[heisenbit]

While all sensible and well reasoned I can not go along with the conclusion:

> that this is a story for methodical and well-resourced on-going regulation, not slogans and breakups. It’s a story for legislation, much more than litigation.

When it comes to break-ups let's just focus on the biggest part i.e. Google and the way the ads market is run. The argument of Dina Srinivasan (on which Warren and the case leans) is of Google's integration of functions which exist in other financial brokered markets in competition and that healthy tension drives down prices there. Car and indicator or PC and word processors are not useful analogies here.