The ongoing case against Google from the United States Department of Justice and a coalition of states will be coming to an end in May as the court will give its closing statement about the matter of whether Google violated the monopoly policy in its alleged search monopoly.
Though it is expected that a victory against Google will not affect much but experts are looking at it from another angle, which is that it may have a lasting impact on the next emerging technology that will have a greater impact than the search had in its early days, and that is artificial intelligence.
Can Google get a monopolistic opportunity in AI?
What triggered recent interest in this case besides its concluding date is that some reports have surfaced, including the New York Times report that Google is in talks with Apple to incorporate Google’s Gemini chatbot into iPhones.
This will be the same anti-competitive approach that Google adopted when it convinced Apple to set Google search as the default in the Safari browser. Now if Google succeeds in getting a deal done with Apple for its AI, it will extend its monopoly to the AI tools in a similar way, giving it an unfair edge over its competitors.
While the government may win against the search giant, but securing a new deal with Apple will annoy the antitrust investigations that were carried out for years and the enforcement efforts to challenge Google’s search hold. It can also have a negative impact on consumers who would not be able to benefit from competition in the AI sector, as it will give control in Google’s hands to decide what’s best in its own interest.
Background of antitrust in the tech sector
To understand the benefits of not allowing the monopolists to play their tricks, take the example of the old AT&T case, when it was restricted from working in the computer industry back in 1956, and as a result, the level playing field available helped flourish innovation in the sector, which later gave way to IBM.
In another case, IBM was forced to separate computer mainframe hardware and software in 1969. This provided a fair environment for the software industry, and the world saw Microsoft emerge. In the same way, a decree in 2001 prevented Microsoft from controlling the development of the Internet.
Now if we roll the ball back to our primary subject, which is Google, which was the main beneficiary of the Microsoft case, now you would have a clear idea of how this cycle benefits consumers and allows new industries to flourish by breaking the monopolies of the giants gripping the market during previous tech evolution.
We know that society suffers when monopolists take over the market and control the innovation process, and try every bet to kick out others who may come up with a better option, idea, or product. The main objective of these antitrust cases of monopolization was to set the market in a fair way so that innovation could flourish. We know that innovation is not certain and cannot be predicted, but we can assume AI is the next tech frontier possibly.
For those who argue that Google should be left doing what it does and that new innovative ideas will come along and challenge its authority, they should know that this viewpoint identifies AI as the innovation to disrupt the status quo.
AI is no doubt disruptive, and there already are many firms in the field competing with one another. A recent CMA report from the UK also mentioned quite a number of players, but the same report identified a web of 90 partnerships involving the same companies, usually tech giants. The report has also identified some threat factors in the AI industry that might affect fair competition. These are the concerns that are also proven from the record and the recent CMA report that corporations do not end their monopolies voluntarily, and this is the reason for concern for reports about Google and Apple’s alleged talks.
The original story can be seen here.
