Breaking up (Google) is hard to do
- Google is trying to defend its ad tech monopoly against a break-up, citing challenges similar to going to Mars or replacing Michael Jordan.
- The company’s witnesses testified that it doesn’t need to give up monopoly power to restore competition in the market.
- Google successfully beat a similar case with the Justice Department’s Search case last year.
- The company is now facing a federal judge, Virginia-based District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema, who will decide its fate.
- Google’s ad tech business is at stake in this second attempt to stave off a break-up, which could have significant implications for the tech industry.
Breaking up Google’s ad tech monopoly is, apparently, like going to Mars or trying to replace Michael Jordan – dubiously possible and a huge amount of work.
Those were some of the analogies witnesses testifying in Google’s defense told a federal judge this week as the company mounts its second attempt to stave off a break up. After successfully beating that fate in the Justice Department’s Search case, Google made its case to Virginia-based District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema to let it keep its ad tech business intact too. Along the way, Google witnesses argued it need not give up monopoly power to restore the competition it damaged, and t …
Read the full story at The Verge.
Q. What is Google trying to defend itself against?
A. A break up, specifically regarding its ad tech monopoly.
Q. Why is breaking up Google’s ad tech monopoly considered difficult?
A. It’s like going to Mars or trying to replace Michael Jordan – it’s a huge amount of work and seems dubiously possible.
Q. What was the outcome of Google’s previous attempt to stave off a break up?
A. Google successfully beat that fate in the Justice Department’s Search case.
Q. Why is Google making its second attempt to defend itself against a break up?
A. To keep its ad tech business intact and avoid giving up monopoly power.
Q. What did witnesses testify about when testifying in Google’s defense?
A. They used analogies such as going to Mars or trying to replace Michael Jordan to describe the difficulty of breaking up Google’s ad tech monopoly.
Q. Where is the case being heard?
A. A federal judge in Virginia-based District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema’s court.
Q. What did Google witnesses argue they need not do?
A. Give up monopoly power to restore competition it damaged.
Q. Why is competition important for Google’s ad tech business?
A. Not specified, but implied as a reason for Google to want to keep its ad tech business intact.
Q. Who is the judge presiding over the case?
A. Virginia-based District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema.
Q. What was the purpose of the article provided?
A. To inform readers about Google’s second attempt to defend itself against a break up and provide a link to read the full story.