Connect with us

Published

on

A federal judge blasted Google for its negligent policy that resulted in the deletion of employee chat records as closing arguments wrapped up Friday in a landmark antitrust case that could result in unprecedented changes to the tech giant’s core business.

Justice Department attorneys asked Judge Amit Mehta to sanction Google for failing to preserve evidence despite a court order and to rule that its conduct was intended to conceal anticompetitive behavior. Google has denied wrongdoing.

Mehta said it was negligent of Google to implement the policy, which automatically destroyed employee messages after 24 hours.

Googles document retention policy leaves a lot to be desired, Mehta said. Its shocking to me that a company would leave it to its employees to decide when to preserve documents.

Mehta did not indicate whether he would sanction Google over the policy. An attorney for the tech giant said the auto-erase policy was explicitly disclosed to plaintiffs years earlier, undercutting the feds claims that it showed intent to destroy evidence.

Google was already sanctioned over the same evidence destruction claims in a separate federal case filed by Fortnite maker Epic Games. Late last year, US District Judge James Donato said Googles willful and intentional suppression of relevant evidence in this case is deeply troubling.

This conduct is a frontal assault on the fair administration of justice. It undercuts due process. It calls into question just resolution of legal disputes. It is antithetical to our system, Donato said in December.

Earlier in the DOJs antitrust case, Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified that the automatic chat deletion policy was already in place when he took the job in 2015 and said he had since taken action to end it.

Much of the second and final day of closing arguments was focused on Googles conduct toward advertisers in the online search market.

The DOJ said Googles market dominance allows it to jack up prices on advertisers and cited internal documents to argue that the company has at times tweaked search results in a way that hurt quality in order to boost its profits.

Only a monopolist can make a product worse and still make more money, DOJ attorney David Dahlquist said.

A day earlier, Google faced tough questions over claims by its lawyers that the company faces stiff competition for user eyeballs. The companys defense team pointed to other tech platforms such as Microsoft and Amazon as well as travel sites like Expedia, smaller search engines like DuckDuckGo and media outlets like ESPN as rivals for search traffic.

Mehta appeared skeptical of the argument that Google, which has a 90% share of the online search market, faced meaningful competition from those firms.

You really think that DuckDuckGo is a competitor on Google? the judge asked Googles lawyers at one point on Thursday.

The judge also scrutinized the DOJs arguments, warning that the feds faced a hard road to prove that Google had failed to innovate in online search over the last decade.

He cited Microsofts admission during the trial that it hadnt spent enough resources to build out its own mobile search business to challenge Google.

Mehta is expected to issue a decision on whether Google has maintained an illegal monopoly over online search later this year. When initial court testimony concluded last fall, Mehta admitted he had no idea how he would rule on the case.

If Mehta rules against Google, a separate trial will be held to determine what remedies should be implemented. The DOJ has not specified what remedies it is seeking.

Options could include mandated choice screens allowing users to pick their own default search engine or even a breakup of Googles business empire.

The Justice Department argued that Google has relied for years on billions of dollars in payments to partners such as Apple and AT&T including $26.3 billion in 2021 alone to ensure that its search engine is enabled by default on most smartphones. The feds say the deals stifle competition and hurt consumers by limiting choice and search quality.

Ahead of closing arguments, an unredacted document revealed that Google had made a whopping $20 billion to Apple in 2022 to be the default search engine on iPhones and other devices. The DOJ has pointed to the size of the deals as evidence of their importance to Google.

Google has denied operating a monopoly and asserted that it faces intense competition in the online search market. The company has described the default deals as fair competition and claims the public gravitates toward its search tool because of its quality.

Closing arguments came months after witness testimony that began in mid-September and lasted for 10 weeks. Key witnesses included Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella who testified that Googles default deals made the concept of user choice in online search completely bogus.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai also took the witness stand last October, as did Apple executive Eddy Cue and a cadre of economists, professors and business executives who gave detail on how the companys search empire functions.

