Google Inc

Subterms

    Latest story

    100 Shares32 Views

    Canada Accuses Google of Creating Advertising Tech Monopoly

    by

    The case largely echoes an antitrust action in the United States and seeks to force Google to sell off sections of its online ad business.Canada’s competition authority on Thursday accused Google of abusing its tools for buying and selling online advertising to create a monopoly, and filed a complaint seeking to force the company to sell two of its main advertising technology services.The case strikes at the heart of Google’s business and echoes an ongoing U.S. antitrust lawsuit against the Silicon Valley giant.Both cases come amid four other lawsuits filed in the United States against Google since 2020 and other efforts by officials around the world to reign in the power that large technological companies like Google, Amazon and Apple hold over information and commerce online.Canada is also attempting to use new laws to limit harms caused by social media and to require tech companies to compensate traditional news organizations.In a statement, Canada’s Bureau of Competition Policy, a law enforcement agency, charged that Google has used its position as the largest provider of software for buying and selling ads, its marketplace for ad auctions and its services for showcasing the ads to illegally dominate the sector.The company’s conduct, it said, ensured that the Alphabet-owned Google “would maintain and entrench its market power,” adding that it “locks market participants into using its own ad tech tools, prevents rivals from being able to compete on the merits of their offering.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares126 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Plans to Propose Breakup of Google to Fix Search Monopoly

      by

      In a landmark antitrust case, the government will ask a judge to force the company to sell its popular Chrome browser, people with knowledge of the matter said.The Justice Department and a group of states plan to ask a federal court late Wednesday to force Google to sell Chrome, its popular web browser, two people with knowledge of the decision said, a move that could fundamentally alter the $2 trillion company’s business and reshape competition on the internet.The request would follow a landmark ruling in August by Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that found Google had illegally maintained a monopoly in online search. Judge Mehta asked the Justice Department and the states that brought the antitrust case to submit solutions by the end of Wednesday to correct the search monopoly.Beyond the sale of Chrome, the government is set to ask Judge Mehta to bar Google from entering into paid agreements with Apple and others to be the automatic search engine on smartphones and in browsers, the people said. Google should also be required to share data with rivals, they said.The proposals would likely be the most significant remedies to be requested in a tech antitrust case since the Justice Department asked to break up Microsoft in 2000. If Judge Mehta adopts the proposals, they will set the tone for a string of other antitrust cases that challenge the dominance of tech behemoths including Apple, Amazon and Meta.Being forced to sell Chrome would be among the worst possible outcomes for Google. Chrome, which is free to use, is the most popular web browser in the world and part of an elaborate Google ecosystem that keeps people using the company’s products. Google’s search engine is bundled into Chrome.Google is set to file its own suggestions for fixing the search monopoly by Dec. 20. Both sides can modify their requests before Judge Mehta is expected to hear arguments on the remedies this spring. He is expected to rule by the end of the summer.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares125 Views

      in Elections

      Is the Biden Administration Coming for Chrome?

      by

      The Justice Department is reportedly targeting Google’s web browser as its antitrust enforcers seek to cement a major win before Donald Trump takes office.Can the Biden administration’s antitrust enforcers succeed in breaking up Google before they leave office?Josh Edelson/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesA parting antitrust shot by Biden’s enforcersBefore the Biden administration’s antitrust leaders step down, they’re taking their final shots at Big Tech. That will reportedly include an effort to break up Google as a consequence of the Justice Department’s successful competition lawsuit against the company.A forthcoming request to force the sale of the Chrome browser, according to Bloomberg, would be one of the most sweeping competition demands in years. But it will also be a test of the second Trump administration’s own antitrust agenda.Chrome is a crucial part of Google’s business. The industry’s dominant web browser — it controls about 61 percent of the U.S. market, according to Bloomberg — is a potent data-collection portal, steering people to the company’s search engine. That gives Google the ability to track users when they are signed in, and can be used to for targeted ads.Chrome has also become a gateway for Google’s A.I. services, including its Gemini chatbot, which some say could eventually follow user activity across the web.The Justice Department decided against requesting the divestiture of Google’s Android smartphone operating system, Bloomberg reports. But it wants the company to stop bundling it with services including search and the Google Play app store.If successful, the split would cement a crucial legacy for Biden’s antitrust team. It’s unclear how much of the aggressive approach promoted by Lina Khan of the F.T.C. and Jonathan Kanter of the Justice Department will survive. A Chrome divestiture would achieve the kind of corporate breakup that regulators failed to force upon Microsoft two decades ago.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Outlines Google Search Changes It’s Weighing in Antitrust Case

