A US judge is expected to issue a ruling soon with remedies to unwind Google’s monopoly of the search market. Here's what you need to know https://t.co/cp5e5kumML ...

China has a near-monopoly of the rare-earths industry. But the more aggressive it is about using its market power, the greater the incentive for the rest of the world to find ways around it. We explain how https://t.co/u6az6jmzsVIllustration: Kyle Ellingson https://t.co/tBXIgGZ7kr ...

China’s near monopoly of rare earths stems from scale and convenience. The more it uses them as an economic weapon, the more it will encourage others to diversify https://t.co/o167oWN3Tg ...

There are lots of ways for the West to get around its near-monopoly https://t.co/Y5ao4arorg ...

The offer was first reported Tuesday morning. (Photo Illustration by Pavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)AI company Perplexity has made a $34.5 billion offer for Google’s Chrome browser, according to multiple outlets , making the bid as a judge considers forcing Google to spin off Chrome after it was ruled to have held a monopoly over online advertising technology.The $34.5 billion offer is backed by several unnamed investors “including large venture-capital funds,” according to The Wall ...

Core Viewpoint - A federal judge has allowed a significant antitrust lawsuit against Apple to proceed, challenging the company's alleged monopoly in the smartphone market [1][2]. Group 1: Antitrust Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit, initiated by the US Department of Justice and 20 states in March 2024, accuses Apple of illegally monopolizing smartphone markets through restrictive practices against app developers and device manufacturers [2][4]. - District Judge Julien Neals ruled that the government has sufficiently demonstrated that Apple holds monopoly power in the smartphone market and engages in anticompetitive behavior [2][3]. Group 2: Market Share and Monopoly Power - Apple reportedly controls 65% of the overall US smartphone market and 70% of the premium "performance smartphone" market, which excludes lower-end devices [3]. - The judge noted that these market share figures, along with significant barriers to entry, indicate Apple's monopoly power and justify proceeding to trial [3]. Group 3: Internal Communications and Potential Remedies - The ruling referenced internal communications from Apple executives that allegedly reveal intentions to maintain monopoly power, including efforts to prevent users from switching to competing devices [5]. - If the government prevails at trial, potential remedies for Apple could include changes to business practices or orders to divest parts of its device and software operations [5]. Group 4: Broader Antitrust Context - This case is part of a series of major antitrust challenges facing Apple, which also includes accusations of taking a large cut from proceeds of outside apps on its devices [7]. - The lawsuit is one of five significant cases initiated during the Trump and Biden administrations targeting major tech companies, including Meta and Amazon [7].

Group 1 - The technology sector is the least monopolized within the U.S. economy, with companies like Meta planning to invest approximately $70 billion in AI initiatives in 2025, which is less than the investments planned by Amazon, Alphabet, and Microsoft [2] - Meta is currently facing legal challenges from the FTC regarding its acquisitions of Instagram for $1 billion in 2012 and WhatsApp for $19 billion in 2014, while Alphabet's Google is involved in a lawsuit with the DOJ over its alleged monopoly in search through Chrome [3] - The significant investments by these companies in uncertain future technologies raise questions about the validity of their monopoly status, suggesting that if they were truly monopolies, they would not be risking such large sums on an uncertain future [4][5] Group 2 - The substantial financial commitments from "Big Tech" do not guarantee future market relevance, as history shows that many once-prominent companies have failed despite significant investments [6] - The competitive nature of the technology sector is underscored by the fact that these companies are compelled to invest heavily in future technologies, not because they are confident in their current dominance, but due to the risks of inaction [7][9] - The actions of the companies accused of monopolistic practices indicate a highly competitive environment, contradicting the claims of monopoly by the DOJ and FTC [9]

[Music] [Applause] [Music] On the last day of third grade, my babysitter introduced my little brother and me to Monopoly. It was the kind of Florida summer afternoon where playing outside felt like playing in an oven. So, she figured a board game would keep us entertained.The premise seemed clear. Buy properties, collect rent, bankrupt opponents. But whenever I trusted my instincts, I lost.Now, I realized Monopoly isn't just a game of luck or instinct. It's a master class on why data beats impulse on the bo ...

Core Perspective - The federal judge is evaluating how to limit Google's monopoly in search while considering its advantages in artificial intelligence, aiming to minimize harm to other market players [1][2]. Legal Proceedings - The U.S. District Court is hearing the government's monopoly case against Google, with Judge Amit Mehta poised to decide on potential breakups or penalties for the company [2]. - The Justice Department is proposing long-term measures to address Google's illegal monopoly in the online search market, which could extend to generative AI [4][10]. AI Considerations - Judge Mehta is contemplating whether curbing Google's dominance in generative AI is a suitable approach to tackle its search monopoly [3]. - The emergence of AI chatbots is viewed as a significant threat to traditional search engines, as they provide direct answers to user queries [9]. Agreements and Payments - Central to the case are Google's agreements with Apple and others, where Google pays billions annually to be the default search engine, with the DOJ seeking to bar these payments [5][7]. - The potential ban on payments could have widespread market implications, affecting browser companies and device makers [8]. Market Dynamics - Google's lawyers argue that banning payments would disadvantage consumers and smaller companies, benefiting larger rivals like Microsoft [7]. - The court is considering the balance between fixing the search market and potentially harming other sectors [8]. Competitive Landscape - The Justice Department believes that proposed remedies could enable new search engines to emerge, particularly in light of advancements in AI [4]. - AI companies have testified that Google's contracts hinder their ability to compete, with some expressing interest in acquiring Google's Chrome if divestiture occurs [14][15]. Government's Position - The government maintains that its proposals are necessary to foster competition and does not dispute the potential private impacts of its actions [8][10]. - Judge Mehta is focused on creating a competitive environment rather than simply penalizing Google, indicating a desire to support potential rivals [16].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) is advocating for Google to divest two of its digital advertising businesses, Ad Exchange (AdX) and DFP publisher ad server, following a federal judge's ruling that Google holds an illegal monopoly in the ad tech sector [1][2][4]. Group 1: DOJ's Proposals - The DOJ argues that Google should be required to sell off AdX and conduct a "phased divestiture" of its DFP publisher ad server to restore competition in the digital advertising market [1][2]. - The DOJ's filing emphasizes that these remedies are essential to terminate Google's monopolies and prevent future violations [3]. - A court-appointed official would supervise the divestiture process, allowing the DOJ to approve or reject potential buyers [3]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings and Implications - U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema has scheduled a trial for September 22 to discuss the remedies for Google's monopolistic practices [4]. - The DOJ indicated that a forced sale could take several years to finalize, highlighting the complexity of the divestiture process [4]. - Google's parent company, Alphabet, generated approximately $350 billion in revenue in fiscal 2024, with a significant portion derived from digital advertising, making any breakup potentially disruptive to its business [6]. Group 3: Google's Response - Google has expressed intentions to appeal the case, arguing that the DOJ's proposed remedies are excessively severe and may not be legally permissible [7]. - The company contends that a forced sale could undermine the tools that advertisers use to connect with publishers and effectively reach their audiences [11]. - Google has shown openness to behavioral remedies, such as sharing relevant ad data with competitors, while facing a separate potential breakup of its search business [14].