With Post wires

Continue Reading

Politics

Sir Jim Ratcliffe scolds Tories over handling of economy and immigration after Brexit

Published

on

By

Sir Jim Ratcliffe scolds Tories over handling of economy and immigration after Brexit

Billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe has told Sky News that Britain is ready for a change of government after scolding the Conservatives over their handling of the economy and immigration after Brexit.

While insisting his petrochemicals conglomerate INEOS is apolitical, Sir Jim backed Brexit and spent last weekend with Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer at Manchester United – the football club he now runs as minority owner.

“I’m sure Keir will do a very good job at running the country – I have no questions about that,” Sir Jim said in an exclusive interview.

“There’s no question that the Conservatives have had a good run,” he added. “I think most of the country probably feels it’s time for a change. And I sort of get that, really.”

Read more: Sir Jim’s mission to succeed at ‘the one challenge the UK has never brought home’

Sir Jim was a prominent backer of leaving the European Union in the 2016 referendum but now has issues with how Brexit was delivered by Tory prime ministers.

“Brexit sort of unfortunately didn’t turn out as people anticipated because… Brexit was largely about immigration,” Sir Jim said.

More from Politics

“That was the biggest component of that vote. People were getting fed up with the influx of the city of Southampton coming in every year. I think last year it was two times Southampton.

“I mean, no small island like the UK could cope with vast numbers of people coming into the UK.

“I mean, it just overburdens the National Health Service, the traffic service, the police, everybody.

“The country was designed for 55 or 60 million people and we’ve got 70 million people and all the services break down as a consequence.

“That’s what Brexit was all about and nobody’s implemented that. They just keep talking about it. But nothing’s been done, which is why I think we’ll finish up with the change of government.”

Watch Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s full interview on the Trevor Phillips on Sunday morning programme on Sky News from 8.30am

UK needs to get ‘sharper on the business front’

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has indicated an election is due this year but Monaco-based Sir Jim is unimpressed by the Conservatives’ handling of the economy.

“The UK does need to get a bit sharper on the business front,” he said. “I think the biggest objective for the government is to create growth in the economy.

“There’s two parts of the economy, there’s the services side of the economy and there’s the manufacturing side. And the manufacturing, unfortunately, has been sliding away now for the last 25 years.

“We were very similar in scale to Germany probably 25 years ago.

“But today we’re just a fraction of where Germany is and I think that isn’t healthy for the British economy… particularly when you think the north of England is very manufacturing based, and that talks to things like energy competitiveness, it talks to things like, why do you put an immensely high tax on the North Sea?

“That just disincentivises people from finding hydrocarbons in the North Sea, in energy.

“And what we need is competitive energy. So I mean, in America, in the energy world, in the oil and gas world, they just apply a corporation tax to the oil and gas companies, which is about 30%. And in the UK we’ve got this tax of 75% because we want to kill off the oil and gas companies.

“But if we don’t have competitive energy, we’re not going to have a healthy manufacturing industry. And that just makes no sense to me at all. No.”

‘We’re apolitical’

Asked about INEOS donating to Labour, Sir Jim replied: “We’re apolitical, INEOS.

“We just want a successful manufacturing sector in the UK and we’ve talked to the government about that. It’s pretty clear about our views.”

Sir Jim was keener to talk about the economy and politics than his role at struggling Manchester United, which he bought a 27.7% stake in from the American Glazer family in February – giving him an even higher business profile.

Old Trafford stadium in Manchester. Pic: AP
Image:
Old Trafford stadium in Manchester. Pic: AP

Push for stadium of the North

He is continuing to push for public funds to regenerate Old Trafford and the surrounding areas despite no apparent political support being forthcoming. Sir Keir was hosted at the stadium for a Premier League match last weekend just as heavy rain exposed the fragility of the ageing venue.

“There’s a very good case, in my view, for having a stadium of the North, which would serve the northern part of the country in that arena of football,” Sir Jim said. “If you look at the number of Champions League the North West has won, it’s 10. London has won two.

“And yet everybody from the North has to get down to London to watch a big football match. And there should be one [a large stadium] in the North, in my view.

“But it’s also important for the southern side of Manchester, you know, to regenerate.

