Judge Concerned Google Antitrust Lawsuit Too Vague

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Remember that thing we talked about a while back that involved some stuff that people were suing that one company over? I guess the lawsuit was too vague.

A judge on Thursday said she would require consumers suing Google over its Android smartphone operating system to submit more factual details in order for an antitrust lawsuit to proceed, at a time when the Internet search company faces increased regulatory pressure.
 
The lawsuit filed earlier this year says Google Inc requires Android handset manufacturers such as Samsung Electronics Co Ltd to restrict competing apps like Microsoft Corp's Bing search, partly by making Google's own apps the default.

Kind of like microsoft making bing the default search engine on windows phones? Every default app on android can be changed, even the launcher unlike on ios/windows phones.
 
Kind of like microsoft making bing the default search engine on windows phones? Every default app on android can be changed, even the launcher unlike on ios/windows phones.

So, Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust violations years ago. However, with Google, no biggie?
 
For fucks sake... don't remind me of that crap. I can't believe MS was found guilty of that shit... the stupidity of it. Ugh.
 
So, Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust violations years ago. However, with Google, no biggie?

Europe is guilty of stupidity, its like suing ford because they use ford branded brake pads rather than giving you a choice of napa ones.
 
From the article:

"Google argues in its court filings that the proposed class action should be dismissed because consumers still are free to use the other apps. The plaintiffs counter that most consumers either do not know how to switch default settings, or will not go to the trouble."

Echoes of the Windows/IE fiasco years ago. MS made the exact same argument and lost. Google will too imo, although from what I've read this judge sounds like a deliberately ignorant industry tool. So imo plaintiffs will need to keep trying until they find a judge who's more interested in doing his or her job than protecting monopoly-holding megacorporations from class action lawsuits due to predatory business practices.
 
From the article:

"Google argues in its court filings that the proposed class action should be dismissed because consumers still are free to use the other apps. The plaintiffs counter that most consumers either do not know how to switch default settings, or will not go to the trouble."

Echoes of the Windows/IE fiasco years ago. MS made the exact same argument and lost. Google will too imo, although from what I've read this judge sounds like a deliberately ignorant industry tool. So imo plaintiffs will need to keep trying until they find a judge who's more interested in doing his or her job than protecting monopoly-holding megacorporations from class action lawsuits due to predatory business practices.

But as mentioned all of that is easily changed. With Apple you're stuck with Apple. Searches are always done with Siri - who at times is beyond useless.

On my S5 the S-Voice app is actually the default search app. Not sure about HTC or LG. The Nexus phones would obviously be defaulting to Google but that's kind of the point.
 
From the article:

"Google argues in its court filings that the proposed class action should be dismissed because consumers still are free to use the other apps. The plaintiffs counter that most consumers either do not know how to switch default settings, or will not go to the trouble."

Echoes of the Windows/IE fiasco years ago. MS made the exact same argument and lost. Google will too imo, although from what I've read this judge sounds like a deliberately ignorant industry tool. So imo plaintiffs will need to keep trying until they find a judge who's more interested in doing his or her job than protecting monopoly-holding megacorporations from class action lawsuits due to predatory business practices.

And at what point do we hold consumers responsible for their own behaviors ... just because a consumer doesn't know to do something or is unwilling to do something shouldn't be the fault of the company ... the problem with the tech industry is that when it became mainstream and we let every inbred country yokel get a smartphone and a computer we suddenly started making the companies legally responsible for dumbing their stuff down to the lowest IQ possible ... Google will likely lose in Europe because they remain the same anti-capitalist socialists as when MS lost ... but hopefully the USA will be smarter than that and not punish one of our most successful businesses because their users are too stupid to change their browser :cool:
 
And at what point do we hold consumers responsible for their own behaviors ... just because a consumer doesn't know to do something or is unwilling to do something shouldn't be the fault of the company ... the problem with the tech industry is that when it became mainstream and we let every inbred country yokel get a smartphone and a computer we suddenly started making the companies legally responsible for dumbing their stuff down to the lowest IQ possible ... Google will likely lose in Europe because they remain the same anti-capitalist socialists as when MS lost ... but hopefully the USA will be smarter than that and not punish one of our most successful businesses because their users are too stupid to change their browser :cool:
Again I'll point to MS, who was forced to disengage IE from Windows and somehow managed to stay in business.

