fast the money flows into the developing technology.

The speed of change has accelerated during the year since Google concluded that it was a monopoly in the online search.

Although he is an important player in Google AI – he usually sends AI answers above the search results – Judge Mehta said companies in this field could pose a kind of financial and technological threats against Google that traditional search companies cannot do.

The judge found himself at a disturbing point: Jennifer Huddleston, a senior member of the Cato Institute at the Conservative Learning Thinking Corporal Cato Institute, wanted to “predict the future of a rapidly changing market instead of looking at historical facts.”

Huddleston added that “a judge is not forete,” he added, so Judge Mehta may be particularly cautious because he has published potential solutions to Google’s search monopoly.

Although most Wall Street analysts seem to admit that Judge Mehta’s decision was a great victory for the technology industry, the judge ordered some solutions that could make a difference compared to some experts.

For example, Google must share specific data with “qualified competitors” as adopted by the court.

This will include sections of the search series, which is a large web content inventory, which functions like Google’s internet map.

The judge will also allow some competitors to make Google search results look like themselves to give the time and resources they need to innovate.

Judge allows Google to continue to pay for companies such as Apple and Samsung to distribute the search engine to devices and browsers, but will prevent Google from maintaining special contracts.

The partners of this meaning will be more leverage to get rid of these agreements or become partners with alternative companies.

Professor Rebecca Hay Allensworth, an antitröst expert at the VanderBilt Law School, added that prevention of Google’s worst scenario did not make the decision of Judge Mehta a “real gain” for the technology industry.

As a result, he says that Judge Mehta depends on the Microsoft case in which a judge forces a monopoly to break this monopoly.

“More than twenty years ago, there would always be a war uphill war to make him sit in this court to do what he was rejected because his colleague did,” Allensworth said.