from the this-was-a-triumph-...-huge-success dept.
In mid-June 2019, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and CEO Satya Nadella received a rude awakening in an email warning that Google had officially gotten too far ahead on AI and that Microsoft may never catch up without investing in OpenAi.
With the subject line "Thoughts on OpenAI," the email came from Microsoft's chief technology officer, Kevin Scott, who is also the company's executive vice president of AI. In it, Scott said that he was "very, very worried" that he had made "a mistake" by dismissing Google's initial AI efforts as a "game-playing stunt."
[...] As just one example, Scott warned, "their auto-complete in Gmail, which is especially useful in the mobile app, is getting scarily good."
Microsoft had tried to keep this internal email hidden, but late Tuesday it was made public as part of the US Justice Department's antitrust trial over Google's alleged search monopoly.
[...] In an order unsealing the email among other documents requested by The Times, US District Judge Amit Mehta allowed to be redacted some of the "sensitive statements in the email concerning Microsoft's business strategies that weigh against disclosure"—which included basically all of Scott's "thoughts on OpenAI."
[...] Mere weeks later, Microsoft had invested $1 billion into OpenAI, and there have been billions more invested since through an extended partnership agreement. In 2024, the two companies' finances appeared so intertwined that the European Union suspected Microsoft was quietly controlling OpenAI and began investigating whether the companies still operate independently. Ultimately, the EU dismissed the probe, deciding that Microsoft's $13 billion in investments did not amount to an acquisition, Reuters reported.
Related Stories:
How Google's co-founders Have 'Escaped All Scrutiny' in Landmark Antitrust Trials - 20231226
Google Pays an Awful Lot to be Your Default - 20231115
Google Loses Fight to Hide 2021 Money Pit: $26B in Default Contracts - 20231031
Google, DOJ Still Blocking Public Access to Monopoly Trial Docs, NYT Says - 20231020
Microsoft CEO Warns of "Nightmare" Future for AI If Google's Search Dominance Continues - 20231004
Google Risks Forced Breakup of Ad Business as EU Alleges Shocking Misconduct - 20230615
Judge Finds Google Destroyed Evidence and Repeatedly Gave False Info to Court - 20230331
Google is Being Sued by the DOJ Over Alleged Digital Ad Monopoly - 20230331
OpenAI and Microsoft Announce Extended, Multi-Billion-Dollar Partnership - 20230124
US DoJ, Microsoft and 35 States Support an Appeal of Epic Games-Apple Decision - 20220202
Google's Antitrust Case Won't Go to Trial Until Sept. 2023 - 20201221
Google Reportedly Could be Hit With Second Antitrust Lawsuit This Week - 20201217
Related Stories
Google reportedly could be hit with second antitrust lawsuit this week:
A group of states is preparing to file a second antitrust lawsuit against Google this week — setting the tech titan up for a tough court battle, according to new reports.
The coalition of states, led by Colorado and Nebraska, is putting the finishing touches on the antitrust complaint against Google that could be filed as soon as Thursday, Politico reported, citing two people close to the investigation.
The suit is expected to focus on Google's dominance in the online search market, particularly changes it has made to the designs of its signature search engine that put rivals at a disadvantage, according to the outlet.
[...] The states will bring their lawsuit in the same Washington, DC federal court where the feds filed theirs, according to Politico. The state attorneys general hope to eventually consolidate their case with the Justice Department's, Reuters reported.
Also at:
Google Hit With 2nd Lawsuit Testing Its Monopoly Power — This One Over Digital Ads
The latest multistate antitrust lawsuit targets Google's ad business
Ten States Sue Google, Alleging Deal With Facebook to Rig Online Ad Market
Google's antitrust case won't go to trial until Sept. 2023:
The U.S. government's attempt to prove Google has been using its dominance of online search to stifle competition and innovation at the expense of consumers and advertisers won't go to trial for nearly three years.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta on Friday set a tentative trial date of Sept. 12, 2023 for the landmark case that the Justice Department filed two months ago.
