Justice Dept. Plans to File Antitrust Charges Against Google in Coming Weeks (nytimes.com) 71
The Justice Department plans to bring an antitrust case against Google as soon as this month, after Attorney General William P. Barr overruled career lawyers who said they needed more time to build a strong case against one of the world's wealthiest, most formidable technology companies, The New York Times just reported, citing five people briefed on internal department conversations. From the report: Justice Department officials told lawyers involved in the antitrust inquiry into Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube, to wrap up their work by the end of September, according to three of the people. Most of the 40-odd lawyers who had been working on the investigation opposed the deadline. Some said they would not sign the complaint, and several of them left the case this summer. Some argued this summer in a memo that ran hundreds of pages that they could bring a strong case but needed more time, according to people who described the document. Disagreement persisted among the team over how broad the complaint should be and what Google could do to resolve the problems the government uncovered. The lawyers viewed the deadline as arbitrary.
While there were disagreements about tactics, career lawyers also expressed concerns that Mr. Barr wanted to announce the case in September to take credit for action against a powerful tech company under the Trump administration. But Mr. Barr felt that the department had moved too slowly and that the deadline was not unreasonable, according to a senior Justice Department official. A former telecom industry executive who argued an antitrust matter before the Supreme Court, Mr. Barr has shown a deep interest in the Google investigation. He has requested regular briefings on the department's case, taking thick binders of information about it on trips and vacations and returning with ideas and notes.
While there were disagreements about tactics, career lawyers also expressed concerns that Mr. Barr wanted to announce the case in September to take credit for action against a powerful tech company under the Trump administration. But Mr. Barr felt that the department had moved too slowly and that the deadline was not unreasonable, according to a senior Justice Department official. A former telecom industry executive who argued an antitrust matter before the Supreme Court, Mr. Barr has shown a deep interest in the Google investigation. He has requested regular briefings on the department's case, taking thick binders of information about it on trips and vacations and returning with ideas and notes.
Wonder what the real story was here... (Score:2, Troll)
Is Barr trying to get the case out to quickly?
Or are internal forces in the justice department trying to run out the clock so Biden can have the whole thing dropped before any charges are filed, ever?
Ask yourself which scenario Google gains more from... and who they are traditionally more friendly towards [humanevents.com].
Interestingly, hand to find that last link (that I knew existed) by using Bing, as it didn't come up on Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the investigation has been going on for over a year at this point.
It must be nice to accomplish nothing and get a paycheck.
Real story is Google has pissed Trump off (Score:2, Insightful)
Insofar as everything has been totally politicized in Trumpistan, the "real story" is obvious. Even the Department of so-called Justice has been totally politicized. If Trump told Barr "Google is my friend", then you know Barr would know what not to do. However, Trump is stupid enough that he quite probably came out and ordered Barr "Get the google off my back before the election."
I'd prefer to focus on possible solution approaches. Existing anti-trust law is clearly broken beyond belief. Corporate cancers
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Real story is Google has pissed Trump off (Score:5, Insightful)
A number of conservatives believe google is against them because their search results don't return what they think should be first in the list. White supremacists believe their sites should be higher in the list or in the case of some, banned all together. And since google links to various news reports and caches them.. a lot of stories that they would rather bury, still come up in cached results..
Basically they want it THEIR way.. and when its not.. they blame google for not being their ally.
Its the same thing like when they want to pick on facebook saying their groups and posts are being filtered and banned (forgetting that most of their speech flies against their STATED policies for inciting hate.. but whatever).
Note: I am no fan of either google or facebook (I actually hate facebook the most).. But if you are going to go after them, it should be for something legitimate, not a manufactured indignation like it is now.
Re: Real story is Google has pissed Trump off (Score:1, Insightful)
The censorship is rife on YouTube and everyone knows it. Search queries for exact names and titles of search results bring back no results, comment ghosting, subscriber removes I can go on and on.
Really, nobody is hiding it any more even on other platforms. It makes me wonder if there are those in the DOJ purposefully dragging there feet.
I'm with Barr on this. The case doesn't have to be perfect it just needs to get done.
