Google has launched a fresh attack on the Department of Justice’s plans to 168澳洲5最新开奖结果:break up the company, saying they will “harm America’s economy and technological leadership.”

The DOJ and Google are in court once again, with today marking the beginning of the three-week remedies portion of the trial, in which Judge Amit P. Mehta will decide what measures should be taken to address Google’s search monopoly. The DOJ has pushed for a break up of the company, specifically forcing Google to sell off its Chrome web browser. The DOJ also reserves the right to later force the company to divest itself of Android, if selling Chrome alone is not enough.

Needless to say, Google is not a fan of the DOJ’s proposed remedies, and has authored a number of blog posts outlining why it believes the DOJ’s argument is flawed. Lee-Anne Mulholland, VP of Regulatory Affairs, the day before the remedies arguments, making the case that the DOJ’s proposals will harm the US economy and tech leadership position.

The US Department of Justic🐽e’s 2020 search distribution lawsuit is a backwards-looking case at a time of intense competition and unprecedented innovation. With new services like ChatGPT (and foreign competitors like DeepSeek) thriving, DOJ’s sweeping remedy ༒proposals are both unnecessary and harmful.

We have long said that we disagree with the Court’s decision in the case and will appeal. But first the Court must decide what remedies best address its liabil💃ity decision. At trial we will show how DOJ’s unprecedented proposals go miles beyond the Court’s decision, and would hurt Am🥀erica’s consumers, economy, and technological leadership.

Mulholland then outlines th🅠e fiv🅘e areas where Google disagrees with the DOJ.

• DOJ’s proposal would make it harder for you to get to services you prefer. People use Google because they want to, not because they have to. DOJ’s proposal would force browsers and phones to default to search services like Microsoft’s Bing, making it harder for you to access Google.
• DOJ’s proposal to prevent us from competing for the right to distribute Search would raise prices and slow innovation. Device makers and web browsers (like Mozilla’s Firefox) rely on the revenue they receive from search distribution. Removing that revenue would raise the cost of mobile phones and handicap the web browsers that you use every day.
• DOJ’s proposal would force Google to share your most sensitive and private search queries with companies you may never have heard of, jeopardizing your privacy and security. Your private information would be exposed, without your permission, to companies that lack Google’s world-class security protections, where it could be exploited by bad actors.
• DOJ’s proposal would also hamstring how we develop AI, and have a government-appointed committee regulate the design and development of our products. That would hold back American innovation at a critical juncture. We’re in a fiercely competitive global race with China for the next generation of technology leadership, and Google is at the forefront of American companies making scientific and technological breakthroughs.
• DOJ’s proposal to split off Chrome and Android — which we built at great cost over many years and make available for free — would break those platforms, hurt businesses built on them, and undermine security. Google keeps more people safe online than any other company in the world. Breaking off Chrome and Android from our technical, security, and operational infrastructure would not just introduce cybersecurity and even national security risks, but also increase the cost of your devices.

For its part, Google believes modifications to its search and Android ecosystem deals, as well as “robust” oversight, is enough to address the courts concerns, as Mulholland outlined in a previous blog post.

• Browser companies like Apple and Mozilla should continue to have the freedom to do deals with whatever search engine they think is best for their users. The Court accepted that browser companies “occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.” And for companies like Mozilla, these contracts generate vital revenue.
• Our proposal allows browsers to continue to offer Google Search to their users and earn revenue from that partnership. But it also provides them with additional flexibility: It would allow for multiple default agreements across different platforms (e.g., a different default search engine for iPhones and iPads) and browsing modes, plus the ability to change their default search provider at least every 12 months (the court’s decision specifically referred to a 12 month agreement as “presumed reasonable” under antitrust law).
• Our proposal means device makers have additional flexibility in preloading multiple search engines, and preloading any Google app independently of preloading Search or Chrome. Again, this will give our partners additional flexibility and our rivals like Microsoft more chances to bid for placement.
• Our proposal includes a robust mechanism to ensure we comply with the Court’s order without giving the Government extensive power over the design of your online experience.

Other Companies Agree With Google

While there’s no denying that Google’s proposals and blog posts are self-serving, that doesn’t necessarily mean the company is wrong.

Mozilla, for example, has 168澳洲5最新开奖结果:repeatedly come out in favor of Google and its search deals, saying “the DOJ that could harm the ability of independent browsers to fund their operations.”

Again, like Google, Mozilla’s support of the search giant is self-serving. Google pays Mozilla hundreds of millions of dollars per year to be the default search engine in Firefox, a deal that comprises the bulk of Mozilla’s income.

Nonetheless, Mozilla is also in the unique position of having had other default search engines in the past, such as Yahoo, and ultimately con🧸cluding that Google offered the best experience for Firefox users.

For the past seven years, Google search has been the default in Firefox in the U.S. because it provides the best search experience for our users. We can say this because we have tried other search defaults and supported competitors in search: in 2014, we switched from Google to Yahoo in the U.S. as they sought to reinvigorate their search product. There were certainly business risks, but we felt the risk was wor🔯th it to further our mission of promoting a better internet ecosystem. However, that decision proved to be unsuccessful.

Firefox users — who demonstrated a strong pꦏreference for having Google as the default search engine — did not find Yahoo’s product up to their expectations. When we renewed our search partnership in 2017, we did so with Google. We again made certain that the agreement was non-exclusive and allowed us to promote a range of search choices to people.

Similarly, Apple has defended its deal to make Google the default search engine in its Safari web browser, both on desktop and mobile devices. What’s more, the iPhone makers any remedy that ends such default search deals will actually hurt Apple, not help it.

Apple Senior VP 168澳洲5最新开奖结果:Eddy Cue made just such a case during the actual trial.

If this Court prohibits Google from sharing revenue for search distribution, Apple would have two unacceptable 🎉choices. It could still let users in the United States choose Google as a search engine for Safari, but Apple could not receive any share of the resulting revenue, so Google would obtain va🔯luable access to Apple’s users at no cost. Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on Safari. But because customers prefer Google, removing it as an option would harm both Apple and its customers.

Conclusion

There’s no doubt that the next three weeks will have a profound impact on the future of Google, the search market, web browsers, and the tech industry at large.

Google and Mozilla are not wrong that too aggressive of remedies run the risk of doing profound harm to the tech industry, creating a situation in which consumers are not benefited and tech companies’ ability to compete are crippled.`