Judge dismisses antitrust suit against Google

Judge dismisses antitrust suit against Google
An antitrust suit against Google has been tossed out of court. The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, accused Google of forcing Android device owners to use Google's applications as the default option. According to the complaint, this would force owners of Android powered handsets to use applications like Google Search, or Google Maps instead of applications made by Microsoft's Bing or others.

The suit alleged that Google's actions force smartphone prices to be higher than they could be if there was a true competition for a handset's "prime screen real estate." The latter is covered by Google Services like YouTube, Google Play Store, Google Search and Google Maps. But in her decision earlier today, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman said that the plaintiffs failed to show that Google's restrictions force smartphone prices higher. The judge said that there were an unknown number of supply chain levels between the manufacturers who signed the allegedly anti-competitive pacts with Google, and consumers.

The judge is giving the plaintiffs three weeks to amend their complaint, hinting that uncompetitive pricing and loss of consumer choice are not the reasons why Google could be found guilty of monopolistic behavior. In other words, the judge was telling the plaintiffs to look for other reasons to support refiling their suit.


source: Reuters

FEATURED VIDEO

33 Comments

1. theguy2345

Posts: 1216; Member since: Jun 24, 2014

It is about time google got owned for this. I don't understand how others have done the same, and got sued for it, but it is fine when google does it to its "open source OS"

2. sprockkets

Posts: 1612; Member since: Jan 16, 2012

It's called you have to prove that Google's actions harmed consumers, NOT their competitors. MS's actions in the 90s had a clear effect on consumers, because MS forced OEMs to preload Windows, whether you wanted it or not. THAT's WHY. Of course, if you had any sort of brain, you'd see that even MS can take android, remove google services from it, and stick their own on, and Google can't do a thing about it. Hell, Amazon and Nokia did just that. Let me see you do that with ANY other popular mobile OS. Go ahead. Try removing IE from WP or Safari from ios.

4. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

Not the same, nice try though. See the two OS that you have described were never sold as an Open OS, were never sold to OEM's as an Open OS. Nor were they ever sold to the OEM's as an open OS but lacking things like a Calander etc, unless you pay for 'googles' version. And stop supporting what many would consider 'core' like functions on a OS, forcing OEMs to either pay a fee or go on their own. In the end your example simply fails because the two you compare it two were not sold as an Open OS. And yes even on a closed source of the ones you mentioned. Never stopped consumers, your biggest argument here from putting another browser or program on the computer. Yet they still got fined and slapped around, leading to forcing MS to be one of the biggest holders of licensing deals to this day, more than any other mobile OS. So why not google? I know you will try to come up with some half hearted reply to try to equalize two things that are not equal.

7. sprockkets

Posts: 1612; Member since: Jan 16, 2012

"Not the same, nice try though." What a surprise, elite can't understand facts. There are so many things wrong with your post I can't even begin to even address them. Oh wait, there is a name for that, it's called gish gallop or spreading. I prefer bull s**t, but that's just me. So I won't waste my time. You already have posted a long strawman proving there isn't any point in doing so. Of course, MS already has all of their services on their own WP devices all defaulted, but hasn't been sued. But you can't understand why that's the case, can you?

23. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

You don't waist your time? Don't understand why MS hasnt been sued? Maybe because it is not sold as an Open OS? There are two very different context, Google says, here is a free OS, but wait. If you want to use the word android anywhere, you have to pay the google fee. And when you do, you have to install these apps. What helps them is the fact that OEM's are allowed to do as they wish. This is the main difference, which i have always held all along. Consumers always had a choice in the MS case, where they differ is that OEMs did not. And to top it off, as Google further develops its Android system, like 5.0, how many things are no longer standard in the free OS?

29. sgodsell

Posts: 7621; Member since: Mar 16, 2013

First of all Microsoft's Nokia made an Android phone called Nokia X and it had no Google apps or services installed on it what so ever. It only had Microsoft's apps and services. People realized that they wanted Googles apps and their ecosystem to go with it as well. Does that mean you have to pay to have Google's apps and ecosystem installed on the devices, then yes. But there are a number of OEMs that haven't paid for Android or Google's apps and ecosystem. Amazon, Microsoft, and a number of other OEMs haven't paid Google a thing.

