Latest news with #Schmidtlein
Economic Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Economic Times
Google makes case for keeping Chrome browser
Google on Friday urged a US judge to reject the notion of making it spin off its Chrome browser to weaken its dominance in online search. Rival attorneys made their final arguments before US District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who is considering imposing "remedies" after a landmark decision last year that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in search. US government attorneys have called on Mehta to order Google to divest itself of Chrome browser, contending that artificial intelligence is poised to ramp up the tech giant's dominance as the go-to window into the also want Google barred from agreements with partners such as Apple and Samsung to distribute its search tools, which was the focus of the suit against the Silicon Valley internet weeks of testimony ended early in May, with Friday devoted to rival sides parsing points of law and making their arguments before Mehta in a courtroom in Washington. John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, told Mehta that there was no evidence presented showing people would have opted for a different search engine without the exclusivity deals in place. Schmidtlein noted that Verizon installed Chrome on smartphones even though the US telecom titan owned Yahoo! search engine and was not bound by a contract with the 100 or so witnesses heard at trial, not one said "if I had more flexibility, I would have installed Bing" search engine from Microsoft, the Google attorney told the judge. 'More flexibility' Department of Justice (DoJ) attorney David Dahlquist countered that Apple, which was paid billions of dollars to make Chrome the default browser on iPhones, "repeatedly asked for more flexibility" but was denied by contends that the United States has gone way beyond the scope of the suit by recommending a spinoff of Chrome, and holding open the option to force a sale of its Android mobile operating system."Forcing the sale of Chrome or banning default agreements wouldn't foster competition," said Cato Institute senior fellow in technology policy Jennifer Huddleston."It would hobble innovation, hurt smaller players, and leave users with worse products."Google attorney Schmidtlein noted that more than 80 percent of Chrome users are outside the United States, meaning divestiture would have global ramifications."Any divested Chrome would be a shadow of the current Chrome," he contended."And once we are in that world, I don't see how you can say anybody is better off."The potential of Chrome being weakened or spun off comes as rivals such as Microsoft, ChatGPT and Perplexity put generative artificial intelligence (AI) to work fetching information from the internet in response to user online search antitrust suit was filed against Google some five years ago, before ChatGPT made its debut, triggering AI is among the tech companies investing heavily to be a leader in AI, and is weaving the technology into search and other online offerings. Kneecap Google? Testimony at trial included Apple vice president of services Eddy Cue revealing that Google's search traffic on Apple devices declined in April for the first time in over two testified that Google was losing ground to AI alternatives like ChatGPT and pressed rival attorneys regarding the potential for Google to share data as proposed by the DoJ in its recommended remedies."We're not looking to kneecap Google," DoJ attorney Adam Severt told the judge."But, we are looking to make sure someone can compete with Google."Schmidtlein contended that data Google is being asked to share contains more than just information about people's online searches, saying it would be tantamount to handing over the fruit of investments made over the course of decades."There are countless algorithms that Google engineers have invented that have nothing to do with click and query data," Schmidtlein said."Their remedy says we want to be on par with all of your ingenuity, and, respectfully your honour, that is not proportional to the conduct of this case."