Re: Real story is Google has pissed Trump off (Score:2)
Basically concur both with the comment and the moderation, but I'm mobile and I can't see the rest of the discussion. However, I should have mentioned in my earlier comment that I think the Google has become quite evil and strongly deserves to be broken up.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I believe that if Google is broken up, whatever comes after Google will be worse, so not much point to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well when you break it up what follows is a bunch of companies none of which can grab monopoly control. Want easy things to target Google with, it obviously records whether or not people have diabetes, so did it purposefully target people with diabetes for junk food and candy commercials they are all avoiding these and thus a market to be gained, non buyers turned into buyers, so what if they suffer and die, more profits now. You just have to prove this once and they are in severe legal trouble, provide it
Re: (Score:1)
You can start here [campaignfo...bility.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck trying to fix it when anyone with money is negatively affected and has lobbying potential.
I wish I had an answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine enough people voting to make it happen? Me neither, but I ain't dead yet.
In terms of implementation of my solution approach, I did have one funny idea. Make the higher tax rate the default, with the onus on the companies to demonstrate that there is real competition and that they deserve to pay lower taxes on their profits because they are fighting so hard in a truly competitive market. (Should I toss in the Microsoft example again?)
Anyway, best wishes on your wish for an answer. I'd love to
#1 or #2 (Score:2)
"Don't even enter a market unless you can become #1 or #2." That's NOT how actual capitalism should work.
I first heard this in the 1990s, though its probably much order. The context is the make-or-buy decision. For example, if you can't make 4KiB RAM sticks cheap enough to be #1 or #2 when selling them on the free market, buy them instead. This means you always have two sources. If, in the future, one of your sources goes out of business or raises his prices, or if your costs decrease, you revisit the decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Insofar as everything has been totally politicized in Trumpistan, the "real story" is obvious. Even the Department of so-called Justice has been totally politicized. If Trump told Barr "Google is my friend", then you know Barr would know what not to do. However, Trump is stupid enough that he quite probably came out and ordered Barr "Get the google off my back before the election."
I'd prefer to focus on possible solution approaches. Existing anti-trust law is clearly broken beyond belief. Corporate cancers are running amok. Too many industries are being dominated by leading companies. Among other targets of blame, the MBAs have long advocated against real competition. The usual guidance is something along the lines of "Don't even enter a market unless you can become #1 or #2." That's NOT how actual capitalism should work.
My favored solution approach remains a progressive profits tax linked to market share. The path to higher retained earnings would lead to MORE competition, more choice, more progress, and I even believe it would result in more freedom. Smaller corporations would even help justify smaller government.
But I cannot recall detecting any evidence of interest or even comprehension of that idea on Slashdot 2020. So what's your better solution approach?
P.S. Is this story the "reason" the Dow dropped 800 points? Scare quoted due to the insanity of the stock markets these days. Reason need not apply.
Quoted against the censorious troll moderation.
One expansion here, though it's partly triggered by a later comment. Only two choices is linked to my complaint and my sig. The optimum locus of choice is probably around 5 for most people. Fewer than that means the choices are too limited, but when it gets too much higher, then the decision process becomes too difficult and it's too easy for gamesters to game the decision points. (There's also the paradox of increased dissatisfaction linked to too many options
Re: Wonder what the real story was here... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You do know that Biden's ahead in the polls, right?
Of course you do, you just believe that elections are just another thing that Trump can brazen out, Lukashenko-style.
Re: (Score:1)
Biden hasn't been a senator for more than a decade.
The thinking is that if elected, President Harris would drop any antitrust cases against their silicon value masters.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The election is coming up $oon and google has deep pocket$.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I don't read it that way, although it does sound plausible. I think, rather, that this is another of the alleged administration's Hail Marys they hope will cause a score. There is a feeling among some quarters that Big Tech has gotten too big. So, in my opinion, they are attempting to catch that wave and counter any campaign moves the Democrats might make towards riding that same wave.
It is typical of the alleged president to pick a victim that cannot hit him back. The worst that Google can do is win in cou
Re: You know Google helped get Brett Kavanaugh (Score:1)
Even then it probably doesn't matter if they win in court. Rule 230 that gave social media companies cover from being held responsible for their censorous actions will be overhauled in the wake of this.