"This dispels the notion that we would go to trial quickly," said Mehta during a conference call with government and Google lawyers to go over the ground rules for exchanging confidential documents and deposing top Google executives.
He estimated that once the trial begins it will last about 5 1/2 weeks in his Washington, D.C., courtroom.
[...] With the trial still years away, Google will conceivably become an even more imposing force before the federal government and the attorneys general in dozens of states get their day in court. Another antitrust case filed Thursday is seeking to preempt Google's dominance in other still-emerging fields of technology such as voice-activated devices in the home and internet-connected cars. That case is likely to be combined with the Justice Department's.
US DoJ, Microsoft and 35 states support an appeal of Epic Games-Apple decision:
In another twist to the Epic Games lawsuit against Apple, the US Department of Justice (DoJ), Microsoft, and 35 state attorneys-general have all submitted legal filings disputing the lawsuit's original ruling from September last year.
The original ruling had sided with Apple on nine out of 10 counts. It found Apple engaged in anticompetitive conduct under California's competition laws, but ultimately it ruled the iPhone maker was not an antitrust monopolist.
The ruling, made by District Judge Yvonne Gonzales-Rogers, came to this conclusion as she found Apple's developer program license agreements were not contracts and other competitors had enough market share in submarkets such as mobile gaming.
That decision is now up for appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, with both Apple and Epic Games filing appeals as neither side were happy with the outcome.
In all the third-party briefs, which were filed over the weekend, the consistent argument that arose was Gonzales-Roger's interpretations of the Sherman Act[*] were too narrow and wrong. The Sherman Act is a US law that was specifically drafted to prohibit anticompetitive behaviour.
[*] Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
On Monday, AI tech darling OpenAI announced that it received a "multi-year, multi-billion dollar investment" from Microsoft, following previous investments in 2019 and 2021. While the two companies have not officially announced a dollar amount on the deal, the news follows rumors of a $10 billion investment that emerged two weeks ago.
[...] "The past three years of our partnership have been great," said Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, in a Microsoft news release. "Microsoft shares our values and we are excited to continue our independent research and work toward creating advanced AI that benefits everyone."
In particular, the two companies say they will work on supercomputing at scale to accelerate OpenAI's research, integrating OpenAI's technology into more Microsoft products and "digital experiences" and keeping Microsoft as OpenAI's exclusive cloud provider with Azure. "OpenAI has used this infrastructure to train its breakthrough models, which are now deployed in Azure to power category-defining AI products like GitHub Copilot, DALL·E 2, and ChatGPT," wrote Microsoft.
Related:
Microsoft Announces 10,000 Layoffs, 5% of its Workforce
Google is being sued by the DOJ over alleged digital ad monopoly:
On Tuesday, the US Department of Justice announced that it would be joining eight states in filing a civil antitrust suit against Google over its monopoly on digital advertising. The lawsuit claims that Google abuses its power to put website publishers and advertisers at a disadvantage if they "dare to use" competing advertising technology products.
"Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful conduct to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies," said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in a statement. "No matter the industry and no matter the company, the Justice Department will vigorously enforce our antitrust laws to protect consumers, safeguard competition, and ensure economic fairness and opportunity for all."
The suit alleges that Google has been engaging in anticompetitive behavior for years. Some of that alleged anticompetitive conduct includes acquiring competitors to obtain their digital ad tech, forcing publishers to adopt its tools, distorting auction competition by limiting real-time bidding on publisher inventory, and manipulating auction mechanics.
"The complaint filed today alleges a pervasive and systemic pattern of misconduct through which Google sought to consolidate market power and stave off free-market competition," said Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco.
According to the DOJ and the eight Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia, Google violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which concern contracts in restraint of trade and monopolization.
A federal judge yesterday ruled that Google intentionally destroyed evidence and must be sanctioned, rejecting the company's argument that it didn't need to automatically preserve internal chats involving employees subject to a legal hold.
