Data Edge Of Google Is Key Issue

"The government states that data is "oxygen for a search engine" and that Google's anticompetitive behavior has given it a data fortress. Google says innovation explains its success.

The federal government's first monopoly trial of the modern internet era is less than a week old, but already a central character has emerged: data. Its role, its use and its power are key issues in the Justice Department's case against Google.

The government claims that Google bribed and bullied smartphone producers like Apple and Samsung and the browser maker Mozilla to be their featured search engine, funneling far more data to Google and cutting off competitors.

Data, the government says, drives the flywheel of Google's success. Each search query adds data, which improves search results, attracting more users who generate still more data and advertising revenue. And Google's ever-growing data advantage, the government asserts, is an insurmountable barrier for rivals.

Data is "oxygen for a search engine," Kenneth Dintzer, the Justice Department's lead lawyer, declared in his opening statement on Tuesday.

The government's case is not that Google violated the law in becoming a search giant. Instead, the government claims that after Google became dominant, the company broke the law with its tactics to defend its monopoly. Contracts with industry partners to be their default search engine were the weapon -- exclusive deals that froze out rivals, the government claims. So Google is now protected from competition behind a fortress built with data.

Google replies that the government's case is an artifice of misleading theory unsupported by the facts. The government has chosen to "ignore inescapable truths," John Schmidtlein, Google's lead lawyer, asserted in his opening statement.

Those truths, according to Google, are that the company holds its leading position in search because of its technical innovation. It competes with others for default-placement contracts and wins mainly because Google is the best search engine. Those contracts, Google argues, help reduce prices for smartphones and benefit consumers.

The government, Google insists, is overstating the importance of data. In a brief filed this month, the company stated, "Google does not deny that user data can improve search quality, but Google will show that there are diminishing returns to scale."

The trial resumes this week with the Justice Department continuing to present its case. The first witness scheduled to testify on Monday is Brian Higgins, an executive at Verizon who oversees mobile device and customer marketing. The trial is scheduled to run for 10 weeks. A ruling from Judge Amit P. Mehta will come next year.

Google holds 90 percent of the search engine market in the United States, while Microsoft's Bing is a far-distant rival, with less than 5 percent. The difference, Google says, is explained by the smarts of its engineers, not the size of its trove of rich data.

To make its point, Google will call an expert witness, Edward Fox, a computer scientist at Virginia Tech. Professor Fox has conducted a "data reduction experiment" on Google's behalf to estimate how much Google's search quality would decline if it used far less data -- roughly the amount available to Bing. The result, according to Google's filing, was that the data difference explains only part of the gap in search quality between Google and Microsoft.

Google's public messaging on that issue has been consistent over the years. But the government claims that the messaging has been deceitful. In his opening statement, Mr. Dintzer said Google had "misled the public about the importance of data."

To try to show the deception, the government introduced emails among senior Google employees, sparring over that point, as evidence last week. Hal Varian, Google's chief economist, was questioned about defaults and data as the Justice Department's first witness.

At issue were comments that Mr. Varianmade in a 2009 interview with the technology news site CNET.

In the article, Mr. Varian said, "The scale arguments are pretty bogus."

To explain, he added in the article: "It's not the quantity or quality of the ingredients that make a difference. It's the recipes." It was a deft analogy, with the ingredients being the data and recipes being the clever algorithms written by Google's engineers. It reached a wider audience when Mr. Varian's explanation was picked up in a Time magazine article.

But in an email to Mr. Varian shortly after, Udi Manber, a senior engineer on Google's search team, took issue with the economist's description. "It's absolutely not true that scale is not important," Mr. Manber wrote. "We make very good use of everything we get."

In an email string with other Google employees, Mr. Manber wrote, "I know it reads well, but unfortunately it's factually wrong."

A lot has changed since then. The government introduced the emails to cast doubt on the credibility of what Google is saying in court. They amount to a few snippets at the beginning of a lengthy nonjury trial that will generate piles and piles of evidence, testimony and rebuttal for Judge Mehta to weigh and consider.