But let's be honest, Google is ripe for an antitrust break up. If it can happen for the phone company it can happen for Google.
Funny now the election will just be (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a funny joke and I'd give you the funny mod if I could, but it took me a couple of seconds to figure it out.
Damn Trump (Score:1, Funny)
Re: Trump 2020! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A reminder (Score:2)
It's an election year, politicians are all fighting for valuable PAC cash, and trying to squeeze some more out some more sweet sweet "influence".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Doubt it. This smells like another Hail Mary pass from the alleged president. According to the news, some 40 Dept. Justice lawyers opposed the timeline and some have left the case. Be prepared for many more Hail Marys as the alleged president flails around for something, anything, to salvage his candidacy. Barr is just a useful idiot to the alleged president.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is a showman first and a competent leader . . .maybe someday. And he demands the same from his subordinates since he is too dumb to tell whether the action taken is likely to be effective or not.
Google will act as a synecdoche for big technology, and the lawsuit will be part of his narrative explaining why Google, Twitter, Amazon (really the Washington Post), Facebook, etc. are reporting that he is committing crimes, enriching himself and his enablers, and violating subpoenas to produce documents.
The
Re: (Score:2)
TDS? I don't think we need to bring the ability to believe the alleged president into this.
Re: (Score:1)
I would say Barr knows EXACTLY what he's doing.. he simply doesn't care about ethics or integrity... he found his "golden ticket" and wants to make sure it stays in power..
Re: (Score:2)
Barr screwed up royally in replacing that prosecutor in NY. I don't think he's that bright. In my opinion, he's simply doing the alleged president's bidding like a good lapdog for all the reasons mentioned above. I don't think he has any dreams of staying in power, it is more keeping his right wing-nut credentials for when he goes back to a private sinecure.
Deadlines aren't arbitrary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Deadlines aren't arbitrary (Score:1)
Alphabet is huge....but.... (Score:2)
Alphabet is a HUGE company. They have their hands in all sorts of things and pretty much control much of the market segments they are in. They are making money hand over fist, which isn't
Is this enough to be a monopoly subject to being broken up by anti-trust laws?
IDK, but I the courts will have to sort that out if Justice brings charges, a process that will take YEARS and cost millions. Is it worth this?
Re: (Score:2)
>> Is it worth this?
Yes.
Re: (Score:1)
Why?..
Google has their hands in a lot of pies.. but hardly dominates in any of them (except search engine/ad revenue)..
They have their hands in social media.. but that's practically owned by Facebook
Automotive technology, but that's dominated by a larger consortium that has ZERO to do with Google
Home Automation (HD4 and many others rule that)
Music (Spotify)
Videos and TV (Facebook Watch, TikTok Netflix, and SOOOO many other companies)
News (well, they are just an aggregator.. google doesn't produce news, they
Remind me again (Score:2, Interesting)
What monopoly does google have besides shitty search results?
Re: Remind me again (Score:2)
Easy way to answer that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What monopoly does google have besides shitty search results?
That is quite a silly comment. Google's Search is one of the weakest monopolies it has. Google's primary monopoly is online advertising (see previous advertising charges against it's Adsense product). Google's next biggest monopoly is Smartphone Operating systems where it has pretty much 100% of the market (no Apple doesn't sell or license its OS or its store to 3rd parties, also see EU vs Google regarding Play licensing).
As for "shitty" search results. They may not work for you, but in an industry where th
Re: (Score:2)
What monopoly does google have besides shitty search results?
Ads, and ad placement within their shitty search results:
"Mr. Barr, who has repeatedly said publicly that the tech industry's power required examination, is expected to decide in the coming months whether to file a lawsuit accusing Google of abusing its power in the market for advertising technology and search products."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/technology/barr-google-investigation.html [nytimes.com]
What a slanted article (Score:3, Insightful)
Attorney General William P. Barr overruled career lawyers
Really weird. For one its rare to use someone's full name like that unless they normally are addressed that way like Harry S. Truman for example. I also find it interesting that the statement is Barr is overruling "career lawyers" which not only makes it sound ill advised but also implies that Barr is less qualified than them. This is especially strange given that not only has Barr been a "career" lawyer for likely longer than most of those under him has been alive, but this is also his second tenure as Attorney General; He also held the position during Bush Sr's term in office.
expressed concerns that Mr. Barr wanted to announce the case in September to take credit for action against a powerful tech company under the Trump administration.
