Regarding your analogy, it would be more like if you're accused of stealing from your arch rival. Should they be barred from testifying against you on the grounds that there's bad blood between you? Certainly not! It's up to your lawyer to demonstrate their bias and persuade the jury to ignore their testimony.
Edit: to clarify, I believe this is the actual legal basis of anti monopoly legislation. Protection of the interests of the public, not competitor companies.
As guilty as Microsoft might be, it's rich of Microsoft with its monopolies (without which a lot of its subpar products like outlook and Teams and Edge would go poof) to be abdicating Google here.
Ironically, there is more and more search competition appearing. Bing isn't great, but other things are.
For those who don't know, the Sherman antitrust act has only two key paragraphs (and six procedural paragraphs).
> Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or other- wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, at the discretion of the court.
> Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof; shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-tr...
If we strip out the penalties, the words defining what's illegal are literally just "contract, ...trust..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce" and "monopolize any part of the trade or commerce".
Given that ambiguity, it's inevitable that courts will essentially have to write the law themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_welfare_standard
Maybe the judges are confused, but there was a shift in enforcement around the Reagan era. I also think "consumer welfare" in this context is taken to mainly maen low pricing. That is, if a monopoly causes higher prices, then we should go after them. The DOJ going after Google and Amazon is a bit of a return to the former standard. (Source: news programs I listen to such as The Majority Report.)
They didn’t actually rewrite antitrust law though, so it’s still there.
They care if doing so harms the consumer by the route of lack of competition leading to higher prices and/or inferior product.
The way we know they care is they are literally suing dozens of companies right now on that principle.
Rebecca Giblin & Cory Doctorow's Chokepoint Capitalism goes into detail on this.
So, like, if you were arrested for assaulted your neighbor who you had a long-standing rivalry with, you wouldn't expect the court to hear from the neighbor? It's not like you wouldn't have your own chance to give your own testimony...
The trial is about if Google used illegal practices to suppress and harm competitors.
So the person testifying, literally, is the victim of the crime.
Hence why the opposing side gets the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and why it would be a really bad idea to put forward a witness who clearly has a grudge against the accused. In cross you just show they have a grudge and now their testimony is suspect.
> Now, if they had actual evidence it'd be different
It is actual evidence. I don't think you know what evidence is...
Hard/soft evidence are established legal terms.
Even with a CCTV recording, you can use testimony to cast the CCTV recording in a light favorable to either the prosecution or defense. The circumstances surrounding evidence are weighed in order to come to a verdict or judgement.
Court cases are not about "who has the most incontrovertible proof", they are about convincing a judge or jury of an idea in order to get a specific outcome. Do not underestimate testimony (or really, any evidence that you think is inferior)
The defense will have ample opportunity to cross examine and present rebuttal whiteness.
And just because a witness is presented doesn't mean the fact finder (judge or jury) will find them credible.
My local jurisdiction has separate tracks for both vets and addicts. Because handling those cases in the "normal" court is inefficient and unproductive. (eg Most addicts need treatment, not jail time. Vets specific care, not jail time.)
IIRC, there's a separate bankruptcy court. Sounds smart. I don't expect laypersons to understand finance and such.
Methinks we need separate courts for both intellectual property and healthcare. Where the "jury of one's peers" is composed of actual domain expert peers.
I'll just add, Bingbot has the same crawling opportunities as Googlebot. Nobody is stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website. It's also been 20+ years: Windows OS is constantly manipulating defaults and Edge is still not uninstallable.
Smaller companies like DDG, Brave, Kagi are the ones trying to build narrow, competitive businesses in the search and browser space. If those are struggling due to anti-competitive practices I want to hear it.
I am mostly disappointed that it indicates to me (possibly incorrectly) that the DOJ is not simultaneously pursuing MS for related practices. Maybe it's not in the ads space, but MS is not without their own anti-competitive issues. Or maybe they are, and are able to walk and chew gum. But DOJ asking MS to be a witness is just not a good sign to me.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-ftc-sets-date-internal-argu...
> Because Microsoft is doing worse things than what they are accusing Google of, such as forcing users to use Edge and Bing in Windows.
Given that Google and other parties will have their chance at giving their evidence and testimony, would it not be better for Microsoft to be involved here where their own testimony will available for exploration?
Given that Bing powers DDG and Brave at least, and I assume Kagi consumes Bing also, I see no reason why the only other competitor to Google (in Search) should not be present.
I don’t recall Bing ever being the default search engine in Safari.
The deal was exclusively about Siri (which barely anyone used..)
I know your comment is about the bot, but the other side is, yes - Google is absolutely stopping Bing from driving traffic to their website. Not Google's bot, but Google's default deals on iOS, browsers, etc.
Even if Bing's index was measurably better, most folks wouldn't think to switch given how easy it already is to stick with Google.
Otherwise, re: Microsoft - you're absolutely right. The latest examples for me: - Teams as a crappy default - In Windows 11 I can't move my taskbar to another part of my window anymore? What the f. 10+ years of user-preference destroyed with one update.
In general, making contracts with 3rd parties that negatively impact your competitors is sort of looked down upon.
"Do you think Google would continue to pay Apple if there was no search competition? Why would they do that?"
Of course not and the reasons should be obvious. Microsoft being a competent competitor costs Google a lot of money. Lose the search dominance and the place basically shuts down, so they're willing to pay a lot to maintain it.