But what is already clear is that a debate over data in search -- whether it has market-determining power or not -- is a pivotal issue, and one that both sides will most likely be compelled to return to repeatedly in the trial." [1]

1. Data Edge Of Google Is Key Issue: [Business/Financial Desk]. Lohr, Steve. 
New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast); New York, N.Y.. 19 Sep 2023: B.1. 

„Google“ antimonopolinis teismas iš tikrųjų yra apie A.I. ateitį

„Praėjusią savaitę prasidėjęs „Google“ antimonopolinis teismas neva yra sutelktas į praeitį – į daugybę sandorių, kuriuos „Google“ sudarė su kitomis įmonėmis per pastaruosius du dešimtmečius. Byloje, JAV ir kt. prieš Google tvirtina, kad „Google“ neteisėtai išleido milijardus dolerių, kad atsipirktų „Samsung“ ir „Apple“, kad niekas kitas negalėtų įsitvirtinti internetinės paieškos rinkoje.

 

     Tačiau tikrasis teismo procesas, kaip ir federalinės prekybos komisijos būsimas „Facebook“ patronuojančios bendrovės „Meta“ teismo procesas dėl monopolizavimo kaltinimų, yra sutelktas į ateitį. Nuosprendžiu bus veiksmingai nustatytos ateinančio dešimtmečio technologijų konkurencijos taisyklės, įskaitant kovą dėl komercializuoto dirbtinio intelekto, taip pat naujesnių technologijų, kurių kol kas neįsivaizduojame.

 

     Antimonopolinių persekiojimų istorija tai rodo vėl ir vėl: kontroliuojančio monopolisto gniaužtų atlaisvinimas ne visada gali išspręsti iškilusią problemą (čia – internetinės paieškos monopolis). Tačiau tai gali atverti uždaras rinkas, supurtyti pramonę ir paskatinti naujoves netikėtose srityse. Jei JAV Kolumbijos apygardos teismo teisėjas Amitas P. Mehta, pirmininkaujantis teismui be prisiekusiųjų, teisingai išspręs šią bylą, jis padės visam technologijų pasauliui ir Amerikos ekonomikai platesne prasme.

 

     Apsvarstykite antimonopolinį ieškinį, dėl kurio 1984 m. žlugo AT&T telefonų monopolija. Tuo metu prokurorai siekė sumažinti tolimojo telefono skambučių kainas ir suteikti vartotojams didesnį pasirinkimą. Tačiau dar svarbiau ir mažiau laukiamas, kad išsiskyrimas padėjo pagreitinti 1990-ųjų interneto revoliuciją, iš dalies palengvindamas įmonių veiklą telefono linijomis, o klientams – prie jų prijungti modemus.

 

     Arba pagalvokite apie IBM monopolį pagrindinio kompiuterio kompiuterijos srityje, kuriai septintajame ir aštuntajame dešimtmečiuose buvo iššūkį privatūs ir viešieji antimonopoliniai ieškiniai. Tuo metu pagrindinis rūpestis buvo „garų programinės įrangos“ taktikos naudojimas pagrindinių kompiuterių rinkoje, o tai paveikė jau seniai mirusią įmonę, pavadintą „Control Data Corporation“. Tačiau šiandien svarbu tai, kad IBM, baimindamasi, kad bus suskaidyta, atskyrė savo programinę įrangą nuo aparatinės įrangos, o tai sukūrė programinės įrangos, parduodamos, kaip atskiras produktas, rinką – laikui bėgant atsirado kelių trilijonų dolerių pramonė. Šis teismas taip pat susilpnino IBM tuo metu, kai atsirado asmeniniai kompiuteriai, o tai buvo naudinga tokiems mažiems verslo atstovams, kaip „Apple“ ir „Microsoft“.

 

     Kaip rodo ši istorija, mažai tikėtina, kad tiksliai žinosime, kokioms naujoms nuosprendžio prieš Google apskaičiavimo formoms atsirastų vietos. Technologinės evoliucijos kelias nenuspėjamas. Tačiau mes žinome, kad monopolijos linkusios slopinti naujoves ir per daug pasilikti sau, o monopolisto privertimas atsitraukti duoda vaisių.

