Skip to content

Judge spares Google from Chrome or Android breakup, orders data sharing with rivals and end to exclusive agreements

Technology
13 9 0
  • cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/36778872

    ::: spoiler Comments

    230-page PDF.

    Today, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division won significant remedies in its monopolization case against Google in online search. In United States et al. v. Google, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia prohibited Google from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app; ordered Google to make certain search index and user-interaction data available to rivals and potential rivals; and ordered Google to offer search and search text ads syndication services to enable rivals and potential rivals to compete.

    The court’s ruling today recognizes the need for remedies that will pry open the market for general search services, which has been frozen in place for over a decade. The ruling also recognizes the need to prevent Google from using the same anticompetitive tactics for its GenAI products as it used to monopolize the search market, and the remedies will reach GenAI technologies and companies.

  • cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/36778872

    ::: spoiler Comments

    230-page PDF.

    Today, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division won significant remedies in its monopolization case against Google in online search. In United States et al. v. Google, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia prohibited Google from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app; ordered Google to make certain search index and user-interaction data available to rivals and potential rivals; and ordered Google to offer search and search text ads syndication services to enable rivals and potential rivals to compete.

    The court’s ruling today recognizes the need for remedies that will pry open the market for general search services, which has been frozen in place for over a decade. The ruling also recognizes the need to prevent Google from using the same anticompetitive tactics for its GenAI products as it used to monopolize the search market, and the remedies will reach GenAI technologies and companies.

    Fucken boo

    We need an open standard browser that isnt owned by monied interests.

  • Fucken boo

    We need an open standard browser that isnt owned by monied interests.

  • Fucken boo

    We need an open standard browser that isnt owned by monied interests.

    We avoided the worst outcome, they were considering killing Firefox to prevent a Google internet monopoly.

  • cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/36778872

    ::: spoiler Comments

    230-page PDF.

    Today, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division won significant remedies in its monopolization case against Google in online search. In United States et al. v. Google, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia prohibited Google from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app; ordered Google to make certain search index and user-interaction data available to rivals and potential rivals; and ordered Google to offer search and search text ads syndication services to enable rivals and potential rivals to compete.

    The court’s ruling today recognizes the need for remedies that will pry open the market for general search services, which has been frozen in place for over a decade. The ruling also recognizes the need to prevent Google from using the same anticompetitive tactics for its GenAI products as it used to monopolize the search market, and the remedies will reach GenAI technologies and companies.

    So they ruled they were a monopoly, but don't need to be broken up. Then called it a win in the case referenced as the monopolization case.

    I'll have to read through more of the documentation later but that doesn't sound like a win for anyone, except maybe Alphabet

  • cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/36778872

    ::: spoiler Comments

    230-page PDF.

    Today, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division won significant remedies in its monopolization case against Google in online search. In United States et al. v. Google, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia prohibited Google from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app; ordered Google to make certain search index and user-interaction data available to rivals and potential rivals; and ordered Google to offer search and search text ads syndication services to enable rivals and potential rivals to compete.

    The court’s ruling today recognizes the need for remedies that will pry open the market for general search services, which has been frozen in place for over a decade. The ruling also recognizes the need to prevent Google from using the same anticompetitive tactics for its GenAI products as it used to monopolize the search market, and the remedies will reach GenAI technologies and companies.

    Google following rules after court. Lol

  • We avoided the worst outcome, they were considering killing Firefox to prevent a Google internet monopoly.

    What. Idk how that makes sense but I guess I am glad that didn't happen. Still frustrated with this outcome tho.

  • Hopefully one day it will be

  • That will be very exciting when it actually exists

  • What. Idk how that makes sense but I guess I am glad that didn't happen. Still frustrated with this outcome tho.

    They were considering blocking Google from paying Mozilla to be the default search engine, which is almost all of Firefox 's revenue.

    It kinda makes sense, chome being the dominant browser gives Google a search advantage, and the other alternatives (like safari and Firefox) both make deals with Google to have it be the default as well.

    But removing those deals would be more disastrous for Firefox than for Google.

  • cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/36778872

    ::: spoiler Comments

    230-page PDF.

    Today, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division won significant remedies in its monopolization case against Google in online search. In United States et al. v. Google, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia prohibited Google from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app; ordered Google to make certain search index and user-interaction data available to rivals and potential rivals; and ordered Google to offer search and search text ads syndication services to enable rivals and potential rivals to compete.

    The court’s ruling today recognizes the need for remedies that will pry open the market for general search services, which has been frozen in place for over a decade. The ruling also recognizes the need to prevent Google from using the same anticompetitive tactics for its GenAI products as it used to monopolize the search market, and the remedies will reach GenAI technologies and companies.

    Finally, a massive corporation is able to get away with being a huge piece of shit! Yet another great day for America, we're almost truly great again!

  • cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/36778872

    ::: spoiler Comments

    230-page PDF.

    Today, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division won significant remedies in its monopolization case against Google in online search. In United States et al. v. Google, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia prohibited Google from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app; ordered Google to make certain search index and user-interaction data available to rivals and potential rivals; and ordered Google to offer search and search text ads syndication services to enable rivals and potential rivals to compete.