"After substantial briefing by both sides, and an evidentiary hearing that featured witness testimony and other evidence, the Court concludes that sanctions are warranted," US District Judge James Donato wrote. Later in the ruling, he wrote that evidence shows that "Google intended to subvert the discovery process, and that Chat evidence was 'lost with the intent to prevent its use in litigation' and 'with the intent to deprive another party of the information's use in the litigation.'"
[...]
After yesterday's ruling against Google in the Northern California federal court, a US Department of Justice attorney submitted a notice of the sanctions to the DC-based court. Google is fighting the request for sanctions in that case, too.
Related:
US DoJ, Microsoft and 35 States Support an Appeal of Epic Games-Apple Decision (20220202)
Google's Antitrust Case Won't Go to Trial Until Sept. 2023 (20201221)
Google Reportedly Could be Hit With Second Antitrust Lawsuit This Week (20201217)
Google may soon be ordered to break up its lucrative ad business, which amounted to nearly $225 billion in 2022 and represented nearly 80 percent of Google's total revenue. Today, as expected, the European Commission (EC) sent Google a statement of objections, detailing ad tech antitrust charges and explaining exactly why the EC thinks that breaking up Google's ad business may be the only acceptable remedy.
"We are concerned that Google may have illegally distorted competition in the online advertising technology industry," Margrethe Vestager, the EC's executive vice president, said in remarks published today.
According to Vestager, an EC investigation launched in 2021 found that Google may have favored its own ad tech services when serving as an intermediary ad exchange, matching advertiser supply and publisher demand for advertising space online.
To the EC, it seems like Google has its hand in too many pots to be trusted to conduct business fairly. Google operates an ad exchange, AdX, as well as ad tech services for advertisers—Google Ads and Google Display & Video 360 (DV 360)—and services for publishers, DoubleClick For Publishers (DFP).
Vestager said there's potential for misconduct because "Google may hold a dominant position on both ends of the ad tech supply chain" and "appears to have abused its market position" by ensuring that both advertising and publisher services allegedly favored AdX over other ad exchanges when matching advertisers and publishers.
Microsoft CEO warns of 'nightmare' future for AI if Google's search dominance continues
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella warned on Monday of a "nightmare" scenario for the internet if Google's dominance in online search is allowed to continue, a situation, he said, that starts with searches on desktop and mobile but extends to the emerging battleground of artificial intelligence.
Nadella testified on Monday as part of the US government's sweeping antitrust trial against Google, now into its 14th day. He is the most senior tech executive yet to testify during the trial that focuses on the power of Google as the default search engine on mobile devices and browsers around the globe.
[...] even more worrisome, Nadella argued, is that the enormous amount of search data that is provided to Google through its default agreements can help Google train its AI models to be better than anyone else's — threatening to give Google an unassailable advantage in generative AI that would further entrench its power.
[...] In addition to training its models on search queries, Google has also been moving to secure agreements with content publishers to ensure that it has exclusive access to their material for AI training purposes, according the Microsoft CEO. In Nadella's own meetings with publishers, he said that he now hears that Google "wants ... to write this check and we want you to match it." (Google didn't immediately respond to questions about those deals.)
The requests highlight concerns that "what is publicly available today [may not be] publicly available tomorrow" for AI training, according to the testimony.
Dozens of exhibits from the Google antitrust trial are still being hidden from the public, The New York Times Company alleged in a court filing today.
According to The Times, there are several issues with access to public trial exhibits on both sides. The Department of Justice has failed to post at least 68 exhibits on its website that were shared in the trial, The Times alleged, and states have not provided access to 18 records despite reporters' requests.
[...]
Currently, The Times said it is seeking to unseal redactions in two exhibits, and it remains "unclear why the exhibits have been redacted" because "they date to 2007 and relate to a version of an agreement between Apple and Google that has not been operative for more than a decade."Perhaps most notably, The Times has also asked the court to unseal testimony from Apple exec Eddy Cue and Google vice president and general manager of ads, Jerry Dischler, in their entirety.
"The Court has upheld redactions to certain transcripts in the absence of a showing by the parties on the public record that the sealing is justified and without providing its own 'full explanation of the basis for the redactions," The Times alleged, "even though some of the redactions have been applied to material that is both of great public interest and goes to the core of the litigation."