 

     Kitas geras pavyzdys yra „Google“ kūrimo istorija. „Google“ pradėjo, kaip mažas startuolis, turėdamas puikų produktą, tačiau ji taip pat gavo naudos iš federalinės vyriausybės įsikišimo. „Google“ savo veiklą pradėjo remdamasi „Microsoft“ naršykle „Internet Explorer“, kuri 2000-ųjų pradžioje užėmė maždaug 95 procentus rinkos. O „Microsoft“ naudojo savo paieškos variklį „Internet Explorer“, tada vadintą MSN paieška (vėliau pervadinta į Bing). „Google“ laimei, Teisingumo departamentas ką tik praleido „Microsoft“ per mėsmalę, kurios antimonopolinis ieškinys vos neprivedė prie įmonės iširimo. Galiausiai „Google“ įveikė „Bing“ iš dalies dėl to, kad ji turėjo geresnį produktą, bet ir dėl to, kad ji susidūrė ne su bjauria 1990-ųjų „Microsoft“, o su susilpnėjusia ir nuskriausta „Microsoft“, veikiančia federalinės priežiūros sąlygomis.

 

     Šiandien „Google“ domisi ir kelia grėsmę kalbų didelių modelių technologijai, tokiai, kaip „OpenAI“, kuri sukūrė „ChatGPT“. „Google“ išleido daug milijardų dolerių A.I. moksliniams tyrimams, įskaitant savo pokalbių roboto „Bard“ kūrimą ir neseniai suskubusį įtraukti daugybę A.I. savo gaminiuose. 

 

Tačiau, kaip milžiniška, įsitvirtinusi įmonė, „Google“ turi trūkumą, nes reikia apsaugoti esamus pajamų srautus ir užtikrinti, kad investuotojai, klientai ir reklamuotojai būtų patenkinti. Ji turi stiprią paskatą užtikrinti, kad A.I. nevirstų kažkuo, kas sutrikdo ar žlugdo dabartinį verslą.

 

     Praėjusią savaitę Vašingtone vykusiame teismo procese kaltinimas (įskaitant federalinę ir valstijų vyriausybes) aiškiai pasakė, kad „Google“ pastarąjį dešimtmetį panaudojo savo pinigus ir galią, kad slopintų konkurenciją, sumokėdama tokioms įmonėms, kaip „Apple“ ir „Samsung“, milijardus dolerių, kad iš „Google“ padarytų numatytąjį savo telefonų paieškos nustatymą. „Apple“ taip pat sutiko atsitraukti nuo „Google“ verslo: tvarkyti paieškos užklausas.

 

     Štai kodėl teisėjas Mehta turėtų priversti „Google“ parduoti savo „Chrome“ naršyklę (kuri užima maždaug 63 procentus rinkos) ir uždrausti bendrovei „mokėti už numatytuosius“ sandorius su „Apple“ ir „Android“ telefonų operacinėmis sistemomis. Priešingu atveju tai padarys, kad  „Google“  tikrai bus pagunda panaudoti savo pinigus ir valdyti „Chrome“, kad užtikrintų, jog bet kokie konkurentai A.I. ne taip sėkmingai naudoja savo produktus, kaip „Google“.

 

     Bylos prieš „Google“ ir „Meta“ iš tikrųjų yra išskirtinė amerikietiška pramonės politikos forma. Daugelis šalių nusprendžia subsidijuoti savo technologijų monopolistus, tačiau Jungtinės Valstijos parodė, kad monopolininko dominavimo sumenkinimas gali būti geresnė alternatyva. Tai taip pat padeda atsverti, kas yra bene mažiausiai atskaitinga galios forma Jungtinėse Valstijose, galia, kuri kartais jaučiasi, kaip grėsmė žmonių valdymo idėjai. Tai yra kelios priežastys, dėl kurių Bideno administracija, dėl kurios aš dvejus metus dirbau technologijų konkurencijos politikos srityje, labai stengėsi suvaldyti didžiųjų technologijų galią.

