Feds may target Google’s Chrome browser for breakup

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/10/feds-may-target-googles-chrome-browser-for-breakup-428468

Justice Department and state prosecutors investigating Google for alleged antitrust violations are considering whether to force the company to sell its dominant Chrome browser and parts of its lucrative advertising business, three people with knowledge of the discussions said Friday.

The conversations — amid preparations for an antitrust legal battle that DOJ is expected to begin in the coming weeks — could pave the way for the first court-ordered break-up of a U.S. company in decades. The forced sales would also represent major setbacks for Google, which uses its control of the world’s most popular web browser to aid the search engine that is the key to its fortunes.

Discussions about how to resolve Google’s control over the $162.3 billion global market for digital advertising remain ongoing, and no final decisions have been made, the people cautioned, speaking anonymously to discuss confidential discussions. But prosecutors have asked advertising technology experts, industry rivals and media publishers for potential steps to weaken Google’s grip.

Umm it will be interesting how chrome would break from Google though.

 

[TheBigA]

Umm it will be interesting how chrome would break from Google though.

It's interesting to not that while Chrome is the most popular browser, it's use is still under 50%. At one time, Microsoft's IE was 96%.

The funny part is that while it's very popular, it's cost to consumers is nothing. It's hard to justify ordering the break up of a company to help consumers when we're talking about a product they get for free. If the issue is that it connects to Google's search engine, simply require it connect to ALL search engines. That's what was done with Microsoft.

 

[louis_p]

Microsoft Internet Explorer was closed source, used proprietary technologies, and was part of a strategy by Microsoft to establish Windows dominance at the expense of Linux and cloud technologies.

Chromium is open-source where anybody can contribute to the codebase. Several browsers are built on the Chromium engine including Brave and Microsoft Edge. This is hardly the same situation as the IE vs. Netscape antitrust action back in the ‘90s.

 

[boombox4]

If it's filed, I foresee it being taken to Federal court.

Right now it appears Chrome has about 69% of the browser market, and whether that constitutes a monopoly is a good question. I always thought monopolies had higher percentages of a marketplace than that.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Right now it appears Chrome has about 69% of the browser market, and whether that constitutes a monopoly is a good question. I always thought monopolies had higher percentages of a marketplace than that.

In the case of the web browser industry, Google is the only significant player. Chrome itself has significant market share. Microsoft Edge is based on Chrome, as are most of the other browsers that exist today. If you look at browser share on Windows and in the USA, you're looking at Chrome and Chrome derivatives, with a market share in the 85% to 90% range.

The only Windows browser that isn't a Chrome derivative is Mozilla Firefox, and Mozilla receives a majority of its revenue from ... Google.

 

[TheBigA]

I always thought monopolies had higher percentages of a marketplace than that.

Technically a monopoly isn't based on market percentage, but if that percentage is used in a non-competitive way that affects pricing.

You can't penalize a product for being successful, but if the company uses that success to hurt consumers.

Here's the announcement:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/20/google-antitrust-doj-lawsuit/

 

[davideduardo]

If it's filed, I foresee it being taken to Federal court.

Right now it appears Chrome has about 69% of the browser market, and whether that constitutes a monopoly is a good question. I always thought monopolies had higher percentages of a marketplace than that.

A monopoly can legally be anything over 50% of a market. In the case of a tie, it is called a duopoly, and can be legally questioned as well. But the legal definition involves an aspect of control, and that is what the case against Google is based on.

U.S. Legal (a legal and legislative info site) defines "monopoly" as:

Monopoly is a control or advantage obtained by one entity over the commercial market in a specific area. Monopolization is an offense under federal anti trust law. The two elements of monopolization are (1) the power to fix prices and exclude competitors within the relevant market. (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen or historical accident.


There have even been cases where the consumer product or end user product does not have a monopoly, but the provider of one brand controls raw materials or other aspects of the manufacture so as to control the other brands.

 

[TheBigA]

There have even been cases where the consumer product or end user product does not have a monopoly, but the provider of one brand controls raw materials or other aspects of the manufacture so as to control the other brands.

When you read the definition, the government has a weak case. Google and all of the other Silicon Valley companies have been very collaborative and cooperative with other technology companies and other developers. That's the basic difference between east coast companies and west coast companies. My view is this is another example of the president using the federal government against a company because he perceives them as an enemy. He did the same thing a few years ago with AT&T and he's doing the same thing with social media.

Having said that, Google stock was up 20 points at the close because stockholders know they will make money regardless of the outcome. This is a well run company.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

https://www.mediapost.com/publicati...-battles-marketers-over-antitrust-claims.html

Here is another one on the Antitrust Claims

Google has asked a judge to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit brought by a group of marketers that allege the company monopolized “online display advertising services.”

“The whole is no greater than the sum of the parts, and the amalgam does not add up to a monopolization claim,” Google argues in papers filed Monday with U.S. District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose.

The company's papers come in response to a lawsuit by marketers including Florida-based Prana Pets (which sells herbs for dogs and cats), San Francisco law firm Hanson Law and three individuals.