How to think about the Google anti-monopoly trial
Forgive yourself if you have forgotten that Google, owned by Alphabet, is on its third month in the dock during the biggest anti-monopoly trial since America’s Department of Justice (DoJ) won a conviction against Microsoft, another tech giant, a quarter of a century ago. Though some in antitrust circles hoped it would be the “trial of the century”, so far the proceedings, which are expected to wrap up shortly, have had little of the Sturm und Drang of the historic Microsoft showdown. The excitement may increase when the verdict is announced next year. For now, no one can confidently predict the outcome because Amit Mehta, the judge, keeps his cards close to his chest. But in the meantime, Schumpeter spoke to someone once lionised by Vanity Fair, a magazine, as “The Man Who Ate Microsoft”. How does David Boies, the government’s lead trial lawyer in the Microsoft case, see the similarities and differences between the two antitrust battles?
Mr Boies makes clear that he has not been present in the District of Columbia courtroom to witness the Google trial. At 82, he is still busy, including serving as counsel on two pending cases against Google (which suggests he may not be an impartial observer). Yet he says media coverage of the trial is sufficient to form some opinions, and two things stand out. First, like Microsoft, Google came to court with a history of innovation and consumer success, effectively saying “Trust us, we know what’s best for consumers.” Second, the DoJ may not have challenged that trustworthiness forcefully enough. “During the Microsoft case, even if you were a casual observer, you were constantly confronted with attacks on Microsoft’s credibility. I haven’t seen that in the press,” he says. He is not alone. Broadly, the feeling is that the DoJ has not yet dealt Google a spectacular knockout blow.
Mr Boies has had some setbacks in an otherwise illustrious career, including…
2023-11-16 09:48:08
Article from www.economist.com
rnrn