What amazes me about your posts is your consistency of defense of monopoly positions by individual companies, regardless of who they are, and wholesale collapse of free market competition regardless of the industry. Google now control two-thirds of all web searches worldwide, and virtually all of the remaining one-third simply points back to Google's two-thirds. Do you honestly support nothing being done, while one company acts as sole gatekeeper to 90% of the world's internet? IMO this case is exactly the same as MS's, only much easier to make the same correct decision.
 
Again I'll point to MS, who was forced to disengage IE from Windows and somehow managed to stay in business.

What amazes me about your posts is your consistency of defense of monopoly positions by individual companies, regardless of who they are, and wholesale collapse of free market competition regardless of the industry. Google now control two-thirds of all web searches worldwide, and virtually all of the remaining one-third simply points back to Google's two-thirds. Do you honestly support nothing being done, while one company acts as sole gatekeeper to 90% of the world's internet? IMO this case is exactly the same as MS's, only much easier to make the same correct decision.

I am consistent because I am (for the most part) a laissez faire capitalist ... I think it is acceptable to punish a company for abusing a monopoly position but not for being a monopoly (especially if they achieved that position through their own achievements ... Like Google ) ... We punish companies like Microsoft and Google because they are too good at what they do and that is what I disagree with :cool:

If people can show that Google is abusing their monopoly then punish them appropriately ... But companies, just like people, should be innocent until PROVEN guilty ;)
 
I am consistent because I am (for the most part) a laissez faire capitalist ... I think it is acceptable to punish a company for abusing a monopoly position but not for being a monopoly (especially if they achieved that position through their own achievements ... Like Google ) ... We punish companies like Microsoft and Google because they are too good at what they do and that is what I disagree with :cool:
Not quite. What you claim is punishment is simply civil restraint of the corporate profit motive. Government is and can be the only effective defender of the public interest against this continuous and never-ending force. I wouldn't call it undesireable, the problem is its infinity: the public interest can and eventually does take a back seat to it, e.g. any company in a monopoly position will absolutely start leveraging it in any whatever ways are legally possible. They don't know how to do anything else, nor should they ever be expected to know. It's the job of government to restrain it in defense of the public interest, because nobody else can or will.

As in other threads I'll point interested parties into the monopoly of our landline telephone network in the 1930's. Same leveraging we're seeing now with Google and other monopoly players, and now as back then, the only remedy ever found by anyone was to propose and pass civil legislation, e.g. the Communications Act of 1934. These are the same Title I and II protections being considered for internet traffic, and they're specifically the only reason we're not required to listen to 19 Geico commercials before dialing a telephone. Meanwhile I promise you, if the internet remains unprotected in our country, within three years you won't be allowed to even get to a search prompt without this same forced advertising. Turn on commercial radio or basic cable TV, and if that's the future you want for the internet, please continue with your apparent misunderstanding and abuse of the term Laissez-faire, a philosophy that presupposes the existence of a free market, not monopoly leveraging.
 
Not quite. What you claim is punishment is simply civil restraint of the corporate profit motive. Government is and can be the only effective defender of the public interest against this continuous and never-ending force. I wouldn't call it undesireable, the problem is its infinity: the public interest can and eventually does take a back seat to it, e.g. any company in a monopoly position will absolutely start leveraging it in any whatever ways are legally possible. They don't know how to do anything else, nor should they ever be expected to know. It's the job of government to restrain it in defense of the public interest, because nobody else can or will.

As in other threads I'll point interested parties into the monopoly of our landline telephone network in the 1930's. Same leveraging we're seeing now with Google and other monopoly players, and now as back then, the only remedy ever found by anyone was to propose and pass civil legislation, e.g. the Communications Act of 1934. These are the same Title I and II protections being considered for internet traffic, and they're specifically the only reason we're not required to listen to 19 Geico commercials before dialing a telephone. Meanwhile I promise you, if the internet remains unprotected in our country, within three years you won't be allowed to even get to a search prompt without this same forced advertising. Turn on commercial radio or basic cable TV, and if that's the future you want for the internet, please continue with your apparent misunderstanding and abuse of the term Laissez-faire, a philosophy that presupposes the existence of a free market, not monopoly leveraging.

I just get nervous when the government claims they are acting in the "public interest" ... Which public and whose interest ... The "public" is not a monochrome entity ... As I said, if they actually do something wrong then punish them, if they are preventing competition because of some nefarious scheme then punish them, but if they are just better than everyone else and they gather a monopoly because of that then they should be left alone ... Otherwise you risk impeding achievement and you encourage mediocrity ;)
 
Back
Top