ON OUR WEBSITE.

>>> IT IS THE U.S.

VERSUS GOOGLE IN PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT ANTITRUST CASE EVER.

THE SEARCH ENGINE GIANT WAS IN COURT FOR A CASE BROUGHT BY THE U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

THEY MAINTAIN GOOGLE MAINTAINS A MONOPOLY BY PAYING OTHER COMPANIES TO MAKE GOOGLE THE DEFAULT BROWSER ON THEIR SMART PHONES.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE COMPANY AND THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET?

JOINING US NOW ARE RANDALL PICKER, PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO WHERE HIS INTERESTS INCLUDE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, COMPETITION IN ANTITRUST LAW AND SPENCER WEBER WALLER, FROM THE INSTITUTE OF ANTITRUST STUDIES, AND PROFESSOR AT LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO SCHOOL OF LAW, THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE.

RANDALL PICKER, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THIS CASE, WHAT IS AT STAKE?

>> GOOGLE IS AN INCREDIBLE PRODUCT.

IT IS VERY SUCCESSFUL.

THE QUESTION IS ARE THEY DOING IT LEGITIMATELY?

ARE THEY COMPETING FAIRLY NOW?

>> AND SPENCER WEBER WALLER, WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE THAT PERHAPS THEY ARE NOT?

>> IT IS REALLY TWO PARTS FOR ANY MAW NAUPALIZATION CASE.

THEY ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF GOOGLE HAS A MONOPOLY IN SEARCH AND ADVERTISING AND DID THEY MAINTAIN IT BY ANTICOMPETITIVE MEANS.

>> AND IS THE CRUX OF THE CASE THAT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PAYMENTS TO THE iPHONE AND SMART PHONE OPERATORS TO MAKE GOOGLE THE DEFAULT SEARCH ENGINE?

IS THAT THE DISHONEST MEANS?

>> I DON'T WANT TO CHARACTERIZE THAT IT IS DISHONEST BUT THAT'S WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS.

THE CONTRACT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GOES WAY BACK.

THE FIRST WAS MOZILA FIRE FOX 2004, APPLE 2005, A LITTLE BEFORE THE iPHONE.

THESE CONTRACTS WERE PUT IN PLACE AT A POINT WHERE IT WASN'T CLEAR WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN AND MOST CONTRACTS MOVED FORWARD AND NOW THEY PRODUCED THE RESULTS THAT ARE DRAMATIC.

>> DO YOU THINK THESE CONTRACTS PERHAPS DO PREVENT OTHER SEARCH ENGINES FROM COMING IN AND COMPETING?

>> YEAH, THE POINT IS CONTRACTS THAT HAVE A LEGITIMATE PURPOSE CAN HAVE AN ILL LEGITIMATE EFFECT.

THE SIZE, SCALE, AND POWER OF GOOGLE CAN BE REINFORCED IN A WAY THAT PREVENTS EVEN BETTER PRODUCTS FROM COMING ON THE MARKET.

>> SO WHAT IS GOOGLE'S DEFENSE HERE?

>> GOOGLE'S DEFENSE IS THAT THEY HAVE NEGOTIATED THESE CONTRACTS WITH COMPANIES THAT HAVE LEGITIMATE RIGHTS.

THERE IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION ON HOW PEOPLE THINK BROWSERS WILL MAKE MONEY.

IN THE MICROSOFT CASE, IT WAS ABOUT THE QUESTION OF COULD MICROSOFT SOMEHOW DEFEAT NET SCAPE NAVIGATOR.

THAT MARKET THAT ONCE PAID FOR SOFTWARE.

NO ONE PAYS FOR THE SOFTWARE ANYMORE.

SO GOOGLE WANTS TO BUY THE EYE BALLS FROM FIRE FOX AND APPLE.

APPLE AND FIRE FOX SHOULD WE ABLE TO SELL THE EYE BALLS LIKE OTHER MEDIA COMPANIES DO.