 

     Galiausiai svarbiausia antimonopolinių įstatymų funkcija yra subalansuoti ekonominę galią, sutramdyti perteklių, kuris yra neišvengiama kapitalistinės ekonomikos pasekmė. Technologijų pramonė yra linkusi į monopoliją, tačiau, kaip rodo istorija, ji gali būti nepaprastai generatyvi, kai yra tinkamai paskatinta. „Google“ baudžiamojo persekiojimo tikslas yra ne pakenkti „Google“, o priversti ją užleisti vietą naujos kartos technologams ir jų svajonėms.

 

     Timas Wu (@superwuster) yra Kolumbijos teisės profesorius ir naujausio knygos „Didumo prakeiksmas: antimonopolinis įstatymas naujajame paauksuotame amžiuje“ autorius.“ [1]

 

1. The Google Antitrust Trial Is Really About the Future of A.I.: [Op-Ed]. Wu, Tim. 
New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast); New York, N.Y.. 19 Sep 2023: A.26.

The Google Antitrust Trial Is Really About the Future of A.I.

"The Google antitrust trial, which began last week, is ostensibly focused on the past -- on a series of deals that Google made with other companies over the past two decades. The prosecution in the case, U.S. et al. v. Google, contends that Google illegally spent billions of dollars paying off Samsung and Apple to prevent anyone else from gaining a foothold in the market for online search.

But the true focus of the trial, like that of the Federal Trade Commission's coming trial of Facebook's parent company, Meta, on monopolization charges, is on the future. For the verdict will effectively establish the rules governing tech competition for the next decade, including the battle over commercialized artificial intelligence, as well as newer technologies we cannot yet envision.

The history of antitrust prosecutions shows this again and again: Loosening the grip of a controlling monopolist may not always solve the problem at hand (here, an online search monopoly). But it can open up closed markets, shake up the industry and spark innovation in unexpected areas. If Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who is presiding over the trial without a jury, decides this case correctly, he'll be helping the entire tech world and the American economy more broadly.

Consider the antitrust lawsuit that led to the breakup of AT&T's telephone monopoly in 1984. At the time, prosecutors were focused on lowering the pricing of long-distance telephone calls and giving consumers greater choice. But more important and less anticipated, the breakup helped to jump-start the internet revolution of the 1990s, in part by making it easier for companies to conduct business over phone lines and for customers to connect modems to them.

Or consider IBM's monopoly on mainframe computing, which was challenged by private and public antitrust suits in the 1960s and '70s. At the time, a chief concern was the use of "vaporware" tactics in the mainframe market, which affected a now-long-dead company called the Control Data Corporation. But what matters today is that IBM, out of fear that it would be broken up, unbundled its software from its hardware, which created a market for software sold as a separate product -- spawning, over time, what is now a multi-trillion-dollar industry. The suit also weakened IBM at the very time that personal computers were emerging, benefiting tiny upstarts like Apple and Microsoft.

As this history suggests, it's unlikely that we know exactly what new forms of computing a verdict against Google would make room for. The path of technological evolution is not predictable. But we do know that monopolies tend to stifle innovation and keep too much for themselves, and that forcing a monopolist to back off yields fruit.

The story of Google's own creation is another good example. Google began as a small start-up with a great product, but it was also a beneficiary of federal government intervention. Google began its operations reliant on Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser, which had a roughly 95 percent market share in the early 2000s. And Microsoft was running its own search engine on Internet Explorer, then called MSN Search (later renamed Bing). Fortunately for Google, Microsoft had just been put through the wringer by the Justice Department, whose antitrust lawsuit nearly led to a breakup of the company. In the end, Google beat Bing in part because it had a better product -- but also because it wasn't facing the nasty Microsoft of the 1990s, but rather a weakened and chastened Microsoft operating under federal oversight.

