Latest news with #DavidDahlquist
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Google case: Indian-origin US judge questions future of search amid AI rise
Indian origin US judge Amit Mehta -- who is overseeing a major trial about Google's dominance in online search -- has questioned the US Department of Justice (DOJ) on how much space there might be for new search engines to develop, especially as artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more widespread. The trial is focused on whether Google, owned by Alphabet, holds a monopoly over internet search and what measures should be taken to encourage more competition. If the DOJ's proposals are approved, it could provide a boost to AI companies that are already challenging Google's position as the main tool people use to find information online. During closing arguments in Washington on Friday, Judge Mehta asked DOJ lawyer David Dahlquist if AI should be seen as simply another way to access search results or as a form of competing technology on its own. He asked, "Do you think someone is going to come off the sidelines and build a new general search engine in light of what we are seeing?" Dahlquist responded that search will not disappear and explained that the DOJ's proposed solutions aim to stop Google from blocking AI-based rivals. He added that OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, is still several years away from being able to handle 80 per cent of user queries using its own search technology. Google's response to competition concerns Google's lawyer, John Schmidtlein, said that while generative AI is changing how search works, Google has taken steps to ease worries about AI competition. He pointed out that Google no longer has exclusive deals with wireless carriers and smartphone makers like Samsung. This change lets these companies pre-load rival search engines and AI apps on new devices. However, the DOJ and a group of states want Google to take bigger steps. They are pushing for Google to sell its Chrome browser, share its search data, and stop paying billions of dollars to Apple and others to be the default search engine on new gadgets. David Dahlquist explained that these remedies are designed to open up the market for online search engines and advertising. He said Google's behaviour has 'fundamentally broken' competition in these areas. Google argues that the DOJ's demands are too extreme and go beyond what the law allows. The company believes these measures would unfairly force Google to hand over its technology to competitors. Google case: Trial timeline The trial over the proposed remedies began in April. Judge Mehta has indicated he plans to make a decision by August. If Google is ordered to sell Chrome, Nick Turley, OpenAI's head of product for ChatGPT, said OpenAI would be interested in buying it. Turley also mentioned that having access to Google's search data would help OpenAI improve the accuracy and relevance of its AI responses to user questions.
Deccan Herald
3 days ago
- Politics
- Deccan Herald
Judge in Google case questions future of search amid rise of AI
Mehta asked DOJ attorney David Dahlquist during closing arguments in Washington whether AI should be considered a way to access search, or as a kind of competing technology.
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
What the case against Google is really about
A version of this article originally appeared in Quartz's members-only Weekend Brief newsletter. Quartz members get access to exclusive newsletters and more. Sign up here. The government is finally moving to break up Google's search monopoly — just as the real battle has shifted to artificial intelligence. In a Washington courtroom, the Justice Department is laying out its case for dismantling parts of Google's empire, the culmination of an antitrust lawsuit first filed in 2020. But in the years since the original complaint focused on search engine dominance, the technological landscape has dramatically transformed. What began as a case about Google's grip on search is now equally about preventing the tech giant from leveraging that position to control the next frontier: AI. 