Tag Archives: sides

US v. Google: Key Arguments from Both Sides in the Search Monopoly Hearing

Posted on by
Reply

Over the last three weeks, the Department of Justice and Google have questioned over 20 witnesses in an effort to influence a federal judge’s ruling regarding the company’s unlawful monopoly in internet searches.

The hearing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday is anticipated to yield conclusions. To address the monopoly, the government has proposed robust measures, such as divesting Google of its widely-used Chrome web browser and obliging it to share its own data with competitors. Google contends that minor adjustments to its business practices would be more effective.

Both parties are set to present their closing arguments at the end of the month. Judge Amit P. Meta, who presides over the case, is expected to make a decision by August. His ruling could significantly impact how Google, its competitors, and users search for information online.

Here’s what you need to know about the discussions during the hearing:

In August, Judge Mehta ruled that Google breached antitrust laws by paying billions to companies like Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla to ensure its status as the default search engine on browsers and smartphones. He also found that Google’s monopoly could inflate certain search ad prices and create unfair advantages.

Last month, Judge Meta held a hearing to explore the best strategies for addressing search monopolies through a measure known as treatment. Executives from Google, competing search engines, and AI firms, along with experts, provided testimony regarding Google’s dominance on the Internet.

Government lawyers claimed that the only effective way to dismantle Google’s search monopoly is through decisive action.

They argued that Google should be compelled to spin off Chrome and share search results and ads with its competitors, enabling them to subscribe to their search engines. Other search engines and some AI firms require access to data regarding what Google users search for and the sites they visit.

During the hearing, the government cautioned that if Judge Meta does not act, Google could gain control over another technology, artificial intelligence. Searches may become chaotic as AI and chatbots transform the way users seek information online, similar to Google’s Gemini.

“The court’s remedy should be forward-looking and take into account future developments,” stated David Dalkist, the lead government attorney. “Google is employing the same strategies with Gemini that they once used for search.”

“It’s the first time in over 20 years in the last two months,” remarked Eddy Cue, an Apple executive who testified against Google. He linked this decline to the rise of AI.

Google’s attorneys contended that the government’s proposals could jeopardize products that consumers rely on for privacy and security during their online activities.

“There could certainly be many unintended consequences,” testified Sundar Pichai, Google’s CEO.

The disclosure of Google data to competitors would compromise user privacy, the company’s attorneys claimed. They referenced incidents from 2006 when AOL released search data for research purposes, leading journalists to identify individuals through their searches.

They also noted that competition in AI is robust.

Instead, Google’s legal team suggested that web browsers and smartphone manufacturers should grant more freedom to competing search and AI services. Pichai testified that Google has already adjusted its contracts with other entities in line with the case’s proposals.

(The New York Times has sued OpenAI and its partner Microsoft over copyright infringement concerning news content related to AI systems, which they denied.)

During the hearing, several of Google’s competitors, including those from OpenAI and Chatbot Company, indicated they would consider purchasing Chrome if it were put up for sale. Government witnesses stated that access to Google’s search and advertising data would be beneficial for AI companies aiming to compete with Google.

When Judge Meta posed questions to the witnesses throughout the hearing, he offered insight into his perspective.

At times, he encouraged witnesses to discuss whether rivals could effectively compete with Google’s search dominance without court intervention.

Many of his inquiries focused on AI and its significance. Google competes against its rivals and has developed technology that has become a major influence in the tech industry.

When Pichai took the stand, Judge Meta mentioned he had noted the swift advancement of AI since the case commenced in the fall of 2023, highlighting his awareness of how technological developments have shaped the context of the hearing.

“One of the things that Pichai impressed upon me in these cases was that when we met long ago, consistent testimonies from witnesses indicated the combined AI and search impacts had been separate for years. By the time we convened today, the landscape had changed dramatically.”

Source: www.nytimes.com

Days After Trump’s Commitment to Underwater Mining, Tensions Mount Between Both Sides

Posted on by
Reply

Shortly after President Trump issued an executive order to expedite submarine mining efforts, the US government received its first permission application. This initiative is championed by notable supporters within the metal industry.

On Tuesday, CEO Gerald Baron was present in Washington for a controversial hearing before the House Committee on Natural Resources. He likened the beginning of this process to a “starting gun” signaling a race to extract minerals like cobalt and nickel from nodules situated 2.5 miles deep on the ocean floor.

Debate erupted among committee members from both parties regarding the environmental implications of this mining practice. The Trump administration indicated it would contemplate permits for mining activities within US jurisdiction and international waters.

Other nations have accused the US of attempting to bypass international law, arguing that the waters designated for submarine mining should come under the governance of an independent international authority.

To date, no commercial submarine mining has been conducted.

California leader Jared Huffman, a ranking Democrat on the committee, criticized both the Metals Company and Trump for advancing undersea mining in “reckless cowboy fashion.” Democrats raised concerns over the financial viability of mining cobalt and nickel, citing major electric vehicle manufacturers’ shift towards alternative battery materials.

“The financial model of the industry is based on overly optimistic assumptions and does not reflect the realities and volatility of the global mineral market,” remarked Oregon Democrat Maxine E. Dexter.

The Metals Company attempted to reassure the committee, arguing that the potential harm to the seabed would outweigh the limited job creation and that accessing these minerals could reduce dependence on Chinese sources. They stated that a decade of extensive environmental studies supports their position.

Trump’s order follows years of delays by international authorities in establishing a regulatory framework for submarine mining. The authorities, established under United Nations auspices decades ago, are likely to miss another deadline this year for finalizing these regulations.

Baron informed the committee that it took him 14 years to draft the mining code, describing it as a “deliberate strategy” to slow undersea mining.

He further claimed that a polymetallic nodule extracted by his company is now on President Trump’s desk in the Oval Office.

According to the US Geological Survey, it is estimated that nodules within the Clarion Clipperton Zone in the Eastern Pacific contain more nickel, cobalt, and manganese than all terrestrial reserves combined. This proposed mining zone spans half the size of the US between Mexico and Hawaii.

Committee Chair Paul Gosar, a Republican from Arizona, insisted that subsea mining is essential for liberating the US from China’s “supply chain control.”

China has recently placed export restrictions on several rare earth elements, raising concerns that American companies may face shortages in producing advanced electronic devices.

The House Committee also considered a study discussing the impact of submarine mining on the seafloor conducted by Thomas Peacock, a mechanical engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, partially funded by metal companies.

Dr. Peacock indicated that there may be countless undiscovered species in the Clarion Clipperton Zone, suggesting that certain areas should be off-limits for mining. However, he noted that the anticipated environmental impacts of nodule mining might not be as severe as speculated.

He specifically minimized the risk of mining causing plumes of sand and debris that could harm seabed life, comparing the fragments to “grains of sand in a fishbowl.”

In attendance with Mr. Baron was the CEO of Impossible Metals, a future deep-sea mining company. Unlike other companies that use vacuum-like extraction technologies along the ocean floor, Impossible Metals claims to have developed machines that can collect nodules selectively without disturbing the seabed.

“Our underwater robots hover to gather mineral-rich nodules from the seabed through AI-guided selective harvesting,” explained Oliver Gunasekara, CEO of Impossible Metals. “We avoid all visible marine life and leave 60% untouched.”

The company has reapplied for permission to conduct operations in US Samoa. Gunasekara noted that their previous applications were rejected during the Biden administration, but with new leadership in both American Samoa and Washington, he is optimistic about gaining approval.

Source: www.nytimes.com