Google is doing exactly what Microsoft was doing in the browser wars - except its monopoly is far more of a lock than Microsoft’s - yet Google walks where Microsoft got slapped down hard?
I guess it shows how much Big Tech influence over the political and legal system has grown in 25 years.
Thank you for all your good work. Please keep fighting the good fight. I am an old dude and what gives me hope is younger people like you and many others who see through all the AI greedy big tech bs.
It's incongruous to me that the same person who raised the issue legally would turn decide that it wasn't an issue. They must have gotten to him somehow. Considering how Supreme Court justices were getting trips and gifts from people whose cases they were supposed to hear, it wouldn't surprise me if the same was the case in this instance.
"The only reason that OpenAI could even attempt to do anything that might remotely be considered competing with Google is that OpenAI managed to raise world-historic amounts of venture capital. OpenAI has raised $60 billion."
Also, OpenAI likely could only compete with Google due to its long-term partnership/profit sharing arrangement with Microsoft--no doubt helping OpenAI raise more captial. Microsoft has given OpenAI a ton of advanced hardware and supercomputers to train OpenAI's models and free and early testing of OpenAI releases. Why does ChatGPT code so well? Because Microsoft (the owner of GitHub) let OpenAI train on all GitHub code libraries.
Why would a judge who had once spoken harshly of Google's monopoly do this? Corruption is the obvious answer, but I think something else might be more likely. The tech industry has been busy compiling dossiers on all kinds of people--on everybody, although that might be in the works rather than complete. I've assumed this was so they would be ready when an uprising finally comes. But imagine this: Google has the resources to go through all of Mehta's rulings going back years, carefully; to go over any social media posts, to go over his phone records, who he talked to, no doubt all sorts of other records. So they can get to know just how he thinks, and thereby, what the most effective arguments would be for getting the ruling they want. The other side is by comparison flying blind--relying on logic and justice, using the same arguments they'd use with any judge while Google's arguments are carefully tailored to Mehta.
I'm sure that Google has a team that has done all that and used the findings to compile their arguments, but I'm afraid the reason he made the decision is probably more mundane—he's an Obama-era judge with little will to confront power. The evidence was overwhelming that Google was a monopoly so he couldn't credibly argue it wasn't. Legal precedent for actually addressing the matter is messier, and he could get away with doing next to nothing, and so he did. That's my read, anyway.
These corporations have a legal duty to maximize profits, which leads to behaviors that in “The Corporation” led to a diagnosis of sociopathy. They won’t stop unless they are forced, and existing regulatory bodies, governments, and courts have shown themselves to be very ineffective.
Google is doing exactly what Microsoft was doing in the browser wars - except its monopoly is far more of a lock than Microsoft’s - yet Google walks where Microsoft got slapped down hard?
I guess it shows how much Big Tech influence over the political and legal system has grown in 25 years.
Absolutely.
Nicely said.
Thank you for all your good work. Please keep fighting the good fight. I am an old dude and what gives me hope is younger people like you and many others who see through all the AI greedy big tech bs.
It's incongruous to me that the same person who raised the issue legally would turn decide that it wasn't an issue. They must have gotten to him somehow. Considering how Supreme Court justices were getting trips and gifts from people whose cases they were supposed to hear, it wouldn't surprise me if the same was the case in this instance.
Google's deep state ties paying off?
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/09/the-alliance-among-washington-tel-aviv-and-silicon-valley.html
"The only reason that OpenAI could even attempt to do anything that might remotely be considered competing with Google is that OpenAI managed to raise world-historic amounts of venture capital. OpenAI has raised $60 billion."
Also, OpenAI likely could only compete with Google due to its long-term partnership/profit sharing arrangement with Microsoft--no doubt helping OpenAI raise more captial. Microsoft has given OpenAI a ton of advanced hardware and supercomputers to train OpenAI's models and free and early testing of OpenAI releases. Why does ChatGPT code so well? Because Microsoft (the owner of GitHub) let OpenAI train on all GitHub code libraries.
100%. OAI essentially needed to be able to function as an arm of Microsoft and get tech giant-caliber resources to get anywhere.
Why would a judge who had once spoken harshly of Google's monopoly do this? Corruption is the obvious answer, but I think something else might be more likely. The tech industry has been busy compiling dossiers on all kinds of people--on everybody, although that might be in the works rather than complete. I've assumed this was so they would be ready when an uprising finally comes. But imagine this: Google has the resources to go through all of Mehta's rulings going back years, carefully; to go over any social media posts, to go over his phone records, who he talked to, no doubt all sorts of other records. So they can get to know just how he thinks, and thereby, what the most effective arguments would be for getting the ruling they want. The other side is by comparison flying blind--relying on logic and justice, using the same arguments they'd use with any judge while Google's arguments are carefully tailored to Mehta.
I'm sure that Google has a team that has done all that and used the findings to compile their arguments, but I'm afraid the reason he made the decision is probably more mundane—he's an Obama-era judge with little will to confront power. The evidence was overwhelming that Google was a monopoly so he couldn't credibly argue it wasn't. Legal precedent for actually addressing the matter is messier, and he could get away with doing next to nothing, and so he did. That's my read, anyway.
Not just Mehta, but people very close to him. When those you love are threatened you’ll do almost anything to protect them.
Thanks for bringing this (unfortunate, but not surprising ruling) to light. Easy to miss this kind of thing.
Nah, you rock the cowboy hat Brian!
These corporations have a legal duty to maximize profits, which leads to behaviors that in “The Corporation” led to a diagnosis of sociopathy. They won’t stop unless they are forced, and existing regulatory bodies, governments, and courts have shown themselves to be very ineffective.
This is why we can't have nice things.
related/not-related
https://substack.com/@2serve4christ/note/c-152077081