%PDF-1.6
%öäüß
1 0 obj
<<
/PageLabels 2 0 R
/Pages 3 0 R
/Type /Catalog
>>
endobj
4 0 obj
<<
/ModDate (D:20250130224914-05'00')
/Producer <6954657874AE20436F726520372E322E33202870726F64756374696F6E2076657273696F6E2920A9323030302D323032322069546578742047726F7570204E562C2041646D696E697374726174697665204F6666696365206F662074686520556E697465642053746174657320436F75727473>
>>
endobj
2 0 obj
<<
/Nums [0 5 0 R]
>>
endobj
3 0 obj
<<
/Count 7
/Kids [6 0 R 7 0 R 8 0 R 9 0 R 10 0 R 11 0 R 12 0 R]
/Type /Pages
>>
endobj
5 0 obj
<<
/S /D
>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<<
/Contents [13 0 R 14 0 R 15 0 R]
/CropBox [0 0 612 792]
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 3 0 R
/Resources 16 0 R
/Rotate 0
/Type /Page
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Contents [17 0 R 18 0 R 19 0 R]
/CropBox [0 0 612 792]
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 3 0 R
/Resources 20 0 R
/Rotate 0
/Type /Page
>>
endobj
8 0 obj
<<
/Contents [21 0 R 22 0 R 23 0 R]
/CropBox [0 0 612 792]
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 3 0 R
/Resources 24 0 R
/Rotate 0
/Type /Page
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<<
/Contents [25 0 R 26 0 R 27 0 R]
/CropBox [0 0 612 792]
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 3 0 R
/Resources 28 0 R
/Rotate 0
/Type /Page
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<<
/Contents [29 0 R 30 0 R 31 0 R]
/CropBox [0 0 612 792]
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 3 0 R
/Resources 32 0 R
/Rotate 0
/Type /Page
>>
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/Contents [33 0 R 34 0 R 35 0 R]
/CropBox [0 0 612 792]
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 3 0 R
/Resources 36 0 R
/Rotate 0
/Type /Page
>>
endobj
12 0 obj
<<
/Contents [37 0 R 38 0 R 39 0 R]
/CropBox [0 0 612 792]
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 3 0 R
/Resources 40 0 R
/Rotate 0
/Type /Page
>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<<
/Length 10
/Filter /FlateDecode
>>
stream
x+ä î |
endstream
endobj
14 0 obj
<<
/Length 1041
/Filter /FlateDecode
>>
stream
hÞ¬VÛnÛ8}×Wð*LWQÚ7ÕV-,É°é¢Fc-ºÎ” ²ÿ±_¼ÃdÙVî”-+ÎáË¡æýí£¯Oɼ·
16 Comments
chomp
Title says Google vs US, but the case is actually US v Google, no one is suing the US.
jtbayly
So what case is this? I’m assuming something app-store related?
frereubu
This is the case referred to:
"The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, and the States of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, and Texas, acting through their respective Attorneys General, bring this action under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, to restrain Google LLC (Google) from unlawfully maintaining monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising in the United States through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices, and to remedy the effects of this conduct."
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/1/united-state…
Edit: NAL, but this seems to be at least partially about Apple bundling Google search in MacOS / iOS: (From the emergency motion) "Second, Apple will suffer clear and substantial irreparable harm if it is unable to participate in the remedies phase moving forward. Apple will be unable to participate in discovery and develop evidence in the targeted fashion it has proposed as this litigation progresses toward a final judgment. If Apple’s appeal is not resolved until during or after the remedies trial, Apple may well be forced to stand mute at trial, as a mere spectator, while the government pursues an extreme remedy that targets Apple by name and would prohibit any commercial arrangement between Apple and Google for a decade. This would leave Apple without the ability to defend its right to reach other arrangements with Google that could benefit millions of users and Apple’s entitlement to compensation for distributing Google search to its users. Further, Apple will be unable to present its own live testimony or cross-examine witnesses who opine about Apple’s interests and incentives with respect to the general search market."
epikorean
Makes sense. Judge Mehta blocked Google from paying Apple. Apple wants to keep receiving billions of dollars from Google.
cyanydeez
[flagged]
jedberg
Can someone with a law degree break this down for us?
generj
It seems the key sticking point is that the DOJ proposed forbidding “any contract between Apple and Google in which there would be anything exchanged of value.”
In other words, give us our $15 -20 Billion a year.
allcentury
> Plaintiffs proposed a remedial term unique to Apple that would forbid any “contract between Google and Apple in which there would be anything exchanged of value.”
Wow
madars
Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/united-states-…
The case is about prohibiting Google to enter search deals with distributors (both phone makers like Apple, carriers, and browser developers like Mozilla), see Bloomberg reporting: https://archive.is/sneIB . The original complaint is the first PDF in the docket.
vessenes
Interesting; I wonder if DOJ approaches on this stuff will continue (Vance has been clear he's a big tech skeptic), or if things will chill out a little.
In this case, the big complaint Apple has is that there was a really long trial, US v. Google, and one of the proposed remedies is a ban on a “contract between Google and Apple in which there would be anything exchanged of value.”
Apple is like "hold on a minute here, we weren't party to this trial."
When they asked to file some briefs, they were denied. Hence these motions, and also the PR push, I imagine.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like any party named in an order should at least be allowed to show up and say some things. We'll see.
yapyap
Defendant, so on the side of US?
columb
So Apple is also scared of the US breaking monopoly like the EU did with the app store? We all know that this isn't just a search here at play.
Maybe the end of walled gardens… One can only hope!
lapcat
The key phrase: "Apple’s entitlement to compensation for distributing Google search to its users."
sampton
[flagged]
Liquix
> US government takes FAANG companies under wing [0]
> companies achieve global market dominance (in desktop OS, mobile OS, search) pushing data collection platforms disguised as products
> US government prosecutes FAANG companies for being too big and powerful
oookay? bizarre theater. surely this motion will end all the collusion and corruption
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Prism_sl…
arvinsim
I have read somewhere that the money Google pays Apple for being the default is a relatively big chunk of Apple's profit margins. If true, then it is understandable why Apple is fighting hard for it.