44. sprockkets

Posts: 1612; Member since: Jan 16, 2012

"You don't waist your time? Don't understand why MS hasnt been sued? Maybe because it is not sold as an Open OS?" No, its because they implemented their policies of defaults and such since day one, thus even if they had a dominant share, can't be sued over it. Open vs. closed is irrelevant. "There are two very different context, Google says, here is a free OS, but wait. If you want to use the word android anywhere, you have to pay the google fee. And when you do, you have to install these apps." No you do not. Google owns the trademark to Android. It simply means that you cannot just take it and use it for something else. Just like I can't take SuSE linux, modify it, and call it SuSE. The software is free in both cases; the trademarks aren't included. You cannot call it Android *with Google* if it isn't certified. But is this really bad? Blackberry can claim compatibility, but if they wave around the Android logo, they'd be confusing people the lamen of what they are offering. "What helps them is the fact that OEM's are allowed to do as they wish. This is the main difference, which i have always held all along. Consumers always had a choice in the MS case, where they differ is that OEMs did not." Then why are you wondering "So why not google? I know you will try to come up with some half hearted reply to try to equalize two things that are not equal."??? "And to top it off, as Google further develops its Android system, like 5.0, how many things are no longer standard in the free OS?" The browser doesn't fully work. But that's no big deal as the source to Chrome is available, and yes, the mobile version. Sure, more and more is tied to Google, and it has to. But why shouldn't they? Amazon hasn't contributed anything back to Google, have they?

9. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

Ummm, not the same? Wtf are you talking about? MS has never sold an open os, just like Apple. Yet even the "alternative" browsers in Apple have to use safaris webkit. That's exactly part of what MS was hit for in the 90's. You clearly don't understand something here.

10. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

Because there plenty of example that has Android device shipped without any Google Services. My personal experience would be Nepture Pine, i have to download from XDA forum and install one by one myself illegally of course. I know you will say my example is exception but China also approval of Google Open platform behaviour and made it a condition for Google to buy Motorola back 2012 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/may/21/china-google-approval-motorola-mobility The whole china market has Android without any Google service and yet Google still use their own money to further the Android development. I don't expect MS shrills to give a fair opinon on Google but the open world has a mind that they are free to use. I am not for Google 100% but they are definitely the better of the two, Apple and Microsoft.

13. vincelongman

Posts: 5816; Member since: Feb 10, 2013

Yep, Google Services are banned in China So all phones sold in China dont Google Services

24. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

I never stated other wise. Read the sentence again, i stated, that as a consumer, windows users could download anything, where the OEMs had no choice.

26. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

ALL OEMs has a choice to release phone with no Google anything on it. They are also free to use Android or modified it like what Amazon, Blackberry and Nokia briefly when they still have a say under the dreadful Elop. The whole of China does it with one fork or another. elitewolverine, you refuse to see facts with the rest of the world because you are a Microsoft fanboy or paid shill. I will go with the latter.

28. Finalflash

Posts: 4063; Member since: Jul 23, 2013

I think he's probably both seeing as how he keeps saying they are selling an open source OS....which they don't "sell" at all. I think being an MS fanboy has somehow made him forget that you don't always have to pay through the nose for essential and great services.

32. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

Yes i am aware of that, read to me where i stated anything to the contrary that they had no choice. Oh wait i didnt. Now you're just making crap up. I have never stated they didnt have a choice, hence why this lawsuite was a thin one. The straw they were standing on is the strength of the playstore, that no OEM wants to really tackle on their own if they dont have too. MS was taken to court over monopoly practices, while i dont think google has reached that level, i understand why he thinks he had a case. Never once have i agreed with this, even when PA first broke the news. Everyone compares it to MS because that is the most recent case of this nature.

30. sgodsell

Posts: 7621; Member since: Mar 16, 2013

Is there something wrong with your brain eliteidiot. Hmm, what if some company wanted to use the word Windows, or even a word close to it like Lindows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com,_Inc. Do not think users who have Android devices are not allowed to download anything. On the contrary users can install and download anything they like, which includes installing apps. Maybe if Microsoft made a browser that was uncoupled from its OS's then maybe we will see IE (future spartan) on Android or iOS devices. But that is another matter.

34. jgilk1

Posts: 10; Member since: Feb 19, 2015

that clearly states that the manufactures has the choise to choose google play support or go with out it.. the base lvl android os are provided free of charge having the google play store and google issued app's is what costs...

35. tedkord

Posts: 17514; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

The core functions of an OS are to provide a translation layer between hardware and software. That's all. Your hatred doesn't change facts. Facts are why the suit was thrown out.

6. Awalker

Posts: 1986; Member since: Aug 15, 2013

What these people need to do is to go after manufacturers who voluntarily sign contracts with Google to use their suite of apps. I don't understand why they're blaming Google.