eNCA
3 days ago
- Business
- eNCA
Google makes case for keeping Chrome browser
USA - Google on Friday urged a US judge to reject the notion of making it spin off its Chrome browser to weaken its dominance in online search. Rival attorneys made their final arguments before US District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who is considering imposing "remedies" after a landmark decision last year that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in search. US government attorneys have called on Mehta to order Google to divest itself of Chrome browser, contending that artificial intelligence is poised to ramp up the tech giant's dominance as the go-to window into the internet. They also want Google barred from agreements with partners such as Apple and Samsung to distribute its search tools, which was the focus of the suit against the Silicon Valley internet giant. Three weeks of testimony ended early in May, with Friday devoted to rival sides parsing points of law and making their arguments before Mehta in a courtroom in Washington. John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, told Mehta that there was no evidence presented showing people would have opted for a different search engine without the exclusivity deals in place. Schmidtlein noted that Verizon installed Chrome on smartphones even though the US telecom titan owned Yahoo! search engine and was not bound by a contract with Google. Of the 100 or so witnesses heard at trial, not one said "if I had more flexibility, I would have installed Bing" search engine from Microsoft, the Google attorney told the judge. - 'More flexibility' - Department of Justice (DoJ) attorney David Dahlquist countered that Apple, which was paid billions of dollars to make Chrome the default browser on iPhones, "repeatedly asked for more flexibility" but was denied by Google. Google contends that the United States has gone way beyond the scope of the suit by recommending a spinoff of Chrome, and holding open the option to force a sale of its Android mobile operating system. "Forcing the sale of Chrome or banning default agreements wouldn't foster competition," said Cato Institute senior fellow in technology policy Jennifer Huddleston. "It would hobble innovation, hurt smaller players, and leave users with worse products." Google attorney Schmidtlein noted that more than 80 percent of Chrome users are outside the United States, meaning divestiture would have global ramifications. "Any divested Chrome would be a shadow of the current Chrome," he contended. "And once we are in that world, I don't see how you can say anybody is better off." The potential of Chrome being weakened or spun off comes as rivals such as Microsoft, ChatGPT and Perplexity put generative artificial intelligence (AI) to work fetching information from the internet in response to user queries. The online search antitrust suit was filed against Google some five years ago, before ChatGPT made its debut, triggering AI fervor. Google is among the tech companies investing heavily to be a leader in AI, and is weaving the technology into search and other online offerings. - Kneecap Google? - Testimony at trial included Apple vice president of services Eddy Cue revealing that Google's search traffic on Apple devices declined in April for the first time in over two decades. Cue testified that Google was losing ground to AI alternatives like ChatGPT and Perplexity. Mehta pressed rival attorneys regarding the potential for Google to share data as proposed by the DoJ in its recommended remedies. "We're not looking to kneecap Google," DoJ attorney Adam Severt told the judge. "But, we are looking to make sure someone can compete with Google." Schmidtlein contended that data Google is being asked to share contains more than just information about people's online searches, saying it would be tantamount to handing over the fruit of investments made over the course of decades. "There are countless algorithms that Google engineers have invented that have nothing to do with click and query data," Schmidtlein said. "Their remedy says we want to be on par with all of your ingenuity, and, respectfully your honor, that is not proportional to the conduct of this case."
Time of India
3 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Google makes case for keeping Chrome browser
Google on Friday urged a US judge to reject the notion of making it spin off its Chrome browser to weaken its dominance in online search. Rival attorneys made their final arguments before US District Court Judge Amit Mehta , who is considering imposing "remedies" after a landmark decision last year that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in search. US government attorneys have called on Mehta to order Google to divest itself of Chrome browser, contending that artificial intelligence is poised to ramp up the tech giant's dominance as the go-to window into the internet. They also want Google barred from agreements with partners such as Apple and Samsung to distribute its search tools, which was the focus of the suit against the Silicon Valley internet giant. Three weeks of testimony ended early in May, with Friday devoted to rival sides parsing points of law and making their arguments before Mehta in a courtroom in Washington. Live Events John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, told Mehta that there was no evidence presented showing people would have opted for a different search engine without the exclusivity deals in place. Discover the stories of your interest Blockchain 5 Stories Cyber-safety 7 Stories Fintech 9 Stories E-comm 9 Stories ML 8 Stories Edtech 6 Stories Schmidtlein noted that Verizon installed Chrome on smartphones even though the US telecom titan owned Yahoo! search engine and was not bound by a contract with Google. Of the 100 or so witnesses heard at trial, not one said "if I had more flexibility, I would have installed Bing" search engine from Microsoft, the Google attorney told the judge. 