Google avoids a breakup of its ad tech business

(nytimes.com)

73 points | by donohoe 5 hours ago

4 comments

  • jordanb 32 minutes ago
    That "Lake America" is doing a hell of a lot of work for Google
    • strictnein 26 minutes ago
      The judge was appointed by Clinton, so they've been in their role for decades now. It seems unlikely that someone who has served that long in her position would rule based on making the child in the White House happy.
    • bitpush 26 minutes ago
      Isnt that updated by some national database and google just pulls that data? Apparently Apple Maps will also get it in a few days, since they get the data from them as well.
      • jvolkman 17 minutes ago
        Yes. We had the same comments about Gulf of America.

        Edit: I don't know that there's an actual database served up by the US Gov, but governments control the naming of these things within their own jurisdictions. All of the big mapping products have the ability to serve up different names based on where you're viewing from.

        And Apple just renamed: https://apnews.com/article/apple-lake-ontario-america-google...

        • TazeTSchnitzel 9 minutes ago
          https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/searc...

          GNIS, Geographic Names Information System

          (Which still shows Lake Ontario for me as I write this. The body of water along the US's southern coast is Gulf of America however.)

        • ericmay 11 minutes ago
          I too remember last year when everyone really cared about that and it was the end of the world and then we got on with our lives because at the end of the day it not only doesn't matter, the naming of these things is arbitrary, and anything that a president can change the name of a subsequent president can modify yet again.

          What do they call the South China Sea, is it the East Sea or is it the West Philippine Sea? What do the French call the English Channel? Is it Le Manche d'anglaise?

          • nancyminusone 2 minutes ago
            So unimportant that you just have to comment on how unimportant it is
      • spogbiper 9 minutes ago
        https://www.reuters.com/world/us/apple-maps-changes-name-lak...

        Apple updated it yesterday. If I were Google I'd turn down that refresh rate and let someone else take the bad PR next time

      • bee_rider 9 minutes ago
        Seems like something that should be user-configurable (like DNS servers). While the recent annoying renamings have drawn attention to the issue, landmark names have basically always been political.
    • okdood64 26 minutes ago
      You mean by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema who was appointed by Clinton and has ruled against Trump policies/agenda regularly?
  • paulpauper 22 minutes ago
    what shocker . google has a long history of prevailing in court
    • strictnein 18 minutes ago
      The ACLU has a long history of prevailing in court, as does the NRA.

      Courts should regularly issue rulings you don't like. Their job isn't to make people happy.

  • ocdtrekkie 27 minutes ago
    What an incredible miscarriage of justice. Make enough money and pay off enough politicians, and you can pretty much shoot people on the street in broad daylight.
    • strictnein 23 minutes ago
      Assuming you read the ruling, what do you disagree with the judge on?

      What politicians were paid off to make a judge in a lifelong position who has served for decades rule in Google's favor?

      • shakna 11 minutes ago
        What ruling? It isn't released yet. We have declining to breakup, based on behavioral remedies, and zero details.
    • dgellow 24 minutes ago
      Only one politician to pay, we all know who
      • Petersipoi 14 minutes ago
        Just to make sure I'm understanding, you're saying that Google payed someone (presumably Trump), who then went and convinced a Clinton appointed judge who has ruled against Trump in the past to give the case to Google?

        Is that actually what you think?

        • dgellow 8 minutes ago
          I do not no, I don’t have an opinion on the Google situation. I was responding to the following:

          > Make enough money and pay off enough politicians, and you can pretty much shoot people on the street in broad daylight.

    • unrented7977 22 minutes ago
      [flagged]
  • colincowardly 29 minutes ago
    Destroying a great US institution is not in the national interest. Cases like these should never be permissible in the first place.
    • krunck 24 minutes ago
      > a great US institution

      So, too big to fail, but to small to be a monopoly that abuses it's power?

    • johndhi 26 minutes ago
      I'm more on your side than most but surely you don't think zero antitrust enforcement is best for our country?
    • svachalek 21 minutes ago
      Ah yes, the great US institution of ad tech. Mass privacy intrusion in the service of selling clicks for a nickel.
    • cyberax 26 minutes ago
      Companies like modern Google should not be permissible in the even firster place.