Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by duringmath 577 days ago
The former Microsoft lawyer leading this prosecution is doing Microsoft's bidding.
2 comments

Wouldn't Microsoft be scared to suffer the same faith, if this were to really happen?
Microsoft doesn't want Google to control the codebase Edge is based on and doesn't want anyone to counter the MSFT + OpenAI partnership, and the DOJ is trying to hand them their wishes. Hopefully the judge rejects this overreach and rules on lawsuit scope.
preferable would be preventing google+anthropic but also breaking up ms + openai
Doubt that’s on the table unless Microsoft is also sued. Without a joint ruling this wouldn’t be balanced
Doesn't mean we

a) can't hope

b) shouldn't hope

Ideally the feds would stay out of it and let the market do its thing.
As someone who remembers a time before Google, no.

Letting "the market do its thing" only works until a few companies accumulate enough power to monopolize the market.

The last two decades have seen being the next Google transformed into being acquired by Google, which has been to the detriment of everyone.

I remember the time before google. We were all stuck IE with no competitive browsers and everyone was using Windows machines. Now we have three browsers and multiple platforms. I just bought a Chromebook plus, that can run linux apps but is easy enough for my kid to use. My wife uses windows laptop and I use a mac. We have Amazon Echos through out the house. We have 4 major players in the tech space instead of one. Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
The status quo is bad for Microsoft, anything with the potential to shake it up is worth doing. And they'd get a head start.
I'm sorry, you're alleging that someone who used to work for Microsoft, but doesn't anymore, is ... well, still secretly working for Microsoft? Like, he's a spy inside the DOJ, but you've figured out his clever game? I don't understand.
A common argument is that former corporate insiders remain loyal to their former employers once in positions of authority in the government so as to obtain lucrative positions once their time in government ends. It’s also possible there are corrupt private contracts in place to entice those actions.

I’m not sure why you’re being so sarcastic as it’s not a novel idea and it’s less “figured out the clever game” and more that even the appearance of impropriety removes faith and trust in the institution.

> even the appearance of impropriety removes faith and trust in the institution.

This seems like a nuanced and reasonable take, but a rather generous interpretation of the GP comment. I think it’s reasonable for the parent comment to push back against a definitive statement laying an accusation with no evidence.

It’s a reasonable take meant to explain GPs statement and sentiment regardless of the underlying truth of his statement and pushing back on what I found to be unfounded sarcasm that added nothing to the conversation.
Interestingly, that same argument was made for Nokia and in the end seems like it was probably true in that specific case.