'More flexibility' Department of Justice (DoJ) attorney David Dahlquist countered that Apple, which was paid billions of dollars to make Chrome the default browser on iPhones, "repeatedly asked for more flexibility" but was denied by Google. Google contends that the United States has gone way beyond the scope of the suit by recommending a spinoff of Chrome, and holding open the option to force a sale of its Android mobile operating system. "Forcing the sale of Chrome or banning default agreements wouldn't foster competition," said Cato Institute senior fellow in technology policy Jennifer Huddleston. "It would hobble innovation, hurt smaller players, and leave users with worse products." Google attorney Schmidtlein noted that more than 80 percent of Chrome users are outside the United States, meaning divestiture would have global ramifications. "Any divested Chrome would be a shadow of the current Chrome," he contended. "And once we are in that world, I don't see how you can say anybody is better off." The potential of Chrome being weakened or spun off comes as rivals such as Microsoft, ChatGPT and Perplexity put generative artificial intelligence (AI) to work fetching information from the internet in response to user queries. The online search antitrust suit was filed against Google some five years ago, before ChatGPT made its debut, triggering AI fervour. Google is among the tech companies investing heavily to be a leader in AI, and is weaving the technology into search and other online offerings. Kneecap Google? Testimony at trial included Apple vice president of services Eddy Cue revealing that Google's search traffic on Apple devices declined in April for the first time in over two decades. Cue testified that Google was losing ground to AI alternatives like ChatGPT and Perplexity. Mehta pressed rival attorneys regarding the potential for Google to share data as proposed by the DoJ in its recommended remedies. "We're not looking to kneecap Google," DoJ attorney Adam Severt told the judge. "But, we are looking to make sure someone can compete with Google." Schmidtlein contended that data Google is being asked to share contains more than just information about people's online searches, saying it would be tantamount to handing over the fruit of investments made over the course of decades. "There are countless algorithms that Google engineers have invented that have nothing to do with click and query data," Schmidtlein said. "Their remedy says we want to be on par with all of your ingenuity, and, respectfully your honour, that is not proportional to the conduct of this case."
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump DOJ pushes for Google-Chrome breakup amid heightened Big Tech scrutiny
The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued Monday that a federal judge should force Google to divest from its Chrome browser, suggesting it could send a message to other 'monopolists' amid the government's multiple antitrust battles with Big Tech. The DOJ and Google offered their opening salvos in court, as they kicked off a three-week trial to determine remedies after Google was found to have an illegal monopoly over online search. 'We're at an inflection point,' David Dahlquist, the DOJ's lead attorney, said Monday. 'This is the time for the court to tell Google and all other monopolists that there are consequences when you break antitrust laws.' U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled last August that Google had illegally maintained a monopoly over online search through a series of exclusive agreements with device manufacturers and browser developers that secured its search engine as the default. The government has argued that splitting off the Chrome browser from Google is necessary, alongside a host of other remedies, to open up the search market and end the tech firm's monopoly. Google contends that the DOJ's proposed remedies are 'fundamentally flawed' and 'completely untethered' from the conduct at issue in the case — Google's exclusive distribution agreements. 'It is a wish list from competitors looking to get the benefits of Google's extraordinary innovation,' John Schmidtlein, Google's lead attorney, said Monday in his opening arguments. Beyond the Chrome divestiture, the government also seeks to bar Google from entering into the exclusive agreements at the heart of the case, as well as require the company to share search and advertising data with competitors. If these remedies fail to rein in Google's monopoly or the company circumvents them, the DOJ has included a contingency — requiring Google to split from its operating system Android. Dahlquist argued Monday that these various proposals will 'reinforce each other to encourage competition.' He slammed Google's proposal, by contrast, as a 'superficial Band-Aid approach that does nothing,' dismissing its enforcement provision as 'toothless.' The company's proposal seeks more limited restrictions on its agreements with device manufacturers and browsers, removing the exclusive nature of such agreements while still allowing for deals. Schmidtlein argued that Google's remedies respond directly to the court's findings in the case, while the DOJ's proposal goes well beyond them. 'Google won its place in the market fair and square,' he said. 'Divesting Google of its hard-earned innovations so that lesser rivals can use them will not promote competition.' Chrome and Android are both deeply tied to Google's infrastructure, Schmidtlein contended, which could create problems if they are divested. He also argued that the government's data sharing requirements would boost Google's rivals, while posing privacy and security risks. Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, who leads the DOJ's antitrust division, suggested Monday that the Google case was a unifying force in an increasingly polarized political climate. 