      by

      They include making Google’s data available to rivals and forcing it to break off parts of the company, the Justice Department said in a court filing.The Justice Department said Tuesday night that it was considering asking a federal court to force Google to break off parts of the company or change its practices in order to eliminate its monopoly in search, moves that could redefine the $2 trillion company’s core business.In a filing, the government said it could ask the court to require Google to make the underlying data that powers its search engine available to competitors.It said it was considering asking for “structural” changes to Google to stop the company from leveraging the power of its Chrome browser, Android operating system or Play app store to benefit its search business. But it stopped short of identifying what those changes could be.“Google’s anticompetitive conduct resulted in interlocking and pernicious harms that present unprecedented complexities in a highly evolving set of markets,” the government said in its filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “These markets are indispensable to the lives of all Americans, whether as individuals or as business owners, and the importance of effectively unfettering these markets and restoring competition cannot be overstated.”Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said in a blog post in response to the filing that the company was concerned the Justice Department was “already signaling requests that go far beyond the specific legal issues in this case.”In a landmark ruling in August, a judge on that court, Amit P. Mehta, said Google “is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.” It crossed a line when it paid companies like Apple and Samsung billions of dollars to be the automatic search engine in web browsers and on smartphones, Judge Mehta ruled in the case, U.S. et al. v. Google.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How Google Defended Itself in the Ad Tech Antitrust Trial

      by

      The tech giant, which wrapped up its arguments in the federal monopoly trial, simply says it has the best product.Over the past week, Google has called more than a dozen witnesses to defend itself against claims by the Justice Department and a group of state attorneys general that it has a monopoly in advertising software that places ads on web pages, part of a second major federal antitrust trial against the tech giant.Google’s lawyers wrapped up their arguments in the case on Friday, and the government will now offer a rebuttal. Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, who is presiding over the nonjury trial, is expected to deliver a ruling by the end of the year, after both sides summarize their cases in writing and deliver closing arguments.The government last week concluded its main arguments in the case, U.S. et al. v. Google, which was filed last year and accuses Google of building a monopoly over the technology that places ads on websites around the internet.The company’s defense has centered on how its actions were justified and how it helped publishers, advertisers and competition. Here are Google’s main arguments.How Google claims its actions were justifiedThe Justice Department and a group of states have accused the tech company of abusing control of its ad technology and violating antitrust law, in part through its 2008 acquisition of the advertising software company DoubleClick. Google has pushed up ad prices and harmed publishers by taking a big cut of each sale, the government argued.But Google’s lawyers countered that the ad tech industry was intensely competitive. They also accused the Justice Department of ignoring rivals like Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon to make its case sound more compelling.Visa, Google, JetBlue: A Guide to a New Era of Antitrust ActionBelow are 15 major cases brought by the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission since late 2020, as President Biden’s top antitrust enforcers have promised to sue monopolies and block big mergers.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Can Math Help AI Chatbots Stop Making Stuff Up?