    The court’s ruling today recognizes the need for remedies that will pry open the market for general search services, which has been frozen in place for over a decade. The ruling also recognizes the need to prevent Google from using the same anticompetitive tactics for its GenAI products as it used to monopolize the search market, and the remedies will reach GenAI technologies and companies.

    Wonder if they even felt the slap on the wrist.

  • cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/36778872

    ::: spoiler Comments

    230-page PDF.

    Today, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division won significant remedies in its monopolization case against Google in online search. In United States et al. v. Google, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia prohibited Google from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini app; ordered Google to make certain search index and user-interaction data available to rivals and potential rivals; and ordered Google to offer search and search text ads syndication services to enable rivals and potential rivals to compete.

    The court’s ruling today recognizes the need for remedies that will pry open the market for general search services, which has been frozen in place for over a decade. The ruling also recognizes the need to prevent Google from using the same anticompetitive tactics for its GenAI products as it used to monopolize the search market, and the remedies will reach GenAI technologies and companies.

    Pay no attention to the fabulous new watches and luxury car the judge starts to drive.

    A case that affects a broad range of people, such as this one, out be given sentencing by a broad range of people.

    Nor a single judge who likely has no technical knowledge or experience that would allow him the wisdom to know what the fuck he is doing and what the (non) consequence of his ruling mean.

  • Convert YouTube Videos to Text Instantly

    Technology technology
    1
    1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    24 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • X CEO Linda Yaccarino is now ex-CEO

    Technology technology
    15
    1
    244 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    190 Aufrufe
    semi_hemi_demigod@lemmy.worldS
    Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo
  • Microsoft axe another 9000 in continued AI push

    Technology technology
    24
    185 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    378 Aufrufe
    J
    Yeah my friend is dating a Google recruiter and he overhears some absurd offers. Like, a reasonable person could retire on a few years at that salary. I have a hypothesis that rich people are bad at money
  • Las Vegas LED Video Wall Rental

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Uber, Lyft oppose some bills that aim to prevent assaults during rides

    Technology technology
    12
    94 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    138 Aufrufe
    F
    California is not Colorado nor is it federal No shit, did you even read my comment? Regulations already exist in every state that ride share companies operate in, including any state where taxis operate. People are already not supposed to sexually assault their passengers. Will adding another regulation saying they shouldn’t do that, even when one already exists, suddenly stop it from happening? No. Have you even looked at the regulations in Colorado for ride share drivers and companies? I’m guessing not. Here are the ones that were made in 2014: https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2021/title-40/article-10-1/part-6/section-40-10-1-605/#%3A~%3Atext=§+40-10.1-605.+Operational+Requirements+A+driver+shall+not%2Ca+ride%2C+otherwise+known+as+a+“street+hail”. Here’s just one little but relevant section: Before a person is permitted to act as a driver through use of a transportation network company's digital network, the person shall: Obtain a criminal history record check pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 40-10.1-110 as supplemented by the commission's rules promulgated under section 40-10.1-110 or through a privately administered national criminal history record check, including the national sex offender database; and If a privately administered national criminal history record check is used, provide a copy of the criminal history record check to the transportation network company. A driver shall obtain a criminal history record check in accordance with subparagraph (I) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) every five years while serving as a driver. A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: (c) (I) A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: An offense involving fraud, as described in article 5 of title 18, C.R.S.; An offense involving unlawful sexual behavior, as defined in section 16-22-102 (9), C.R.S.; An offense against property, as described in article 4 of title 18, C.R.S.; or A crime of violence, as described in section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S. A person who has been convicted of a comparable offense to the offenses listed in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (c) in another state or in the United States shall not serve as a driver. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the criminal history record check for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least five years after the criminal history record check was conducted. A person who has, within the immediately preceding five years, been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a felony shall not serve as a driver. Before permitting an individual to act as a driver on its digital network, a transportation network company shall obtain and review a driving history research report for the individual. An individual with the following moving violations shall not serve as a driver: More than three moving violations in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver; or A major moving violation in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver, whether committed in this state, another state, or the United States, including vehicular eluding, as described in section 18-9-116.5, C.R.S., reckless driving, as described in section 42-4-1401, C.R.S., and driving under restraint, as described in section 42-2-138, C.R.S. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the driving history research report for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least three years. So all sorts of criminal history, driving record, etc checks have been required since 2014. Colorado were actually the first state in the USA to implement rules like this for ride share companies lol.
  • 12 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    24 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 273 Stimmen
    68 Beiträge
    2k Aufrufe
    A
    intellectual property is grotesque. under no circumstances a creator should be barred from his creation. if shit like that happens I'd rather there not be any intellectual property at all
  • MDM Thoughts?

    Technology technology
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    44 Aufrufe
    R
    Hello folks! Interested in learning new skills? Check out the best courses in graphic design- https://www.admecindia.co.in/courses/graphic-design-courses/ https://www.admecindia.co.in/course/advanced-graphic-design-master-course/ https://www.admecindia.co.in/course/most-advanced-graphic-design-course-master-plus/