If yes, this simultaneously kills Chrome, Chromium and Firefox. The future of browsers is then probably a Microsoft monopoly on engine development, so after all this time they get what they wanted. lol
My guess is that a security company or VPN company will buy it (maybe someone like CrowdStrike or Palo Alto Networks) and sell as a more locked down “secure” browser for their customers. There’s already a company that created something similar called Island Browser so there’s a market.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that courts can and do dismiss these kinds of technicalities. If a donation is defacto conditional then it is a payment.
Google must not offer or provide anything of value to any Distributor for any form of default, placement, or preinstallation distribution (including choice screens) related to making any GSE a default within a new or existing Search Access Point.
where “Distributor” and “Search Access Point” are defined in section III:
J. “Distributor” is any Person that contracts with Google to display, load, or otherwise provide access to a Google product
…
U. “Search Access Point” means any software, application, interface, digital product, or service where a user can enter a query and receive (or be directed to a place to receive) a response that includes information from a GSE. Search Access Points include OS-level Search Access Points (e.g., widgets), browsers (including Search Access Points within browsers such as browser address bars), and search apps as well as their widgets.
I can’t believe I’m taking google’s side here but this is ludicrous. The motivation and proposed correctional measures are too ill-conceived; they’re just going to hurt the ecosystem instead. There is a right way to do this but this ain’t it.
The government could fund Firefox or core tech in FF or otherwise contribute to those projects, thus weakening Google’s hold over the company. US gov pours billions into tech startups and companies, seems perfectly reasonable for them to do so here.
Maybe a dim view, but I don’t think I would wish government funding on Firefox. I can only imagine them getting drawn into political fights, spending time justifying their work to the American people, and getting baroque requirements from the feds.
Government funding comes in all shapes and sizes. Most of it has nothing to do with politics. The air force and DoD are constantly investing or pouring money into startups. I myself had a government investor at my startup. No justification to the US needed.
I don’t think they care particularly much about Google’s hold over Mozilla. They care about Google using their simultaneous ownership of Google Search, Chrome, and all their ad-related stuff to unfairly enrich themselves, and they see Google’s payments to Apple as a method to defend that monopoly power. If Mozilla had an alternate source of funding, it wouldn’t really change anything except maybe make the browser that 5% of people use have a different default search engine. It probably wouldn’t help Firefox to become more popular, and it’d be a much smaller difference than whatever happens with Safari.
Regardless, it seems very likely to me that neither Chrome nor Firefox would survive this. But who knows, maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe that will pave the way for consumers paying for their browsers instead of paying through subjecting themselves to advertisement and propaganda. Doesn’t sound too bad since it’s probably the ad economy that turned the world into the propaganda wasteland that it is today.
Not remotely final. This is the plaintiffs’ proposed remedy. The ultimate remedy will be decided by the trial judge after a remedy trial scheduled for April.
Would this prohibit google from paying Mozilla for making google the default search engine?
If yes, this simultaneously kills Chrome, Chromium and Firefox. The future of browsers is then probably a Microsoft monopoly on engine development, so after all this time they get what they wanted. lol
Except that Microsoft doesn’t make an engine anymore either.
Yes, but who else is going to acquire Chrome, which on its own can not make money?
My guess is that a security company or VPN company will buy it (maybe someone like CrowdStrike or Palo Alto Networks) and sell as a more locked down “secure” browser for their customers. There’s already a company that created something similar called Island Browser so there’s a market.
[Comment removed by moderator pushcx: Dupe comment; https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters/issues/1209 if anyone wants the bug.]
Paying, yes. Giving a large donation every year and reconsidering it if they’re not the start page? That’s fine.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that courts can and do dismiss these kinds of technicalities. If a donation is defacto conditional then it is a payment.
IINW donations to Mozilla Foundation are not used by Mozilla Corporation to fund Firefox development
But I bet they could be used for that purpose if that was the only way to fund it.
Yes. Section IX, paragraph B requests:
where “Distributor” and “Search Access Point” are defined in section III:
Sorta looks like it.
Hopefully/presumably Mozilla is currently soliciting bids from Apple and Microsoft.
I can’t believe I’m taking google’s side here but this is ludicrous. The motivation and proposed correctional measures are too ill-conceived; they’re just going to hurt the ecosystem instead. There is a right way to do this but this ain’t it.
Change and unknowns versus keeping the status quo.
Is there a right way of breaking monopolies? They design themselves to make breaking them up look as unattractive as possible.
The government could fund Firefox or core tech in FF or otherwise contribute to those projects, thus weakening Google’s hold over the company. US gov pours billions into tech startups and companies, seems perfectly reasonable for them to do so here.
Maybe a dim view, but I don’t think I would wish government funding on Firefox. I can only imagine them getting drawn into political fights, spending time justifying their work to the American people, and getting baroque requirements from the feds.
Government funding comes in all shapes and sizes. Most of it has nothing to do with politics. The air force and DoD are constantly investing or pouring money into startups. I myself had a government investor at my startup. No justification to the US needed.
If it’s government funding with few or no strings attached that would be great. I just wouldn’t want to see Firefox become a political football.
Most government funding for tech has no strings attached, or they just own stock, which is ideal for everyone.
I feel like this would open a whole new can of worms and actually wouldn’t be good for Firefox in the longer term.
I don’t think they care particularly much about Google’s hold over Mozilla. They care about Google using their simultaneous ownership of Google Search, Chrome, and all their ad-related stuff to unfairly enrich themselves, and they see Google’s payments to Apple as a method to defend that monopoly power. If Mozilla had an alternate source of funding, it wouldn’t really change anything except maybe make the browser that 5% of people use have a different default search engine. It probably wouldn’t help Firefox to become more popular, and it’d be a much smaller difference than whatever happens with Safari.
It would reduce Google’s ability to exercise this monopolist power over Mozilla.
If the money were spent well, I think it absolutely could.
Nationalizing natural monopolies has not been a popular approach in the US, unfortunately.
Regardless, it seems very likely to me that neither Chrome nor Firefox would survive this. But who knows, maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe that will pave the way for consumers paying for their browsers instead of paying through subjecting themselves to advertisement and propaganda. Doesn’t sound too bad since it’s probably the ad economy that turned the world into the propaganda wasteland that it is today.
Does anybody know how much “final” is this outcome?
Not remotely final. This is the plaintiffs’ proposed remedy. The ultimate remedy will be decided by the trial judge after a remedy trial scheduled for April.