For the first time during the ongoing antitrust trial against Google, Judge Amit Mehta expressed some doubts regarding testimony by executives of Google. One of those executives kept insisting that Google has been attacked over common practices of the search advertising business.
The clash started right in the courtroom when the advocate for Google came and did his presentation, which stated that this company's practice is not being aggressive but rather offering competitive advantages. It has been particularly said that the company does not engage in predatory pricing of its competitors nor in price competition. However, attention is drawn to the indicative questions of Judge Mehta and a number of his doubts whether all the facts presented have convinced him that Google is right.
One of the most important issues presented during the trial was the fact that Google holds a monopoly on the global search market, sustained through anti-competitive agreements and contracts. The prosecution believes such agreements lock out competition, ensuring that Google remains the default search engine on various devices or software programs. Even though Google claims that such services can be moved with ease to other locations, prosecution argues that such an extent of market control by Google chokes the competition.
Mehta appears to be trying to determine precisely why no witnesses of the outside parties have testified except those of Google. Most of his questions seemed to seek clarification.
#Google #Antitrust #AdDefense #JudgeMehta #TechIndustry #MarketCompetition #ConsumerChoice #DigitalMarkets #BusinessStrategies #LegalBattle
Author: John Miller