“I would love an opportunity to sort of not have them pay — maybe on behalf of the Google shareholders.”
Shut down Bing then and save Google shareholders a bunch of money, at the expense of Apple shareholders. He clearly doesn't want to spend what Google does for the same privilege. Google must perceives that the deal is worth it to do for their shareholders.
I imagine his ideal outcome would be something like Microsoft was forced to do with browsers, having a screen during the setup process asking the user what browser (or in this case search engine) they want as the default. I honestly don't think it would move the needle at all unless Bing was demonstrably better than Google.
I cannot see how this is true.
Microsoft, with its tens of billions in annual profits, can invest in all the advertising in the world, literally, to let people know how to change the default browser on their iOS or Android device.
It is a trivial setting to change.
What is not trivial, for Microsoft, is creating a competitive search engine and advertising business.
Most/many people won’t it undeniably gives a massive advantage to google.
So they can other have a just as good as Google’s product that they do not want to spend enough on to make default, or they do not offer enough of a value proposition for people to go to settings -> Safari -> default search -> bing.
This case exists because it's the opinion of the United States Department of Justice that this law was broken by Google.
This isn’t about the government trying to help Microsoft or represent their interest.
The whole point of anti-trust is that without competition prices go up and quality goes down.
For the consumer.
Where does it say that?
> At the end of Mr. Nadella’s appearance, a Justice Department lawyer asked why he thought Google paid Apple so much money to be the default search engine on Apple’s web browser Safari.
> “That’s a great question,” Mr. Nadella said. “I would love an opportunity to sort of not have them pay — maybe on behalf of the Google shareholders.”
I read that as: Nadella saying it cost Google's shareholders X in expenses. Reading it a second time, he is probably implying it increased Google's shareholders Y in revenue. But either way, CEO of a trillion dollar company making hypocritical remarks on another trillion dollar company. IMO it's just a poor decision of DOJ to use MS as a witness. I'd prefer they bring to light companies that are actually struggling, and not the company that can sign a $10 billion deal to boot strap new features into their competing product.
It was better than Bing...
Two things:
1) HN and elsewhere constantly point out how bad Google Search is lately 2) The introduction of ChatGPT and DALL-E powered Bing into Edge, the new Windows Sidebar and elsewhere has changed the game.
The new Windows 11 Bing/ChatGPT/DALL-E sidebar is so good that my hot-take is that it's going to put a dent into Google's Search dominance at a depth that Bing and others never have.
My final wild out-there prediction: MS ditch the Bing brand and pivot to using Copilot as their search and discovery brand.
Perhaps it’s coz I’ve minimized my footprint in Google ecosystem but then it just goes to show to what extent Google now relies on personal data to serve search results.
The internet is bad. There is a constant amount of good stuff and an exponentially increasing amount of garbage.
I've been reading this on Slashdot back in the days, before HN or Reddit even existed.
Is it?
I just tried a couple of searches on Bing. "Market Size of Apple Watch" Both Bing and Google didn't answer, providing market share instead.
"novak djokovic age when he won first grand slam" both said 20 in an infobox on top.
In my experience it's evened out, with Bing better at image and video search.
OK just tried 3 more. Almost identical with tiny edge to Google, but seriously, not by much. Try 5 searches yourself.
>how many times russia surrendered moscow
Google provides links about the history of Russian wars.
Bing talks about the current Ukrainian affair.
Bing = garbage
But I share your confusion. The case for Microsoft and Google being part of an oligopoly together doesn't really hold water, considering that Google appears to be competing with Microsoft in the consumer market for web browsers, operating systems, office productivity software, and machine learning.
If DDG or Kagi were the ones complaining here, then that makes sense because indeed their pockets don't run as deep as Google's or M$'s and that's unfair, but M$ complaining just sounds like the one comically evil megacorp taking advantage of the situation to get the other comically evil megacorp in trouble for shit they're doing themselves on a smaller scale.
I have been using DDG for several years now and honestly can't stand Google's results anymore. It seems like you can no longer search for an exact term and at every opportunity they try to slip in a merchant selling something as a result.
me: Who's that guy with a big hat?
DDG: showing results for bug hat IN UNITED KINGDOM: 1) Daily Mail woman wearing ladybird hat absolutely destroys woke liberal you won't believe. 2) Best hair cuts for guys who wear hats - generic-seo-spamsite.com. 3) Who's who in the world of business 2023 update. 4) Don't be "that guy"! tips for dating.
me: !g
Google: He's Crocodile Dundee.
me: how the heck did you know that.
Google isn't always that good, but DDG is all too often that bad. It's bad in a very Bing-way with search results that kinda touch on the right words but are low relevance and high SEO/spam. (And adamant that whatever I'm searching for - cat pictures, cities in California, Caesar Salad recipes, prices of things in America, I must want the results from UNITED KINGDOM because that's where I am. Which, incidentally, is a frustration of Google maps: "I wonder whats in California? Google maps, let me see the world..." "THIS IS YOUR HOUSE, THIS IS A ZOOMED IN MAP OF WHERE YOU LIVE, I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE". "Calm down, I know what things look like round here, I live here. I wanted to look somewhere else, like, obviously?").
But if you're like me and never evolved from the oldschool search engines and still use the same format of listing key words, DDG is better than or equal to Google.
So for example if I search for "Error 12345: Something bad happened", Google might remove the "12345" because it increases the number of results. They take the stance that more is better.
I like the combined approach of Apple Maps.