'In a time of political division in our nation, this case against Google brings everyone together. This case was filed during President Trump's first term and litigated across three administrations. It has unified our nation,' Slater said in a statement. She emphasized that the government has been joined by 49 states, two territories and Washington, D.C., in bringing the search case. 'If Google's conduct is not remedied, it will control much of the internet for the next decade and not just in internet search, but in new technologies like artificial intelligence,' she added. The trial comes at a crucial moment for Google, as its future appears increasingly uncertain in the wake of a second antitrust loss last week. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled Thursday that the company had illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly over advertising technology, which helps connect advertisers and publishers to fill ad space online. The decision represents another major blow for Google, although it claimed partial victory, emphasizing the parts of the case where the judge sided with the company. It has vowed to appeal the 'other half' of the ruling. Meta is also currently on trial at the same courthouse in Washington, D.C., seeking to fend off allegations from the Federal Trade Commission that the social media giant entrenched its monopoly over social networking with its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
21-04-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Trump DOJ pushes for Google-Chrome breakup amid heightened Big Tech scrutiny
The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued Monday that a federal judge should force Google to divest from its Chrome browser, suggesting it could send a message to other 'monopolists' amid the government's multiple antitrust battles with Big Tech. The DOJ and Google offered their opening salvos in court, as they kicked off a three-week trial to determine remedies after Google was found to have an illegal monopoly over online search. 'We're at an inflection point,' David Dahlquist, the DOJ's lead attorney, said Monday. 'This is the time for the court to tell Google and all other monopolists that there are consequences when you break antitrust laws.' U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled last August that Google had illegally maintained a monopoly over online search through a series of exclusive agreements with device manufacturers and browser developers that secured its search engine as the default. The government has argued that splitting off the Chrome browser from Google is necessary, alongside a host of other remedies, to open up the search market and end the tech firm's monopoly. Google contends that the DOJ's proposed remedies are 'fundamentally flawed' and 'completely untethered' from the conduct at issue in the case — Google's exclusive distribution agreements. 'It is a wish list from competitors looking to get the benefits of Google's extraordinary innovation,' John Schmidtlein, Google's lead attorney, said Monday in his opening arguments. Beyond the Chrome divestiture, the government also seeks to bar Google from entering into the exclusive agreements at the heart of the case, as well as require the company to share search and advertising data with competitors. If these remedies fail to rein in Google's monopoly or the company circumvents them, the DOJ has included a contingency — requiring Google to split from its operating system Android. Dahlquist argued Monday that these various proposals will 'reinforce each other to encourage competition.' He slammed Google's proposal, by contrast, as a 'superficial band aid approach that does nothing,' dismissing its enforcement provision as 'toothless.' The company's proposal seeks more limited restrictions on its agreements with device manufacturers and browsers, removing the exclusive nature of such agreements while still allowing for deals. Schmidtlein argued that Google's remedies respond directly to the court's findings in the case, while the DOJ's proposal goes well beyond them. 'Google won its place in the market fair and square,' he said. 'Divesting Google of its hard-earned innovations so that lesser rivals can use them will not promote competition.' Chrome and Android are both deeply tied to Google's infrastructure, Schmidtlein contended, which could create problems if they are divested. He also argued that the government's data sharing requirements would boost Google's rivals, while posing privacy and security risks. Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, who leads the DOJ's antitrust division, suggested Monday that the Google case was a unifying force in an increasingly polarized political climate. 'In a time of political division in our nation, this case against Google brings everyone together. This case was filed during President Trump's first term and litigated across three administrations. It has unified our nation,' Slater said in a statement. She emphasized that the government has been joined by 49 states, two territories and Washington, D.C., in bringing the search case. 'If Google's conduct is not remedied, it will control much of the internet for the next decade and not just in internet search, but in new technologies like artificial intelligence,' she added. The trial comes at a crucial moment for Google, as its future appears increasingly uncertain in the wake of a second antitrust loss last week. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled Thursday that the company had illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly over advertising technology, which helps connect advertisers and publishers to fill ad space online. The decision represents another major blow for Google, although it claimed partial victory, emphasizing the parts of the case where the judge sided with the company. It has vowed to appeal the 'other half' of the ruling. Meta is also currently on trial at the same courthouse in Washington, D.C., seeking to fend off allegations from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that the social media giant entrenched its monopoly over social networking with its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
