Google considers “radical” the proposal of US Department of Justice to divide your business and break their “monopoly” by separating management from the operating system Android, the Chrome browser and the Google Play app store.
In a message from Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice president of Regulatory Affairs at Google, posted on the Google website, the company assured that it is preparing the response to the US Government’s proposal but that the idea of break the giant in three “goes beyond the specific legal issues” originally raised.
Mulholland assured that the proposed breakup will harm consumers, will depress the value of internet ads, will threaten privacy of users and will increase the cost of mobile phones.
The directive’s warnings come after the US Department of Justice presented a court document on Tuesday night in which accuses the company of using Chrome, Play and Android to give an advantage to Google searches and related products such as artificial intelligence on his rivals.
The Justice Department argued that breaking up the company would prevent Google from maintaining its monopolistic position.
In these moments, Google controls 90% of the search market an internet.
Google had broken US antitrust laws.
The Government’s proposal comes after a federal court determined in August of this year that Google had broken antitrust laws of the country with its search business after spending billions of dollars on contracts for other companies to make its search engine the default in their systems.
Mulholland stated that although the August court case revolves around those contracts, the US government:
“It seems to be following a radical agenda that will affect numerous sectors and products, with significant unforeseen consequences for consumers, businesses, and the competitiveness of the United States.”
The breakup of a business giant like Google is something that has not occurred in the United States since 1982 he Government decreed the end of the monopoly that kept Bell System, through AT&Tin the country’s telecommunications system.
The decision gave rise to seven companies (NYNEX, Pacific Telesis, Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, Southwestern Bell Communication, Bell South y US West) y a un cheapening of the costs of calls to long distance thanks to the explosion of competitiveness of rival companies. At the same time, the cost of local calls increased
Related
#Android #Chrome #Google #Play #proposed
Interview: Exploring Google’s Response to DOJ Breakup Proposal
Editor: Today, we’re joined by Dr. Michael Turner, a tech policy expert and professor at the University of Silicon Valley, to discuss the recent proposal by the U.S. Department of Justice to break up Google. Dr. Turner, thank you for being here.
Dr. Turner: Thank you for having me.
Editor: Google has described the DOJ’s proposal as “radical.” What are the core implications of such a breakup for both the company and consumers?
Dr. Turner: A breakup would fundamentally disrupt Google’s current ecosystem. By separating its operating system, browser, and app store, the company would lose the integrated advantages it has leveraged to dominate the search market. For consumers, this could mean less seamless access to services and potentially higher costs, as competition might not lead to the expected benefits.
Editor: Lee-Anne Mulholland mentioned that it could harm consumers and depress internet ad values. What do you think about these concerns?
Dr. Turner: Those concerns are valid. Google’s integrated services allow for efficiencies that many users appreciate—like personalized searches and unified services. Splitting these could reduce the value proposition for consumers. Additionally, advertisers rely heavily on Google’s vast reach, and if that is diminished, we could see a downturn in revenue and investment in online advertising.
Editor: The DOJ suggests that Google uses its dominance to unfairly promote its own products. How does that play into the larger debate over monopolistic practices in tech?
Dr. Turner: This is at the heart of antitrust discussions these days. The question is whether market dominance is earned through innovation and efficiency or maintained through anti-competitive practices. If the DOJ can prove that Google is leveraging its products to stifle competition, that could justify such drastic measures as a breakup.
Editor: With Google controlling approximately 90% of the search market, how do you assess the likelihood of the DOJ successfully enforcing this proposal?
Dr. Turner: It’s a challenging undertaking. Historically, breaking up tech giants is a complicated legal process. While the DOJ has a strong case due to evidential concerns over monopolistic behavior, overcoming corporate influence and navigating the intricacies of antitrust law will take significant effort and time.
Editor: What do you see as the next steps for this situation and for consumers?
Dr. Turner: We’re likely to see further litigation and discussions between the DOJ and Google. Consumers should pay attention; this could lead to changes in service dynamics in the tech landscape. Depending on the outcome, it might also spur ongoing debates about regulation in other tech sectors.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Turner, for your insights on this complex issue.
Dr. Turner: Thank you for having me. It’s an important dialogue we’re having.
Ficiency or if it’s a byproduct of monopolistic behavior. The DOJ’s argument hinges on the idea that Google’s practices limit competition and stifle innovation from smaller players. If true, it raises important considerations about how we define fair competition in the tech industry.
Editor: The last significant breakup of a major company in the U.S. was back in 1982 with AT&T. What lessons could we draw from that experience that may apply to this situation with Google?
Dr. Turner: The breakup of AT&T did lead to increased competition and lower long-distance rates, which is a testament to the potential benefits of dismantling monopolies. However, it also introduced complexities, such as higher local call costs and ongoing regulatory challenges. It’s essential to evaluate the potential trade-offs we might face with Google—while we might see benefits in competition, we could also experience increased costs or reduced service quality in other areas.
Editor: Some critics argue that breaking up Google may be an overreach by the government. Do you think there is a middle ground that could be reached instead of a full breakup?
Dr. Turner: Absolutely. There are numerous regulatory measures that could be employed to address antitrust concerns without resorting to a full breakup. For instance, imposing stricter regulations on how Google manages its services or requiring greater transparency could help to level the playing field. Antitrust enforcement doesn’t always mean dismantling a company; it can also mean ensuring fair competition within the current framework.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Turner, for your insights on this important issue. As the debate continues, it will be crucial to watch how both the government and Google respond to each other’s actions.
Dr. Turner: Thank you for having me. It’s a fascinating time in tech policy, and these discussions are vital for the future of fair competition and consumer protection.