      by

      Chatbots like ChatGPT get stuff wrong. But researchers are building new A.I. systems that can verify their own math — and maybe more.On a recent afternoon, Tudor Achim gave a brain teaser to an A.I. bot called Aristotle.The question involved a 10-by-10 table filled with a hundred numbers. If you collected the smallest number in each row and the largest number in each column, he asked, could the largest of the small numbers ever be greater than the smallest of the large numbers?The bot correctly answered “No.” But that was not surprising. Popular chatbots like ChatGPT may give the right answer, too. The difference was that Aristotle had proven that its answer was right. The bot generated a detailed computer program that verified “No” was the correct response.Chatbots like ChatGPT from OpenAI and Gemini from Google can answer questions, write poetry, summarize news articles and generate images. But they also make mistakes that defy common sense. Sometimes, they make stuff up — a phenomenon called hallucination.Mr. Achim, the chief executive and co-founder of a Silicon Valley start-up called Harmonic, is part of growing effort to build a new kind of A.I. that never hallucinates. Today, this technology is focused on mathematics. But many leading researchers believe they can extend the same techniques into computer programming and other areas.Because math is a rigid discipline with formal ways of proving whether an answer is right or wrong, companies like Harmonic can build A.I. technologies that check their own answers and learn to produce reliable information.Google DeepMind, the tech giant’s central A.I. lab, recently unveiled a system called AlphaProof that operates in this way. Competing in the International Mathematical Olympiad, the premier math competition for high schoolers, the system achieved “silver medal” performance, solving four of the competition’s six problems. It was the first time a machine had reached that level.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Harris’s Debate Tutor: a Lawyer Unafraid of Telling Politicians Hard Truths

      by

      Karen Dunn, who is preparing the vice president for next week’s clash, has trained Democrats for debates in every election since 2008. Her approach, as Hillary Clinton put it, is “tough love.”Vice President Kamala Harris has never met or spoken with former President Donald J. Trump, but the woman running her debate preparations has spent a lot of time thinking about how to respond to what Republican nominees say during an onstage clash.That outside Harris adviser, Karen L. Dunn, a high-powered Washington lawyer, has trained Democratic presidential and vice-presidential candidates for debates in every election since 2008.She is described by candidates she has coached and other people who have worked with her as a skilled handler of high-ego politicians. By all accounts, she possesses the rare ability to tell them what they are doing wrong and how to fix it — and how to inject humor and humanity to sell themselves to voters watching the debate.“It’s a combination of tough love,” Hillary Clinton, whom Ms. Dunn helped prepare for presidential debates in 2008 and 2016, said in an interview on Thursday. “She’s unafraid to say, ‘That’s not going to work’ or ‘That doesn’t make sense’ or ‘You can do better.’ But she also offers encouragement, like, ‘Look, I think you’re on the right track here’ and ‘You just need to do more of that.’”The emergence of Ms. Dunn as the leader of Ms. Harris’s debate team comes at a critical moment in both the presidential race and Ms. Dunn’s professional life.When she is not preparing top Democrats for debates — in addition to her four previous cycles of involvement at the presidential and vice-presidential level, she has worked with Senators Mark Warner of Virginia and Cory Booker of New Jersey — Ms. Dunn is a top lawyer for some of America’s leading technology firms.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Google Joins $250 Million Deal to Support Newsrooms in California

      by

      The agreement includes $70 million from the state, which needs legislative approval. Some lawmakers objected, calling for a more comprehensive solution with tech companies.Google, a news industry trade group and key California lawmakers announced a first-in-the-nation agreement on Wednesday aimed at shoring up newsrooms in the state with as much as $250 million.Through a mix of funding from Google, taxpayers and potentially other private sources, the five-year deal would let Google avert a proposed state bill that could force tech companies to pay news organizations when advertising appeared alongside articles on the tech company’s platform.The announcement was packed with praise for the effort to stabilize the news industry, which has faced layoffs and shuttered newsrooms as readership has shifted online.“The deal not only provides funding to support hundreds of new journalists but helps rebuild a robust and dynamic California press corps for years to come, reinforcing the vital role of journalism in our democracy,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.The trade group, the California News Publishers Association, called the agreement “a first step toward what we hope will become a comprehensive program to sustain local news in the long term.” The author of the bill, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, praised it for being a “cross-sector commitment” and called it “just the beginning.”A union representing journalists, however, denounced the deal as a “shakedown,” and lawmakers who had been working for months on more comprehensive proposals criticized its scope. Also, the president pro tempore of the State Senate, Mike McGuire, questioned legislative support for the state’s share of the deal, which would require approval as part of the annual budget process.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More