Data played a role in the government’s successful antitrust suit Google Accusing him of illegally protecting his monopoly in online search. Now, steps to force Google to unlock their data trove can prominently find out how to address the dominance of the tech veteran, the antitrust experts say. On Friday, the federal judge, supervising the case, Amit P Mehta recited arguments in the federal court in Washington, which is known as treatment on corrective measures, should order to restore competition. Government’s requests include forcing Google to share advertising data with their search engine results and rivals. Lawyers of the Department of Justice have repeatedly described data for search engines as “oxygen”. And in his judgment against Google in August, Mehta explained in detail how the company harvested a large amount of data from user discoveries and web crawling, then stored and analyzes data to rule the attractive market for internet search. Google, he said, collects user search data nine times every day as all his rivals. And as more data is fed into Google’s software, the result is that the search engine returns everything from biology to the bluezian, which becomes more accurate and relevant to the person receiving information. Better discovery performance, in turn, attracts more users and more advertisers, Mehta wrote. It is a wheel that continuously enhances Google’s discovery and serves as a hindrance to competition. “In every stage in the search process,” Judge wrote, “User data is an important input that directly improves quality.” On how to fix the monopoly of Google, their decision on the ability to reopen competition on the Internet is expected to overhala, especially as a new era of general artificial intelligence and how people find for information for online information. Tech companies are running to win consumers with chatbots and other equipment that can answer more sophisticated questions than the vast pool of data. Mehta has already indicated that AI may be a factor in its consultation, recently the lawsuit went to prosecute in the fall of 2023 during the rapid development hearing of technology. To fix Google’s discovery monopoly, the justice department and the states bringing the case recommended a series of sanctions, just banning the anticomatic deals with companies that Google has paid to make it automated search engines to force the company to sell its market-long chrome browser. The government’s data-related proposal falls somewhere in the middle. It requires Google to share user search information and license its search index, a database of hundreds of billions of webpages created by popularity, quality and relevance. In late April, Mehta said that he saw his job as weighing in the “remedy spectrum”. There was a breakup order at one end, he said, while there was a ban on illegal deals with browser and smartphone companies at the minimum end. There were “forward -looking treatments” in the middle, he said, without his thinking in detail. Given the evidence in the case, a data-sharing order would be “an ideologically suitable measure”, as special deals have increased the data gain of Google, Douglas Melmade said, a former senior officer of the Antitust Division of the Department of Justice and now a visiting fellow at Stanford Law School. Nevertheless, a data-sharing project raises its set of its questions. In court testimony, Google emphasized the privacy concerns of passing the user search data along with other companies. The government’s data proposal also asks for access to the software that uses the data as a component but was created by Google’s engineers. “It looks like an administrative headache – how many data, and how often to go to Google’s Crown Jewel?” John Yun, an economist at Antonin Skallia Law School at George Mason University, said. Google has described the government’s data-sharing scheme as equal to a breakup-a forced surrender of his intellectual property allows contestants to reverse their technique. Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google’s original company, testified in court last month. The history of sharing forced assets as a solution to monopolistic behavior is mixed. In 1956, as part of an antitrust settlement with the government, AT & T agreed to license its patent, including the transistor, for the small switches for the electronic circuitry building blocks. The silicon Valley that became an independent semiconductor industry opened the door. But the 1996 Telecom Act, which intended to increase competition for local telephone service, was not much innovation as resulting in sharing network capabilities. Eventually, the actual competition emerged, but it came from mobile wireless and cable broadband companies, a telecom expert and former general advocate of the federal trade commission John Nuheralin. Landline Voice Service has increased to about 25% from about 100% of families in 1996 today. Nucheralin, a prestigious scholar at the Competition Law Center of George Washington University, said, “The outdoor competition became independent of all regulator churn.” Today, AI is very unknown in search. Chhatgpt of Openai’s chatgpt and anthropic, AI-operated search engine perplexity, and others are possible google disruption. Google itself is investing heavily in AI-Enhanced Search, which Pichai has recently described as “total reunion of search”. While Mehta has recently accepted AI’s rapid advance, his decision in August said that technology is yet to overtake the traditional discovery. “AI has not suppressed traditional ingredients that define general discovery,” he wrote. “Importantly, generic AI has not eliminated (or, at least, not yet) or reduced the requirement of user data to give quality search results.” Some no confidence experts say Mehta’s decision may affect the search and AI. “AI’s blast is even more important for strong data-sharing measures,” said Jean Kimmeman, a former senior officer at the Antitrest Division of the Department of Justice. “AI and search overlap, and ride on both data.”
