Core Viewpoint - A federal judge has accused Apple of interfering with competition in its App Store, potentially warranting criminal charges due to its actions to maintain high commission revenues [3][4]. Legal Findings - US District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple "willfully" violated an injunction aimed at reducing its control over the App Store payment system, creating new barriers to competition [4][6]. - The judge stated that Apple's actions demonstrated a gross miscalculation of the court's tolerance for such insubordination [4]. Commission Structure - The judge noted that Apple's 30% commission on App Store sales resulted in "supracompetitive operating margins," which were deemed anticompetitive [6]. - Apple's response to the injunction included imposing new commissions on purchases made through external links and creating "scare screens" to deter users from buying outside the App Store [6][7]. Revenue Implications - The ruling highlighted that Apple sought to maintain a revenue stream worth billions in direct defiance of the court's injunction [7]. - The judge indicated that Apple's internal documents revealed a clear understanding of its anticompetitive actions [7]. Industry Reactions - An Apple spokesperson expressed strong disagreement with the ruling and announced plans to appeal, while also indicating compliance with the decision [8]. - Epic Games' CEO Tim Sweeney suggested a "peace proposal" to drop litigation if Apple extends its "Apple-tax-free framework" globally [8].

Core Viewpoint - Google CEO Sundar Pichai argues that the Justice Department's proposed remedies to break up its search monopoly would lead to "many unintended consequences" and could undermine the company's ability to invest in research and development as it has for the past two decades [1][3]. Group 1: DOJ Proposals - The DOJ has requested remedies including the forced divestment of Google's Chrome web browser and mandates for data sharing on search results with competitors to enhance market competition [1][5]. - Pichai described the data-sharing requirement as "extraordinary," suggesting it would effectively result in a "de facto divestiture" of Google's online search business [2]. - The DOJ's proposals are considered by Pichai to be more extensive than the European Union's Digital Markets Act, which targets internet gatekeepers [4]. Group 2: Impact on Google - Pichai stated that if the DOJ's remedies are approved, it would make it "unviable" for Google to continue its current level of investment in research and development [3]. - The forced selloff of Chrome and Android could "break these platforms," potentially jeopardizing U.S. national security and allowing other countries, like China, to advance in AI and technology development [11]. - The DOJ has also suggested that if initial remedies do not effectively address Google's monopoly, further actions, including divesting ownership of the Android operating system, may be considered [7]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings - The DOJ's case against Google is in a historic remedies phase, which began on April 21 and is expected to last approximately three weeks [3]. - U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta previously ruled that Google holds a monopoly over online search and has the authority to determine how to address its anticompetitive practices [3]. - The DOJ's antitrust chief has emphasized the dangers posed by Google's monopoly to freedom of speech and digital markets, arguing that leaving the issue unaddressed is irresponsible [12].

Core Viewpoint - The potential sale value of Google's Chrome browser could reach $50 billion, as estimated by DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg during the ongoing antitrust trial against Google, which has been found to hold a monopoly in the search market [1][2]. Group 1: Antitrust Trial Context - The U.S. District Court is evaluating remedies for Google's monopoly, with one proposed remedy from the Department of Justice being the sale of Chrome [2]. - The trial is presided over by Judge Amit Mehta, who previously ruled that Google maintained its search monopoly through illegal practices [6]. Group 2: Valuation Insights - Weinberg's estimate of $50 billion for Chrome is significantly higher than the $20 billion valuation provided by Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Mandeep Singh in November [3]. - A $50 billion price tag could potentially limit the number of interested buyers for the browser [3]. Group 3: Competitive Landscape - OpenAI's Head of Product, Nick Turley, indicated that OpenAI and other parties would be interested in acquiring Chrome if it were available [3]. - Turley also mentioned that a deeper integration of Chrome into OpenAI could enhance the user experience with AI technologies [4]. Group 4: Partnership Attempts - OpenAI sought a partnership with Google to enhance ChatGPT's capabilities but was declined, as Google did not agree to provide an API that would improve the AI's search functionalities [5].

The Big Tech firm has argued that this non-exclusive stance sufficiently addresses Mehta's ruling. However, reports say, the DOJ is pushing for an outright ban on Google making lucrative payments in exchange for installation of its search app. The suit by the DOJ and a coalition of state attorneys general could lead to a possible breakup of Google's core businesses. According to reports, prosecutors said in opening statements Monday that a search monopoly could give the company an unfair advantages in artif ...

Core Viewpoint - A federal judge is expected to target Google's multibillion-dollar search engine deals with companies like Apple as part of a remedy for its illegal online search monopoly, which could lead to significant changes for the tech giant valued at $1.8 trillion [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings and Potential Outcomes - US District Judge Amit Mehta will determine the remedies for Google following a ruling that it violated US antitrust law by maintaining a monopoly in its online search business [2]. - The Department of Justice (DOJ) is seeking to force Google to end its exclusive agreements with companies like Apple and potentially divest its Chrome web browser if competition does not increase in the search market [3][6]. - Experts believe that the judge will likely order Google to stop paying for exclusive default status with companies, which could significantly impact its business model [4][5]. Group 2: Financial Implications - In 2021, Google paid over $26 billion for search placement deals, with $20 billion going to Apple in 2022 to secure its position as the default search engine on Safari [6]. - The DOJ's proposed remedies are seen as substantial, with the potential for significant changes to Google's financial arrangements and market strategies [9]. Group 3: Market Dynamics and Competition - Google's exclusivity deals with companies like Apple are viewed as attempts to control the market and suppress competition, making them a focal point for the DOJ's case [8]. - The DOJ aims to prevent Google from leveraging its search monopoly to dominate emerging markets, such as AI, indicating a broader concern about competitive practices [13]. Group 4: Company Responses - Google's legal team has characterized the DOJ's proposed remedies as a "wish list" for competitors, arguing that they would undermine the company's innovations and user experience [11]. - Google has expressed concerns that the DOJ's proposals could jeopardize user privacy and security, as well as hinder its AI development efforts [12].

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: Credit: cottonbro studio from Pexels Of course, Google has an unlawful monopoly on online ads, as a federal judge found Thursday, just like a different federal judge found last year that Google has an unlawful monopoly on online searching; everyone knows that "googling" means online search. A market economy only works if there ...

Google has been dealt another major blow by a federal judge. US District Judge Leonie Brinkema of Virginia ruled on Thursday that Google holds an illegal monopoly in advertising technology. "For over a decade, Google has tied its publisher ad server and ad exchange together through contractual policies and technological integration, which enabled the company to establish and protect its monopoly power in these two markets," Brinkema wrote.The judge said that Google further cemented its monopoly power in t ...

LONDON — Google is being sued for over £5 billion ($6.6 billion) in potential damages in the U.K. over allegations that the U.S. tech giant abused its "near-total dominance" in the online search market to drive up prices. A class action lawsuit filed Wednesday in the U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal claims that Google abused its position to restrict competing search engines and, in turn, bolster its dominant position in the market and make itself the only viable destination for online search advertising. It ...

Company Overview - ASML holds a dominant position in the DUV equipment market with approximately 90% market share, indicating a practical monopoly in this segment, which can also be characterized as an oligopoly due to the presence of competitors like Canon and Nikon [1] Investment Perspective - The company is viewed favorably by long-term investors, with a focus on compounding knowledge and strategic investment approaches [1]