>> GOOGLE HAS 90% OF THE SEARCH ENGINE MARKET.

IS THAT ALONE A MONOPOLY?

>> IT MAY MAKE THEM A MONOPOLY BUT YOU HAVE TO SHOW IT AND THE GOVERNMENT AND COMPANY WILL FIGHT ABOUT IT.

I THINK THAT IS A RELATIVELY GOOD CASE FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

IT COMES DOWN TO THE EFFECTS OF THE CONTRACT.

IT IS SLR TO WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MICROSOFT CASE WHERE A COMPANY THAT DEVELOPED A GOOD PRODUCT OPERATING SYSTEM MAINTAINED THEIR MONOPOLY THROUGH EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS THAT PREVENTED THE NEXT BIG THING FROM HAPPENING AND TAKING THEM DOWN.

>> A LOT OF ONLOOKERS ARE SAYING THIS CASE WILL DETERMINE A LOT ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET.

WHAT IS AT STAKE FOR THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET?

SAY GOOGLE WINS THIS CASE?

>> WHEN THE AI OVERLORDS COME, WHAT WILL THEY SAY ABOUT THE CASE?

>> I WANT TO SAY WE ARE AT A NEXT POINT.

THE EMERGENCE OF AI AND CHAT GPT, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING TOHAPPEN TO THE INTERNET NEXT.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD OVERREACH HERE.

WE SHOULD DECIDE THE CASE AND FIGURE OUT WHAT MAKES SENSE HERE AND IT WILL FIGURE ITSELF OUT GOING FORWARD.

>> SAY THE GOVERNMENT PROVES THE CASE THAT THIS IS AN ILLEGAL ANTITRUST SITUATION.

THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO GOOGLE?

>> SO IF THEY WIN, THEY SHOW THEM A MONOPOLIZATION AND THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

THE COURT WILL ISSUE AN ORDER SHOWING THAT THE COMPANY HAS TO STOP THE ACTIVITIES FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL.

THEY WILL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY AND CONSIDER WHETHER GOOGLE NEEDS TO DEVEST RGS SELL, LICENSE, THE STRUCTURE OF THE COMPANY.

HOPEFULLY WE GET A BETTER RESULT THAN THE MICROSOFT CASE WHERE THE COMPANY WAS TOLD TO STOP DOING CERTAIN THINGS BUT IT DIDN'T MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE IN THE MARKET WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT IT ALLOWED GOOGLE TO COME IN.

HOPEFULLY THIS WILL ALLOW THE NEXT GREAT THING FOR COMING IN.

>> WHAT WE MAY GET IS WHAT LIFE LOOKS LIKE IN EUROPE RIGHT NOW.

WHAT LIFE LOOKS LIKE IN EUROPE RIGHT NOW IS WHEN YOU TURN ON THE ANDROID PHONE, THE FIRST TIME YOU WANT TO USE A SEARCH ENGINE, YOU GET A CHOICE SCREEN.

THEY SAY WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT TO USE?

MOST CHOOSE GOOGLE DO THEY OUT LAW THOSE CONTRACTS IN EUROPE?

>> THERE WAS A VERSION OF THIS CASE THAT RAN THROUGH THE EUROPEAN UNION.

IN THAT SITUATION GOOGLE LOST.

THE CHOICE SCREEN THAT POPS UP THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU TURN ON YOUR PHONE, THAT WAS THE REMEDY.

NO ONE WAS BROKEN UP.

>> MAYBE THAT IS A REMEDY.

IS IT BETTER FOR THE CONSUMER TO HAVE THE CHOICE?

>> IN GENERAL, YES.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE BUT COMPETITION LAW IS ABOUT CHOICE AND A PROCESS OF COMPETITION.

IT IS NOT ABOUT AN AUTOMATIC OUTCOME ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

>> AGREE WITH THAT COMPLETELY.