'This court's remedy should be forward-looking and not ignore what is on the horizon,' David Dahlquist, the DOJ's acting deputy director of antitrust civil litigation, said in his opening statement. The argument underscored that regulators fear they're fighting yesterday's war even as a new one unfolds. Officials intend to seek a range of other remedies discussed in a court filing last month, including imposing data licensing requirements and requiring more transparency for advertisers on where their ads appear. The DOJ is also expected to demand 'measures related to artificial intelligence and its Android smartphone operating system' that would likely stop Google from hoarding user data for both search results and AI products. That could pave the way for more users to opt their content out of AI training. Bloomberg reports that in addition to banning Google's exclusive default deals, the government might force Google to sell off Chrome, the world's most popular browser. Tech rivals have quickly positioned themselves for the potential aftermath. An OpenAI executive said the company would be interested in buying Chrome, giving the company an easy path to building an 'AI-first' browsing experience that could transform how users navigate the web. OpenAI isn't alone. Perplexity, an AI company barely three years old, has entered the Chrome conversation. Even Yahoo, a former internet giant seeking relevance again, has reportedly shown interest in acquiring Chrome, adding another layer to the competition. Google CEO Sundar Pichai has mounted a vigorous defense against the government. Testifying in federal court on Wednesday, Pichai warned that the DOJ's proposal to force Google to share its search data would amount to a 'de facto divestiture' of the company's search engine, which took decades of investment to build. 'AI is one of the most profound technologies humans will ever work on,' Pichai told the court, pointing out that Google has invested approximately $49 billion in AI research and development. He characterized the government's demands as 'so far-reaching, so extraordinary' that they effectively ask Google to give away its core intellectual property. Asked by Judge Mehta how AI might transform search in the coming years, Pichai acknowledged that AI will 'deeply transform' Google search in 'very profound' ways. Yet he maintained that competition in AI remains fierce, pointing to what he called a 'big gap' between Google's Gemini and market leader ChatGPT. Still, court testimony revealed Google is already replicating its search playbook in the AI realm, paying Samsung substantial sums to make Gemini the default AI assistant on its devices — a strategy remarkably similar to what triggered its current legal troubles. The government's theory is straightforward: Google has created a self-reinforcing cycle where its control of search helps improve its AI products, which in turn sends more users back to Google search, maintaining the company's dominance and blocking competitors in both markets. At the heart of this argument is data — specifically, Google's massive search index, containing hundreds of billions of websites across more than 100 million gigabytes, according to court documents. This vast trove of information gives Google an immense advantage in training AI models, a point the DOJ has hammered home by calling executives from competing AI companies to testify. For media companies and publishers, the implications are significant. Unlike OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta, Google has generally avoided paying publishers for content used by its AI systems. The exception is Reddit, which reportedly receives $60 million annually for access to its user-generated content. 'It would be the worst of both worlds,' Pete Pachal, an industry analyst, said in his Substack, warning about a Google-dominated AI future. 'No licensing checks and no search referrals, because user queries never leave the on-device chatbox.' Google denies that it could monopolize AI, pointing to strong competition in the space. Internal documents presented in court showed that while Gemini reached 35 million daily active users by March, it still trails behind what it estimates is ChatGPT's 160 million daily users. The irony isn't lost on industry veterans: Google itself rose to prominence in the aftermath of the original browser wars of the 1990s, when Microsoft's Internet Explorer faced antitrust action. That intervention created space for innovation, allowing upstarts like Google to flourish in a more open internet ecosystem. Now Google finds itself cast as the monopolist, while a new generation of AI companies hopes regulatory action will give them the same opportunity Google once had — the chance to compete on a level playing field. For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Japan Times
03-05-2025
- Business
- Japan Times
U.S. presses for Google to share data by citing Yahoo Japan deal
