Google antitrust ruling similar to Microsoft monopoly case | Wilnesh News

In Monday’s ruling, Google U.S. Judge Amit Mehta cited the company’s monopoly in online search in one of the most famous technology antitrust cases in U.S. history: Microsoft.

In 1999, a federal judge ruled that Microsoft illegally used the market power of its Windows operating system to exclude a rival browser, Netscape Navigator. The 2001 settlement forced the software giant to stop disadvantaged rivals in PC deals.

Google’s landmark case brought by the government in 2020 claimed that the company maintained its share of the search market by erecting strong barriers to entry and feedback loops that maintained its dominance. The court found that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolies.

“The ultimate outcome here is no different than the Microsoft court’s conclusion regarding the browser market,” Mehta wrote in the 300-page ruling. “Just as the agreement in that case helped keep Navigator usage within Navigator or any other competitor below the critical level required to pose a real threat to Microsoft’s monopoly, Google’s distribution agreement also limits the volume of inquiries from its competitors, thereby preventing Google from responding to any real competitive threat.

A key similarity, Mehta said, is the “power of presupposition.” For Google, this means that it apple iPhones and Samsung devices—these deals cost the company billions of dollars in lost spending every year.

“Users are free to navigate to Google’s competitors through non-default search access points, but they rarely do so,” Mehta wrote.

Judge Mehta said a separate trial will be held on September 4 to determine remedies or penalties against Google. At that point, Google can appeal, a process that experts say could take about two years. Microsoft appealed its initial ruling and eventually settled with the Justice Department.

“All along, the government has said implicitly or explicitly that their case is based on the Microsoft case,” said Sam Weinstein, a law professor at Cardozo School of Law and a former Justice Department antitrust lawyer.

In the Microsoft case, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found that the company forced PC makers to install its Internet Explorer browser in Windows and threatened to punish them for installing or promoting Navigator. The judge recommended that Microsoft spin off either its operating system business or its applications business, both of which enjoy market leadership.

After Microsoft successfully appealed, the U.S. District Court prohibit The software company retaliated against device manufacturers for shipping PCs with multiple operating systems. Microsoft is required to provide software and hardware companies with the same programming interface as Microsoft middleware for Windows.

Nicholas Economides, an economics professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, said the similarities in the Google case are clear.

“My first reaction to this is that Google seems to have failed across the board,” Economides said. “This huge blow reminds me of the Justice Department’s victory against Microsoft.”

Some legal experts believe the most likely outcome is that courts will require Google to void certain exclusivity agreements. The court could recommend that Google make it easier for users to try other search engines.

While fines are also on the table, the greater risk is that Google will have to change its business practices in a way that hurts profitability. For example, if Google were no longer considered the default search engine on smartphones, it could lose a significant portion of its core market.

inside In the second quarter, “Google Search and Others” revenue was US$48.5 billion, accounting for 57% of Alphabet’s total revenue.