Major win for Alphabet Inc. Judge ruled Google will not be forced to sell Chrome but has to share information

[britporn_mike]

Major win for Alphabet Inc. Judge ruled Google will not be forced to sell Chrome but has to share information


"Google will not have to sell its Chrome search engine but must share information with competitors, a US federal judge has ordered.

The remedies decided by District Judge Amit Mehta comes after a years-long court battle over Google's dominance in online search.

Last year, Judge Mehta found that Google illegally trampled its competition in search.

This spring, during the second phase of the antitrust case aimed at determining remedies, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) demanded that Google sell Chrome, the world's most popular web browser."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8zd ... mpaign=rss

[TheButcher]

It's good they will not have to sell Chrome but why should a company that has invested time money have to share the fruits of their work with the competition, let them go risk their own money and develop whatever they want.

[calista]

Microsoft faced their own problems with Internet Explorer years ago.

[DeSexGuide]

Good for Google nice win

[antisocial]

Google built the biggest search engine, all these whining little bitches crying how they can't compete need to go get a life.

[tacnet]

Google built the biggest search engine, all these whining little bitches crying how they can't compete need to go get a life.

I know it seems unfair but having one big supplier of anything is NEVER good for the consumer. It keeps prices artificially high, stifles innovation and limits consumer choice.

A case in point is De Beers. For decades, the price of diamonds was not governed by traditional supply and demand. Instead it was manipulated by one company, De Beers who controlled over 90% of the global diamond supply. They would stockpile diamonds to keep the prices artificially high and then, if someone tried to cut them out of the supply chain, they would flood the market with diamonds to crash the price and thus ruin their competition. They were also heavily involved in apartheid and the supply of "blood diamonds" from corrupt African war lords.

Google's global search engine market share is currently around 90-94%. They are the default search engine for most browsers including Chrome, Apple Safari, Firefox and Samsung meaning if you type something into the address bar, it automatically goes to google. They have total control over the search engine market meaning they can set whatever prices they want. They don't have to worry about innovation and if the consumer doesn't like it then tough !

That's why we have a Monopoly and Mergers Commission

[jag]

Without getting into the specifics here I will say competition is good for everyone.

[Big MOE]

Why go after innovators and punish them for being successful

[tacnet]

Why go after innovators and punish them for being successful

Your not seeing the bigger picture. Monopolies are NEVER good for consumers

Back in the 90's, Microsoft was going to be broken up because their Windows operating system was so successful that almost all their competition had gone out of business. They had a monopoly in the desktop PC market. The only way Bill Gates could save Microsoft from the chopping block was to invest huge sums of money into their only remaining competition. A then little known company that was just months away from bankruptcy called...... Apple !

Now imagine if Bill Gates had NOT been forced to save Apple. Nobody would have ever heard of an Ipad, Iphone or Apple IOS. Everything would run on Microsoft Windows whether we liked it or not and we would all have to pay whatever Bill Gates wanted to charge

Same goes for Google.

[CDSally]

Good let Chrome stay I use it and like it, why screw with it.

[AlexO]

Google is too big to care