U.S. antitrust enforcers reached back to a deal Google struck 15 years ago to argue that the Alphabet unit should once again share information with third parties, this time to end its illegal monopoly of online search. Google's agreement in 2010 to provide Yahoo Japan with access to search index data applied only to Google's Japanese-language index, not its global index. But Justice Department lawyer David Dahlquist said in court Friday it showed Google had voluntarily shared data with others in the past. Google has been pushing back on the remedies proposed by the U.S. to address its search dominance — one of which is sharing search data with rivals. Google has claimed that would imperil user privacy and put its intellectual property at risk. The Yahoo deal was revisited as part of a three-week trial that will determine how Google should restore competition to online search after U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled last year that the tech giant had illegally maintained a monopoly in the market. In a separate antitrust case before a different judge, the Justice Department urged Friday that Google be ordered to sell key parts of its advertising technology to address a ruling that it illegally monopolizes much of the market for placing ads on the web. The government wants Google to divest itself of its Chrome browser, license some search data to competitors and stop paying for exclusive positions on other apps and devices. Google has countered that the government's proposals are too extreme, saying they would hurt American consumers and the economy, as well as weaken U.S. technological leadership. The document detailing the Yahoo accord was presented during cross-examination of Jesse Adkins, a Google director of product management for search syndication, who oversaw implementation of the agreement for a number of years. The deal called for Google to share document IDs, URLs, and various signals like popularity and spam scores. "You're aware, sir, that the Yahoo Japan agreement is actually the foundation for plaintiff's data-sharing remedy in this manner?' Dahlquist asked as he walked Adkins through the different points of the agreement in court. "I will take your word for it,' Adkins responded. Google has long had a relationship with Yahoo Japan, a service unrelated to the U.S.-based Yahoo search engine, to provide it with search results and some backend work related to search advertising. During questioning, Google's lawyer sought to clarify that the tech giant had agreed to share portions of its Japanese-language search index solely to have Yahoo Japan assess the quality of Google's search results and provide feedback to Google. Adkins also testified that Yahoo Japan needed the data that Google shared to make sure that Google's search results complied with local laws, for instance around properly classifying adult websites. The agreement evolved over time, Adkins said, with Google later providing a more limited set of data to Yahoo Japan in real-time rather than the bulk data dumps it had in the past. Google's next witness was Eric Muhlheim, the chief financial officer of Mozilla, who discussed the importance of its partnership with the search giant for its revenue model. Last year, Mozilla — maker of the popular Firefox browser — brought in $570 million, Muhlheim testified. Of that revenue, 85% came from Google, which pays Mozilla for an exclusive position on the Firefox browser. In the short term, Muhlheim said, Mozilla's U.S. revenue would "drop precipitously' if the company were forced to switch to a different provider for Firefox's built-in search engine and no longer received compensation from Google under its longstanding revenue-sharing agreement. "The ensuing hole in our revenue would have to be overcome by pretty significant cost cuts across the business,' Muhlheim said. The remedy would also decrease the amount of money the company could invest in its own software and make it less competitive, he added. It could "start a downward spiral of usage as people defected from a browser, which could at the end of the day put Firefox out of business,' he said. If Google were barred from paying for an exclusive position on Mozilla's Firefox browser, Muhlheim testified, the company would be on the lookout for alternatives. "But we'd really be struggling in the meantime,' he said. In the last year, Muhlheim said the company has explored other options, including discussions with Microsoft about its Bing web browser taking the Mozilla's default search engine slot. But ultimately, Mozilla's assessment was that Bing wouldn't monetize as well as Google. Muhlheim added that he thought Microsoft could reduce the amount of revenue it was willing to share with Mozilla over time if it were the only strong competitor for the search engine browser slot. In a telling exchange near the end of Muhlheim's testimony, Mehta asked whether Mozilla would benefit from having "at least one other competitor' besides Google with equal quality of service competing for the search engine slot in the Firefox browser. Muhlheim answered that this would be a "better' world for Mozilla. "Do you believe that the market conditions that exist today could achieve the outcome that you're talking about either in the short term or the long term?' Mehta asked. "In some ways, it's hard to know, because AI is coming in. One could imagine that the amount of funding and the way people are working' in AI would create that world, Muhlheim responded. "So I don't think it's out of the question.'
