Fun fact: Google is allowed to defend itself and is not obliged to give prosecutors all they want.
The framing of “resists giving documents” purposely makes it similar to “resisting arrest”.<p>Fun fact 2: the AGs are being advised by a former News Corp (read: WSJ) lawyer who also advises other google competitors (<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/08/texas-attorney-general-googles-new-competition-cop-says-everything-is-table/" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/08/texas-a...</a>)<p>Fun fact 3: AGs are elected so they seek publicity, they are also corrupt: the one in Mississippi was issuing subpoenas to Google on behalf of the entertainment industry (<a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attorney-general-downplays-ties-to-mpaa-despite-letter-he-sent-google-revealed-as-written-mpaa.shtml" rel="nofollow">https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attor...</a>)
> Company is reluctant to surrender some documents in investigation of possible anticompetitive practices<p>This would be true of any company. It would even be true for many individuals.<p>This article is nothing more than a bulletin updating us on the latest developments in the case, painted up to look like more than it is.
Google has a long history of pushing back for on government requests for data relating to its customers, and they have years worth of history establishing that initial government requests are always overreaching.<p>Is anyone surprised that they'd push back on requests for their own data, especially when it's run by state AGs (i.e. politically motivated) and involves turning trade secrets directly over to competitors?<p>> “To date, Texas has requested, and we have provided, over 100,000 pages of information,” the spokeswoman said. “But we’re also concerned with the irregular way this investigation is proceeding, including unusual arrangements with advisers who work with our competitors and vocal complainants."
Well yeah ... any good lawyer or legal team will do everything they can to prevent a fishing expedition. And yes, private individuals and companies are allowed to defend themselves.
Does anyone else find it suspicious that a government run by the party that is suppose to be hands off and “pro business” is going after a company run by “left coast liberal elites”?
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."<p>"It is possible that information could be made available to the authorities."<p>- Former Google CEO, Google Chairman and Alphabet CEO<p>Perhaps statements that could apply to David could apply equally to Goliath.
> “But we’re also concerned with the irregular way this investigation is proceeding, including unusual arrangements with advisers who work with our competitors and vocal complainants."<p>Isn't it typical for regulators to work with competitors of the company accused of antitrust violations? Who is better positioned to identify abuses of the market leader? It's regulators' job to assess what about the reports actually is an abuse.<p>While I think a lot of this hubbub is motivated by political grudges, I can't help thinking that we would all be better off if the current generation of popular computers (phones, tablets etc) somehow allowed third party app stores.
“Google hasn’t agreed to a waiver that would give state attorneys general documents obtained by the U.S. Justice Department for its own investigation, the Journal said, citing a “person familiar with the situation.”“
Google got to be feeling the heat now that their guy and his #2 had to recuse from the investigation.<p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-departments-antitrust-chief-removes-himself-from-google-probe-11580822369" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-departments-antitrust-c...</a>
Meta: Do the majority of people on HN have WSJ subscriptions? Or is there some other way to view these articles? I see something from the WSJ get to the front page at least once every couple weeks. My gut tells me that either people just only read & comment on the first paragraph, or they're reading the articles for free some other way.
Sad that UE allowed google monopoly to grown in Europe, instead of limiting its access to the market as much as possible and allowing European competition to grown like China did.
Is it just me or is it kind of ironic that another headline today involves Google's sort of fast and loose behavior related to being the dominant browser on the market?