Previously:
Microsoft CEO Warns of "Nightmare" Future for AI If Google's Search Dominance Continues
On Friday, Google started defending its search business during the Justice Department's monopoly trial. Among the first witnesses called was Google's senior vice president responsible for search, Prabhakar Raghavan, who testified that Google's default agreements with makers of popular mobile phones and web browsers were "the company's biggest cost" in 2021, Bloomberg Law reported.
Raghavan's testimony for the first time revealed that Google paid $26.3 billion in 2021 for default agreements, seemingly investing in default status for its search engine while raking in $146.4 billion in revenue from search advertising that year. Those numbers had increased "significantly" since 2014, Big Tech on Trial reported, when Google's search ad revenue was approximately 46 billion and traffic acquisition cost was approximately $7.1 billion.
[...]
Pichai will likely provide additional insights into how Google's smart investments are responsible for creating the search empire it maintains today, Reuters reported. But he will also likely face the DOJ's inquiries into why Google invests so much in default agreements if it's not a critical part of the tech giant's strategy to stay ahead of the competition.The DOJ is not likely to back down from its case that default agreements unfairly secured Google's search market dominance. On Friday, Big Tech on Trial reporter Yosef Weitzman—who has been posting updates from the trial on X—suggested that things have gotten tense in the courtroom now that the "DOJ seems emboldened to push for more information to be public after Judge Mehta's comments yesterday that not all numbers need to remain redacted."
According to Weitzman, the DOJ today pushed to "make public the 20 search queries Google makes the most revenue off of, as well as Google's traffic acquisition costs related to search (the total amount of money Google paid to partners in search distribution revenue shares)."
Previously:
Google, DOJ Still Blocking Public Access to Monopoly Trial Docs, NYT Says 20231020
Microsoft CEO Warns of "Nightmare" Future for AI If Google's Search Dominance Continues 20231004
A Google Witness Let Slip Just How Much It Pays Apple For Safari Search
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
Google gives Apple a 36 percent cut of all search ad revenue that comes from Safari, according to University of Chicago professor Kevin Murphy. Google had fought to keep the number confidential, but Bloomberg reports that Murphy shared the figure while testifying in Google’s defense today at the Google antitrust trial.
Google has long paid to be the default search engine in Safari and other browsers like Firefox, spending $26.3 billion in 2021 alone for the privilege. $18 billion of that went to Apple, but the specifics of where the number came from remained secret until now. Google has been trying to keep such details under wraps as the trial goes on, but bits and pieces have seeped out anyway. According to Bloomberg, Google lawyer John Schmidtlein “visibly cringed when Murphy said the number.” Google declined to comment in an email to The Verge; Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Apple’s Eddy Cue defended the deal in September, saying Apple actually wanted a bigger cut of the money Google makes from Safari traffic, but the companies settled on the lower number Murphy revealed today. While specific numbers were discussed that day, they were only talked about in closed sessions, away from the ears of press.
The US Justice Department filed its antitrust charges alleging its search monopoly following an investigation by 50 US attorneys general that began in 2019. The trial started on September 12th.
Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have kept a low profile as the Big Tech firm weathers a series of critical antitrust court battles – and it’s part of a long-running pattern of avoiding federal scrutiny, experts say:
The search giant is reeling after a shocking court loss to “Fortnite” maker Epic Games that could upend its lucrative Android app store business. During that trial, US District Judge James Donato slammed what he called a “disturbing” companywide effort to destroy evidence in the high-stakes case.
Google faces yet another looming threat as it awaits a judge’s ruling on the Justice Department case alleging the company has maintained an illegal monopoly over online search. The 10-week trial concluded last month without an appearance by Page and Brin, who created Google’s search tool and held top executive roles as it rose to market dominance.
Instead, Justice Department’s antitrust lawyers grilled a number of current and former executives on Google’s payroll — as well as higher-ups from firms like Apple and Microsoft.
