Washington – Google returned to the Federal Court on Friday to defend against the attempt of the United States Department of Justice to overthrow its Internet empire while sailing for a fundamental change to artificial intelligence that could undermine its power.
The legal and technological threats faced An illegal monopoly by the American district judge Amit Mehta last year.
Brandzant evidence presented During a three -week section of recent audiencesThe lawyers of the Department of Justice try to persuade Mehta to order a radical shaking that includes a prohibition that Google pays to block their search engine such as the default value on smart devices and an order that requires the company to sell its Chrome browser.
Google’s lawyers say that only minor concessions are needed, especially because the agitation triggered by advances in artificial intelligence is already remodeling the search panorama, since alternative and conversational search options are being implemented from the new AI companies that hope to use the case of four and a half years of the Department of Justice to obtain the top of the technological hand in the next technological border.
Mehta used Friday’s audience to ask specific questions and questions to lawyers for both parties while insinuating that he was looking for a midpoint between the remedies proposed by the two fields.
“We are not looking to give Google to Google,” said the judge, added that the goal was to “start” the capacity of competitors to challenge the dominance of the giant of the search.
After the closing arguments of one day, Mehta will spend a large part of the summer reflecting to a decision that plans to broadcast before Labor Day. Google has already promised to appeal the ruling that described its search engine as a monopoly, a step that cannot take until the judge orders a remedy.
While both sides of this confrontation agree that AI is a turning point for the future of the industry, they have disparate opinions on how change will affect Google.
The Department of Justice argues that the technology of AI itself will not stop in the power of Google, arguing that they must slapped in a search engine that is the main reason why its parent company, Alphabet Inc., is valued at $ 2 billion.
Mehta indicated in the court on Friday that he was still undecided on how much AI potential to shake the search market should be incorporated in his next ruling. “This is what I have been fighting,” Mehta said at the beginning of the audience.
The justice prosecutor, David Dahlquist, urged the judge to issue remedies with a future vision that “would open” the search market to compete and not allow Google to use his search monopoly to benefit unfairly in AI’s career.
Google has already State implementing AI to transform your search engine I In a response engine, an effort that until now has helped maintain its hanger as the main internet entrance door despite the incursions are carried out by alternatives of OpenAi’s tastes and perplexity.
The Department of Justice argues that a disinvestment of the Chrome browser that the Google CEO, Slándar Pichai, helped build almost 20 years ago, would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google that continues to accumulate massive volumes of traffic of browsers and personal data that they could take advantage of to retain their domain in the AI era. Openai and perplexity executives declared last month that they would be anxious postulators for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders their sale.
Google’s lawyer John Schmidtlein said Friday that AI companies should “get to work” in their own products instead of trying to persuade the court to provide unfair access to Google’s innovations.
The debate about Google’s destiny has also obtained opinions from Apple, mobile application developers, legal academics and new companies.
Apple, which collects more than $ 20 billion annually to make Google the predetermined search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, presented reports arguing against the 10 -year prohibition proposed by the Department of Justice of such Lucrative block agreements. Apple told the judge that prohibiting contracts would deprive the money company to find in its own investigation, and that the ban could make Google even more powerful because the company could cling to their money, while consumers would end up choosing their search engine anyway. Cupertino’s company, California, also told the judge that a prohibition would not force him to build his own search engine to compete against Google.
In other presentations, a group of legal scholars said that the divestment proposed by the Chrome Department of Justice would be an inadequate sanction that would injected interference from the unjustified government into a company’s business. Meanwhile, the former officials of the Federal Commission of Commerce James Cooper and Andrew Stivers warned that another proposal that would require Google to share their data with rival search engines “does not explain the expectations that users have developed over time with respect to privacy, security and administration” of their personal information.
The Application Association, a group that mostly represents small software developers, also advised Mehta not to adopt the changes proposed by the Department of Justice due to the domain effects they would have throughout the technological industry.
Host Google in the way in which the Department of Justice imagines that it would be more difficult for new companies to carry out its objective of being acquired, the applications association wrote. “The developers will be overcome by uncertainty,” if Google tear, the group argues.