Mr. Barr has shown a deep interest in the Google investigation. He has requested regular briefings on the department's case, taking thick binders of information about it on trips and vacations and returning with ideas and notes.
Sounds to me like he is taking the case far more seriously than the people under him are. Maybe they could build a case in a reasonable amount of time if they bitched less and worked more.
It's not whether they're qualified or not (Score:5, Insightful)
You think you want this because your side is winning right now. But trust me, you don't want this. This is part of a broad attack on free discourse on the Internet that includes the right wing's attacks on Net Neutrality, Section 230 of the CDA (which is how/why you can post here an
These are the first steps to locking down the Internet and turning it into at best Cable TV and at worse State TV.
Re: (Score:2)
You think you want this because your side is winning right now. But trust me, you don't want this. This is part of a broad attack on free discourse on the Internet that includes the right wing's attacks on Net Neutrality, Section 230 of the CDA (which is how/why you can post here an /.) and the press in general.
The fuck are you talking about? You don't know me, or my political leanings. Anyways you are conflating two different discussions. This isn't about the whole free speech/fake news/censorship online thing. This is about the fact that companies like Google, Apple, Facebook etc are massive, wield far too much power and know too much about everyone. Do you think Google should be allowed to work in healthcare and leverage all the data they've been collecting on you for the last 20 years at the same time? Do you
If you're political leanings don't align (Score:2)
It's kind of like how Susan Collins is every so concerned with Donald Trump but votes with him 95% of the time. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.
If you're not a duck, pay attention to the ideas in your head and the consequences of them and stop quacking around.
Breaking up the massive companies won't make the internet discourse more free. It'll create a power vacuum for guys like Barr
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible to have nuanced opinions and to agree sometimes with some things that some politicians say. I happen to think that Social media in general is bad for humanity, we didn't evolve to function in such large and generally anonymous social groups. And I also think the silicon valley model of business is the modern robber barons. Taking advantage of the common man while overly enriching a select few who otherwise contribute little to nothing to society.
Re: (Score:2)
Barr been a "career" lawyer for likely longer than most of those under him has been alive, but this is also his second tenure as Attorney General; He also held the position during Bush Sr's term in office.
Barr's only time spent practicing law were two separate stints from 1978 to 1982 and again from 1983 to 1989 at a firm that did not specialize in antitrust law. This small amount of time practicing law, with the last time being over 30 years ago, hardly qualifies him as a "career lawyer". But, oh yes, this is his second stint as AG, and apparently he has learned nothing from his first where he did an equally shitty job and was equally as reckless to not listen to those smarter than him.
Google is huge. They
Re: (Score:2)
Attorney General William P. Barr overruled career lawyers
I also find it interesting that the statement is Barr is overruling "career lawyers" which not only makes it sound ill advised but also implies that Barr is less qualified than them.
The term "career lawyers" doesn't indicate competence. Rather, the term is used commonly to distinguish non-political lawyers from politically appointed and ostensibly politically motivated lawyers, such as Barr. That is, the career lawyers were not appointed by the president but Barr was. No need to hunt for a derisive connotation, as this term is widely used and understood.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's so commonly used then why have I never heard it used that way before? In the common vernacular, which a paper like NYT should be using, "Career" anything means that's their career. Nothing more nothing less.
No need to hunt for a derisive connotation
I think its funny you are accusing me of trying to spin words when you're they one pulling a non-standard definition.
He wants a weak case (Score:2)
Barr wants a weak case that he can file before the elections. He wants to score points with the Trump base, which filing a case against Google will do. He doesn't want to actually harm a large company, so a weak case that'll fall apart as it's prosecuted serves him well. And when it falls apart or is dropped it'll do so during Biden's term which gives the GOP another talking point.