One prominent industry source who has been tracking the proceedings described the Justice Department’s decision not to call the founders to the stand as a “tactical mistake.” The source argued the feds missed an opportunity to grill the notoriously reclusive Page – an enigmatic figure who former friend Elon Musk once claimed has aspirations of becoming a “digital god.”
[...] The co-founders’ physical absence from the search trial, while notable and surprising to some outsiders, may have made more sense for federal antitrust lawyers aiming to build a laser-focused case about Google’s search business practices, experts told The Post.
“In a case that’s already 10 weeks long, you really want to walk the line between providing enough information and carrying your burden of proof as the government and dragging on and boring the judge,” said Rebecca Haw Allensworth, an antitrust law expert and professor at Vanderbilt Law School.
“Especially when it’s a bench trial, you don’t want to be in a situation where you’re putting irrelevant proof. You have to pick and choose your strongest witnesses,” Allensworth added.
Related:
- "Apple Must be Stopped" and Google is "Crazy" Says Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney
- Fortnite's Android Version Bypasses Google Play to Avoid 30% "Store Tax"
See also:
- US wraps up antitrust case against Google in historic trial
- What Google Argued to Defend Itself in Landmark Antitrust Trial
- Explainer: Epic Games verdict adds to Google’s global antitrust woes
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 03 2024, @04:14PM (1 child)
So, if you find that your competitor has out-developed you, just scream ANTI-TRUST!!!
Saves a lot in R&D in the near-term, don't you think?
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Freeman on Friday May 03 2024, @04:32PM
That sure helps things, but the key here was having deep pockets so you can partner with someone else who wasn't caught with their pants down.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Friday May 03 2024, @05:28PM (6 children)
The Fear of missing the next train is probably quite strong with many corporations. After all Microsoft missed or nearly missed or was last on the boat for a lot of trains. So instead they might now be jumping on almost anything that may or may not be viable. If it's the next great thing they figure they'll make their money back easily. If it's a passing fad then it's a write-off that probably won't sink the company anyway. It's like AI and VR over at FaceMeta, the Zuck having to admit that perhaps it will take longer for this to pay off ... a lot longer .. or (n)ever ...
But the fear of missing out is probably to strong. Invest in almost any kind of harebrained scheme as long as it at least contain a fair amount of the current MBA Buzzword-Bingo.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aafcac on Friday May 03 2024, @06:20PM (4 children)
It lacks competence. Just look at Apple, they haven't been afraid of missing out in decades. I think the first GUI based computers might have been the last time they were worried about that. Or possibly their Newtons.
For the most part, they have the discipline to hold back a little bit to see what the markets say and to figure out what mistakes other companies are making. That and copious antitrust violations when they do finally enter the market.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 03 2024, @09:59PM (3 children)
"copious antitrust violations when they do finally enter the market."
I don't recall the Feds going after Apple at all until VERY recently.
MSFT, on the other hand...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 03 2024, @10:17PM (1 child)
Read aafcac's post again. I don't think he implies that Apple has been investigated for monopolistic practices (until the most recent gamer gate). I think that he implies that Apple takes advantage of monopoly investigations against potential competitors.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Tuesday May 07 2024, @04:11PM
Yes, the way that ITMS was handled was definitely not legal, however at the time the Feds basically weren't enforcing any antitrust laws unless they could be directly tied to increasing prices for customers. The ITMS was illegally tied to the Apple only iPods and nobody else could license the DRM to use those ITMS purchases on other devices without breaking the law. The songs on the store were often times only available via CD, so if you wanted the music in a digital download you had to get it from them and use an iPod.
That' literally the only reason why Apple is the size it is today, they were allowed to get away with antitrust violations that weren't legal at the time, but nobody in power understood/cared about it.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday May 04 2024, @03:37AM
The Feds might not have, but the EU has certainly taken several close looks and addressed some of Apple's activities - for example, have you forgotten the power supply connector issue so soon?
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 03 2024, @07:36PM
Oblig. Strangelove:
https://youtu.be/ybSzoLCCX-Y?si=jCJULyRiUWguZ5Sm&t=250 [youtu.be]
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]