The most important technological power trial of the modern internet era began with government lawyers bluntly asserting that Google had systematically used its power in online search to intimidate competitors. and make life difficult for them.
The internet giant fiercely opposed the accusation, denying that it had made deals with companies like Apple, Samsung and Mozilla to exclude its search competitors, saying instead that Google was simply providing a product superior.
The governments filing suit “are seeking to distort competition in search by hindering Google and its ability to compete,” said John Schmidtlein, the lawyer who made the opening statement for Google. “All in the hope that forcing people to use inferior products in the short term will benefit competition in the long term. »
The case centers on tactics Google employed to capture approximately 90 percent of the global search engine market, to the point where the company’s name became synonymous with typing a query into a search box.
A Justice Department lawyer opened the trial by laying out the government’s arguments that Google used its deep pockets to strike deals that made it the default search provider on smartphones. Google saw the deals as a “powerful strategic weapon” to eliminate rivals and strengthen its search engine, the government said.
Mr Dintzer showed Judge Amit Mehta excerpts from an internal Google presentation describing default search positions as an “Achilles heel” for rivals such as Yahoo! and MSN.
Mr. Schmidtlein argued that default agreements between Google and browser makers do not foreclose the market as the Justice Department claims. Both Apple and Mozilla promote other search engines, he said, and users can easily change their default search engine. Users who want to switch search engines, he added, can search Google for instructions or watch a video on YouTube, which Google owns.
The case, heard in federal court in Washington, could have far-reaching implications not only for Google, but also for the tech giants whose products are ubiquitous in daily life and for the consumers who use them.
– The case has two key elements: Google’s default agreements and the search giant’s monopoly status. The Justice Department has estimated the value of the deals at more than US$10 billion a year, with a range of partners. Although Google is a dominant force in internet search, being a monopoly is not necessarily a problem; the real legal question is how a monopoly company uses its market power.
– The first witness called by the Justice Department is Hal Varian, Google’s chief economist. Ministry of Justice lawyers are expected to take more than three weeks to present their case, followed by two weeks for state and territory lawyers. Google is expected to begin its presentation at the end of October. The case will be decided by Mr. Mehta of the District of Columbia federal court rather than a jury, but a decision may not be made until next year.
– If Google loses, it could be forced to change its business practices or restructure, demonstrating the government’s ability to control big tech companies. But a Google victory could raise questions about the regulatory powers once used to break up behemoths like Standard Oil and AT
– Since the Justice Department accused Microsoft of illegally crushing competition by integrating its Internet Explorer browser with its Windows software, the government has never taken on a major technology company in an antitrust case. The Microsoft affair ended in 2001 with a deal that some tech industry executives say paved the way for start-ups, including Google, to compete in the modern internet era. The two cases are separated by two decades, but they have notable parallels.