Mint
02-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
US Presses for Google to Share Data by Citing Yahoo Japan Deal
US antitrust enforcers reached back to a deal Google struck 15 years ago to argue that the Alphabet Inc. unit should once again share information with third parties, this time to end its illegal monopoly of online search. Google's agreement in 2010 to provide Yahoo Japan with access to search index data applied only to Google's Japanese-language index, not its global index. But Justice Department lawyer David Dahlquist said in court Friday it showed Google had voluntarily shared data with others in the past. Google has been pushing back on the remedies proposed by the US to address its search dominance — one of which is sharing search data with rivals. Google has claimed that would imperil user privacy and put its intellectual property at risk. The Yahoo deal was revisited as part of a three-week trial that will determine how Google should restore competition to online search after US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled last year that the tech giant had illegally maintained a monopoly in the market. In a separate antitrust case before a different judge, the Justice Department urged Friday that Google be ordered to sell key parts of its advertising technology to address a ruling that it illegally monopolizes much of the market for placing ads on the web. The government wants Google to divest itself of its Chrome browser, license some search data to competitors and stop paying for exclusive positions on other apps and devices. Google has countered that the government's proposals are too extreme, saying they would hurt American consumers and the economy, as well as weaken US technological leadership. The document detailing the Yahoo accord was presented during cross-examination of Jesse Adkins, a Google director of product management for search syndication, who oversaw implementation of the agreement for a number of years. The deal called for Google to share document IDs, URLs, and various signals like popularity and spam scores. 'You're aware, sir, that the Yahoo Japan agreement is actually the foundation for plaintiff's data-sharing remedy in this manner?' Dahlquist asked as he walked Adkins through the different points of the agreement in court. 'I will take your word for it,' Adkins responded. Google has long had a relationship with Yahoo Japan, a service unrelated to the US-based Yahoo search engine, to provide it with search results and some backend work related to search advertising. During questioning, Google's lawyer sought to clarify that the tech giant had agreed to share portions of its Japanese-language search index solely to have Yahoo Japan assess the quality of Google's search results and provide feedback to Google. Adkins also testified that Yahoo Japan needed the data that Google shared to make sure that Google's search results complied with local laws, for instance around properly classifying adult websites. The agreement evolved over time, Adkins said, with Google later providing a more limited set of data to Yahoo Japan in real-time rather than the bulk data dumps it had in the past. Google's next witness was Eric Muhlheim, the chief financial officer of Mozilla, who discussed the importance of its partnership with the search giant for its revenue model. Last year, Mozilla — maker of the popular Firefox browser — brought in $570 million, Muhlheim testified. Of that revenue, 85% came from Google, which pays Mozilla for an exclusive position on the Firefox browser. In the short term, Muhlheim said, Mozilla's US revenue would 'drop precipitously' if the company were forced to switch to a different provider for Firefox's built-in search engine and no longer received compensation from Google under its longstanding revenue-sharing agreement. 'The ensuing hole in our revenue would have to be overcome by pretty significant cost cuts across the business,' Muhlheim said. The remedy would also decrease the amount of money the company could invest in its own software and make it less competitive, he added. It could 'start a downward spiral of usage as people defected from a browser, which could at the end of the day put Firefox out of business,' he said. If Google were barred from paying for an exclusive position on Mozilla's Firefox browser, Muhlheim testified, the company would be on the lookout for alternatives. 'But we'd really be struggling in the meantime,' he said. In the last year, Muhlheim said the company has explored other options, including discussions with Microsoft Corp. about its Bing web browser taking the Mozilla's default search engine slot. But ultimately, Mozilla's assessment was that Bing wouldn't monetize as well as Google. Muhlheim added that he thought Microsoft could reduce the amount of revenue it was willing to share with Mozilla over time if it were the only strong competitor for the search engine browser slot. In a telling exchange near the end of Muhlheim's testimony, Mehta asked whether Mozilla would benefit from having 'at least one other competitor' besides Google with equal quality of service competing for the search engine slot in the Firefox browser. Muhlheim answered that this would be a 'better' world for Mozilla. 'Do you believe that the market conditions that exist today could achieve the outcome that you're talking about either in the short term or the long term?' Mehta asked. 'In some ways, it's hard to know, because AI is coming in. One could imagine that the amount of funding and the way people are working' in AI would create that world, Muhlheim responded. 'So I don't think it's out of the question.' This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text. First Published: 3 May 2025, 01:13 AM IST