“It’s the sort of second capital of the country where the Industrial Revolution began.

“But if you have a regeneration project, you need a nucleus or a regeneration project and having that world-class stadium there, I think would provide the impetus to regenerate that region.”

Continue Reading

World

Oleksandr Usyk defeats Tyson Fury to become heavyweight champion of the world

Published

on

By

Oleksandr Usyk defeats Tyson Fury to become heavyweight champion of the world

Oleksandr Usyk has become the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world after defeating British boxing star Tyson Fury.

The Ukrainian won on a split decision following the match in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Usyk had 115-112 and 114-113 on two cards, while Fury took the other 114-113.

Follow the match as it happened

Fury disputed his loss after the match, saying: “I believe I won that fight. I think he won a few rounds but I won the majority of them.

“His country is at war, so people are siding with the country at war. Make no mistake, I won that fight in my opinion.

In response Usyk said he was “ready for rematch,” but later added: “I don’t think about rematch now, I want to rest.”

Pic: PA
Image:
Pic: PA

Fury came under early pressure, with Usyk taking the centre of the ring with an aggressive offensive from the start.

At one point Fury was pushed against the ropes and started laughing as Usyk applied pressure.

The “Gypsy King” looked relaxed as he moved around the ring in the early rounds and picked his shots.

Tyson Fury lunges at Oleksandr Usyk. Pic: PA
Image:
Fury lunges at Usyk. Pic: PA

But after Usyk landed a right hook in the ninth round it looked as if Fury was in serious trouble.

The Ukrainian followed up by unloading freely but somehow the bookmakers’ favourite stayed on his feet and was given a standing 10-second count saved by the bell.

It left Fury struggling through the final three rounds as Usyk chased him around the ring.

Tyson Fury v Oleksandr Usyk. Pic: Action Images via Reuters
Image:
Pic: Action Images via Reuters

The 37-year-old Ukrainian became the first boxer to hold all four major heavyweight belts at the same time and the first undisputed champion in 24 years.

Oleksandr Usyk celebrates with the undisputed heavyweight title belt after his victory
Image:
Oleksandr Usyk celebrates with the undisputed heavyweight title belt. Pic: PA

He’s the best fighter of a generation, there’s nothing left



Jacquie Beltrao

Sports presenter

There’s something very special about Oleksandr Usyk and it’s something all brilliant sports people have: the ability to find that extra bit of grit, to dig a bit deeper, when the battle is slipping away.

It’s exactly the character he showed, coming back at Fury in the 7th and 8th rounds, with some impressive shots, to take the sting out of any Fury resurgence and to swing momentum back his way. And enabling him to go for the kill in that brilliant 9th round. Fury looked stung, he looked confused and he was lucky the referee didn’t stop the fight there and then.

It was amazing that Fury made it to the end. That took courage. But it’s hard to see how he’s going to recover from this. It’s going to hurt. He says he wants to invoke the rematch clause and go again, but will he really want to?

Will Usyk want to? He’s the best fighter of a generation, there’s nothing left to prove. No fighter has ever won the undisputed cruiserweight championship of the world and followed that with the undisputed heavyweight crown. He can take four belts back to Kyiv safe in the knowledge that it’s unlikely anyone will be able to match that achievement anytime soon.

Last night, Fury weighed in at 262lbs (18st 10lbs) – nearly three stone heavier than Usyk, who clocked in at a career heaviest of 223lbs (15st 13lbs).

Fury refused to look at his opponent during a news conference on Thursday, but did not back down at the weigh-in last night, where the pair almost came to blows before being separated by their entourages.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Enter the Cossack warrior and ‘Gypsy King’

Usyk arrived into the ring first, dressed as a Cossack warrior.

Fury entered to songs by Barry White and Bonnie Tyler, with the “Gypsy King” spending several minutes dancing on stage before the song changed to Holding Out For A Hero.

Anthony Joshua watched from the ringside, knowing he could meet the winner early next year.

Continue Reading

World

Fury v Usyk: The fight of the century – as it happened

Published

on

By

Continue Reading

Trending