Today Google is both interested in and threatened by the large language model technology of companies like OpenAI, which developed ChatGPT. Google has spent many billions of dollars on A.I. research, including developing its own chatbot, Bard, and recently rushed to incorporate dozens of A.I. features into its products. But as a giant, entrenched company, Google has the disadvantage of needing to protect its existing revenue streams and keep its investors, customers and advertisers happy. It has a strong incentive to make sure that A.I. doesn't turn into something that disrupts or destroys its current business.

At the trial in Washington last week, the prosecution (which includes the federal as well as state governments) made clear that Google leveraged its money and power over the past decade to stifle competition, paying companies like Apple and Samsung billions of dollars to make Google the default search setting for their phones. Apple also agreed to stay out of Google's business: handling search queries.

That's why Judge Mehta should force Google to sell off its Chrome browser (which has a roughly 63 percent market share) and ban the company's "pay for default" deals with the operating systems for Apple and Android phones. Otherwise, Google will surely be tempted to use its money and control over Chrome to ensure that any rivals in the field of A.I. aren't as successful with their products as Google is with its own.

The cases against Google and Meta are, in effect, a distinctively American form of industrial policy. Many countries choose to subsidize their tech monopolists, but the United States has shown that undermining a monopolist's dominance can be a better alternative. Doing so also serves to check what is perhaps the least accountable form of power in the United States, a power that at times feels like a threat to the idea of rule by the people. These are some of the reasons that the Biden administration, for which I worked for two years on tech competition policy, has made a robust effort to rein in the power of big tech.

Ultimately, antitrust law's most important function is to rebalance economic power, taming the excesses that are the inevitable consequences of a capitalist economy. The tech industries are prone to monopoly, yet as history suggests, they can be extraordinarily generative when given the right nudge. The point of the Google prosecution is not to hurt Google but to force it to make way for the next generation of technologists and their dreams.

Tim Wu (@superwuster) is a law professor at Columbia and the author, most recently, of "The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age."" [1]

1. The Google Antitrust Trial Is Really About the Future of A.I.: [Op-Ed]. Wu, Tim. 
New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast); New York, N.Y.. 19 Sep 2023: A.26.

The Housekeeper Explained How to Remove Stains from the Mattress with Home Remedies

  "Cleaning mattresses can be a tedious job, but one housekeeper has revealed a natural and simple way to not only clean your mattress, but also remove stubborn stains such as chocolate or coffee.

 

     The average person spends around eight hours on their mattress each night, so if you don't give it a thorough cleaning every few months, it will accumulate dirt, dust, dead skin cells, sweat and oil, according to express.co.uk.

 

     These impurities turn into yellow spots, which can make a person feel uncomfortable, even if he sleeps in freshly laundered bedding.

 

     Fortunately, one cleaning expert has explained how to clean your mattress with a simple cleaning solution that you probably already have at home. This product will not only help clean the mattress, but also remove any stubborn stains from the fabric.

 

     In her latest TikTok video, the expert, Vanessa, said: "I'm a housekeeper and I'm going to show you how to get stains out of your mattress using things you already have in your home."

 

     To make the cleaner she suggests, you'll need a toothbrush, a spray bottle, two cups of water, five drops of dishwashing liquid, and one cup of hydrogen peroxide.

 

     Hydrogen peroxide is the most effective way to clean a mattress, as it should remove stains and dust buildup without leaving any harmful residue. The dishwashing detergent you use should not be colored so as not to stain the mattress, and it would be best if you choose an organic brand.

 

     Vanessa added that you can also "add five drops of your favorite essential oil" to this cleaning solution, but be aware that some essential oils, such as eucalyptus, citrus and peppermint, can be harmful to both cats and dogs. If you have a pet, it is recommended that you do your research before spraying essential oil solutions at home.

 

     Once you've mixed and poured the cleaning solution into the spray bottle, it's time to use it on the mattress. “Give it a gentle shake and you're good to go!” noted Vanessa.

 

     "Spray a few times on the stain and scrub it with a toothbrush. Take a white towel and absorb the stain. Repeat this process until the stain is gone."