[lolinder]

In an antitrust trial your competitors are by definition victims of the monopolistic behavior that is being alleged. Yes, there will be a conflict of interest in their testimony that needs to be accounted for, but it's not unreasonable for the victim in a court case to testify of the manner in which they feel victimized.

Regarding your analogy, it would be more like if you're accused of stealing from your arch rival. Should they be barred from testifying against you on the grounds that there's bad blood between you? Certainly not! It's up to your lawyer to demonstrate their bias and persuade the jury to ignore their testimony.

[makomk]

The main way that Microsoft has been harmed by Google's actions is that they can no longer pay companies like mobile phone networks to lock search on their devices to Bing and prevent users from changing it, because Google outbid them. Google haven't even blocked users from changing their search engine like Microsoft did because their product is good enough that they don't need to. I think what Microsoft are hoping for is that Google will be legally barred from bidding against them so that they can go back to using this tactic unchallenged.

[whiddershins]

The victims are the public.

Edit: to clarify, I believe this is the actual legal basis of anti monopoly legislation. Protection of the interests of the public, not competitor companies.

[hackernewds]

Exactly. The point of an antitrust trial is not to transfer power and resources to competitors. It's to transfer power and resources to the voting public.

As guilty as Microsoft might be, it's rich of Microsoft with its monopolies (without which a lot of its subpar products like outlook and Teams and Edge would go poof) to be abdicating Google here.

[robertlagrant]

It's not about transferring resources. It's about making sure there's enough competition.

Ironically, there is more and more search competition appearing. Bing isn't great, but other things are.

[jfoster]

Could you please elaborate on what the other things are?

[palata]

I have used DDG for years, before switching to Kagi a year ago. Really happy with Kagi. I am happy to pay to show that there is a market for paid services.

[ehecatl42]

Have a play with mojeek.com. Also heard good things about kagi, that is paid, though, I believe.

[robertlagrant]

I use DDG exclusively and have done for years.

[JopV]

DuckDuckGo is just a proxy for Bing, the results are the same. Kagi and Brave are actual competitors.

[omnimus]

Probably Kagi… maybe chatgpt

[b112]

If summoned and under oath, it is neither rich or not. Stating fact is just that.

[jpadkins]

roughly: In the US, the state has to prove consumer harm. In the EU, the state has to prove competitor harm.

[CPLX]

No it doesn't. There's truth to your statement in the sense that there's now a generation of confused judges that think this is true. But the plain language of US antitrust statutes is pretty clear on this point, simply engaging in certain kinds of anti-competitive behavior is illegal, you definitely do not need to prove that the illegal behavior had specific effects.

[jessriedel]

The plain language of the statute doesn't matter much once legal precedent is entrenched. This is especially true when the plain language is incredibly underspecified.

For those who don't know, the Sherman antitrust act has only two key paragraphs (and six procedural paragraphs).

> Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or other- wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, at the discretion of the court.

> Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof; shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-tr...

If we strip out the penalties, the words defining what's illegal are literally just "contract, ...trust..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce" and "monopolize any part of the trade or commerce".

Given that ambiguity, it's inevitable that courts will essentially have to write the law themselves.

[mjan22640]

The courts are bound by the law arent they. Ie what is stated in the law is illegal, and anything else is legal.

[jessriedel]

The law doesn't clearly state what's illegal. In this case, it barely mumbles and gestures at it. In applying the law, it is inevitable that it will have to be more precisely defined (or, worse, applied inconsistently).

[nielsbot]

"The consumer welfare standard gradually replaced the rule of reason principle as the dominant legal theory behind antitrust enforcement by the 1980s."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_welfare_standard

Maybe the judges are confused, but there was a shift in enforcement around the Reagan era. I also think "consumer welfare" in this context is taken to mainly maen low pricing. That is, if a monopoly causes higher prices, then we should go after them. The DOJ going after Google and Amazon is a bit of a return to the former standard. (Source: news programs I listen to such as The Majority Report.)

[CPLX]

What happened is monpolistic businesses bought off both parties and the elite law schools.

They didn’t actually rewrite antitrust law though, so it’s still there.

[whiddershins]

I think you are correct, the harm is assumed.

[CPLX]

For the most part the most direct victims of unfair competition practices are competitors.

[whiddershins]

The government doesn’t (or shouldn’t) care if a business beats another business in business.

They care if doing so harms the consumer by the route of lack of competition leading to higher prices and/or inferior product.

[Dylan16807]

The other view is that you shouldn't wait until the consumer is harmed, because by then the competition might be so weak it's hard to restore to proper levels.

[CPLX]

That’s not true. The government also cares if firms engage in illegal anti competitive behavior.

The way we know they care is they are literally suing dozens of companies right now on that principle.

[madeofpalk]

Right - and that's why the Government, representing the public, are suing. Microsoft is just a "witness" to the public being victims.

[dredmorbius]

That is the Bork doctrine, which itself was radical revisionism of the actual original US antitrust statutes.

Rebecca Giblin & Cory Doctorow's Chokepoint Capitalism goes into detail on this.

[germandiago]

We all know that Microsoft was always an example of... fair competition.