12. vincelongman

Posts: 5816; Member since: Feb 10, 2013

What are these "others have done the same, and got sued for it" Only MS has been fined/sued for something like this Let me explain MS got nailed for IE in the 90s 1. Windows had a market share of over 90% That's considered a monopoly, not MS's fault but still a monopoly Android's marketshare is no where near a monopoly, its maybe 50-70% depending on region 2. Also Windows came with IE as the only browser installed and IE is set as the default browser With Android it will have Chrome installed and the OEM's own browser installed But there's no set "default browser" When you first open a link it will ask you for which browser to use, you can choose always which in a sense is will make that browser you choose the "default browser" Also there's no basis for arguing that Google bans rival services pre-installed on phones since many phones come with other competitor apps preinstalled E.g. Spotify (competitor to Play Music) and Facebook (competitor to Google+) Not to mention the countless OEM/Carrier apps preinstalled, many of which are competitors to Google apps And there's no basis to claim Google forces phone prices high Since Android is free And it can't be true since Android phone typically cost less or equal than the equivalent specced WP or iOS phone

16. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

"With Android it will have Chrome installed and the OEM's own browser installed But there's no set "default browser" Exactly. I have 2 phones and a tablet in the house now that had more than 1 browser, more than 1 app store, etc pre installed. In the beginning, back in 2008 - 2010 it wasnt even entirely Google's own browser, even tho it was just 1 browser app. The OEM's used to add their own lil tweaks and whatnot to the browser app. HTC and Samsung were famous for doing this, Moto started doing it later. "When you first open a link it will ask you for which browser to use, you can choose always which in a sense is will make that browser you choose the "default browser" Please continue educating some of these folks.... This is nothing like what MS got sued and fined for.

27. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

This is exactly right, i never agreed with the suit in the first place. For me it was more of a monopoly question and if googles current thin line walking that the jury or judge might have ruled against them. I use dolphin as my browser on my z3 so it doesnt affect me one bit. It was more about questioning than trying to start any sort of flame war. I knew the normals would come out though to make it such, you are not one of them from what i can tell.

31. sgodsell

Posts: 7621; Member since: Mar 16, 2013

If you don't want to incite or start any flame wars, then why do you keep doing it all the time. BTW there is no thin line. Even your beloved Microsoft with the help of Nokia made Nokia X android devices. There was no Google apps or services on their device at all. Only Microsoft's apps and services were installed on the Nokia X device. Other idiots will say it was Nokia, and it had nothing to do with Microsoft. This is just bull, especially since the device only had Microsoft's apps and services with a UI that resembled WP. Microsoft is trying its hardest to stop Google at any means what so ever. With lawsuites and campaigns like Microsoft's scroogled. Because Microsoft wants to be the monopoly again, why because it can just pay what ever fines again with a little slap on the hand. Then Microsoft could just continue on with their business as usual. If it wasn't for Google and Android, Microsoft would still be charging each OEM to install its mobile OS or charging OEMs to install Windows on tablets < 8". Does anyone think Microsoft would ever give a free upgrade for Windows 7 to Windows 10 if Google was not in the picture? Not a chance.

40. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

Shame! Seem like elitewolverine has very little knowledge of the past and little understanding of Microsoft, the master you choose to serve.

50. scribzz

Posts: 11; Member since: Feb 19, 2015

Google has given you so much ability to do whatever you want with your device. I have a custom rom on my device Liquid smooth. Try doing that with an apple phone and see if you feel like google is forcing you to use their andriod setup

14. GeorgeDao123

Posts: 432; Member since: Aug 20, 2013

Why didn't these robbers make a lawsuits against Apple? "We want an iPhone without iTunes and App Store, instead it will feature our App and Music Store.". Bullsh*t. Google develops Android, everyone knows it. Google can do anything it wants to its OS and no one can judge that, even Android is an open-source platform. If these robbers are good enough, make their own open-source mobile platform that has nothing to do with Android. Someday, a new team of robbers can make a lawsuits against them like what they did with Google. I'll never buy any Android devices without Google services.

20. obedchuni

Posts: 339; Member since: Jun 16, 2014

ya android is an open platform a ripped of iphone os, and ya they can do anything and they have done everything to promote their platform, well consumers will be benefited but OEM will suffer at last...

21. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

Apple platform come Mac OS X that come from Linux same root as Android. OEM is suffering? Which one? Every one is on board out of their own free will. They are also free to pursuit other interest, the most successful one did like Samsung Tizen and LG webOS. They both stayed cause because there money to be made in Android. Customers hold the money so they can spent it the way they see fit. Not like the past where we lack the freedom of choices because of Microsoft monopoly.

38. tedkord

Posts: 17514; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

OSX is Unix based, not Linux. If it were Linux based, it would be open source.

46. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

I stand corrected.

55. obedchuni

Posts: 339; Member since: Jun 16, 2014

really linux....where do you get your sources from....ios is a variant of a BSD UNIX kernel running on top of a micro kernel called Mach.....out side apple everyone is suffering, samsung revenue down, HTC I can go on, really in which country do you live where tizen is so successful.....and I sure that Lg would come up with new devices with web Os....have you ever saw the first android phone trying to copy both black berry and window os along with the key boards...pls have a look ANDROID, BEFORE IT COPIED APPLE! on youtube

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.
FCC OKs Cingular's purchase of AT&T Wireless