Power

The lawyer who helped take down Microsoft says the DOJ’s case against Google is an 'important start'

But says he's skeptical that it could lead to significant benefits for startups until the government decides on particular remedies.

The lawyer who helped take down Microsoft says the DOJ’s case against Google is an 'important start'

Gary Reback has said he doesn't think the U.S. government is ready to bring sweeping antitrust cases against Big Tech.

Gary Reback has been called many names: "technology's trustbuster," Silicon Valley's "dragon slayer," "Bill Gates' worst nightmare," and much worse. He's the veteran Silicon Valley lawyer who played an instrumental role in getting the government to bring a successful antitrust case against Microsoft in the 1990s, and he has continued to fight for aggressive antitrust action in the tech industry to benefit smaller players in the ecosystem.

Reback has said he doesn't think the U.S. government is ready to bring sweeping antitrust cases against Big Tech. He's skeptical that the Department of Justice's case against Google, filed in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, will successfully combat the search giant's enormous market power. But he thinks it's an "important start."

Protocol chatted with Reback about why the Google antitrust case hews so closely to the Microsoft case, why he thinks the complaint won't benefit startups until the government decides on particular remedies and why the government chose to make such a narrow argument against the search behemoth.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

What are some of your immediate reactions to the case, now that you've had time to read and digest it?

There are things about it from the beginning that are quite interesting. At the beginning of the complaint it says, "We're relying on the Microsoft decision." That's unusual. Sometimes in federal complaints, there are [citations] on various legal points. But they're not citing this just for [a] specific legal point; they're saying, "This is the case we're relying on, this is like that case."

That case is very important where the Google complaint was filed, in D.C. The Microsoft case went to the District Court of Appeals [in D.C.], and they rendered a very important decision. It was an en banc decision, meaning all the judges participated: liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, they all agreed to that decision. That decision found Microsoft culpable.

Here, the government complaint is saying, "We're relying on that case." Now, if you're somebody in the press, you might say, "OK, that case had a bunch of inflammatory emails from Bill Gates himself, 'cut off Netscape's air supply,' we're going to do this, we're going to do that." And right at the beginning of this, [DOJ is] saying, no not really, we don't have as much inflammatory stuff, and the reason we don't is because Google has told its people not to say anything. That's unusual, too. So they're saying basically to you, "Hey, don't get too excited. We're going to proceed by the numbers here and not by this inflammatory stuff."

How is this similar to the Microsoft case?

It's similar in two basic ways. First, one of the primary charges against Microsoft is that they used agreements to keep Netscape from getting distribution, very much like the agreements here. Microsoft made an agreement with computer manufacturers such that Netscape couldn't get on the desktop. That's what the government says Google does with respect to search. The government would argue here that all of these interlocking contractual obligations that Google imposes on its partners are even more exclusionary than what happened in the Microsoft case. But in any event they're saying, this is like the Microsoft case because the bad guy is using contracts to thwart competition.

Now, the second thing that's very similar to the Microsoft case is that traditionally, particularly conservatives want to say, "OK if there's an antitrust defense, there must be an overcharge somewhere; the consequence of the bad guy's action is to make consumers pay more." In the Microsoft case, the government said, "No no no no, the primary effect here is that Microsoft's actions hurt innovation, and that's how it hurt consumers." It hurt consumer choice. It killed new technologies and so forth.

And that's basically what the government's saying. Their primary claim basically is that consumer choice is thwarted, technology innovation is impeded, similar to what the Microsoft case was looking at.

But how is it different from Microsoft?

It's not a legal point, but I would not expect the government to come up with these inflammatory language that Bill Gates used. The government has alerted this right up front, they're not going to have that. In addition, Microsoft didn't just engage in contractual things that kept Netscape from getting distribution; they also did things themselves to make it difficult for Netscape to make a good product. That part is not really played out here.

This is, to me, [is] the kind of complaint a more conservative Republican administration would make. We all know that you can't use your market power to engage with others to block distribution. There's two parties involved there: you and the guy you're imposing on. But they're saying they're not going to go into the issue of whether you by yourself without engaging somebody else did something wrong.

There is that complaint with Google, and that's self-preferencing. A lot of people thought the complaint would talk about that, but that's not there. The only place that's there is in the effects; they're saying the effect that Google doing all these things means they can preference their own results. But that unilateral conduct aspect is absent. That's significant because it raises the question of, well, what relief are you going to get here that's going to solve the problem that you've raised? In other words, you've raised the problem that there's all these contracts; what are you going to do, strike down the contracts? OK, strike them down. Google still has a 90% market share, the carriers still need Google.

Even if you went in and struck the anti-forking provisions and stuff like that, would that be enough to correct the situation here? The government I think is saying two things. One is, it might be enough because if we didn't have the forking approach, these big carriers and handset makers might create their own search engines or do a deal with Bing or something like that and they might make an alternative search engine. So contractual relief might be enough, particularly if we don't let Google condition its app store on adherence to these contractual provisions. But they're also saying, if that's not enough, we might have to get structural relief here.

Why do you think they decided to make it this narrowly tailored?

Because for conservatives and Republicans, this is the surest route. In other words, conservatives and most Republicans might have a problem with unilateral conduct, which is what self-preferencing is. "I'm using my market power on my own software to disadvantage you." And conservatives might want to say, ideologically, "Hey this is your product, you can do whatever you want with it." I don't agree with that, of course, but that's a Scallia-type viewpoint.

Once you step out of your own company, you're over the line — these are conservative beliefs. So I think that that's a pathway that doesn't cause angst in conservatives, and it's a path that might get them to where they need to be.

If you go back to the FTC's investigation during the Obama administration, you remember [Google] inadvertently released their staff report, which had all kinds of inflammatory things and statements about self-preferencing. That was all available, but the government chose to not go in that direction. The benefit here is they don't think they have to go after some controversial theory. The vulnerability is Google will say that contracts of this type are common; exclusivity contracts are common. But when you've got 90% of the market and have contracts, they become exclusionary. Google will play the card that they're just doing what anybody else does, and the government will have to show they're not anybody else. Conservatives will ask, how does Google know when it's over the line? Is 63% share enough? And the government will say, "I don't know, but 90% is enough." So that's where you can expect the case to go at this stage.

What do you think this case will mean for the other big tech companies?

Had they brought a case on self-preferencing, that would apply to Amazon as well, and they didn't. So it's narrow and it's fact-driven, meaning what they're saying is [Google has] got all these contracts, very specific contracts, with these specific people, [they] cover this percent of the market and therefore what [they've] done is bad. So a company looking at this might say, "Well, I don't cover 87% of the market, I cover 42% of the market." Its effect is less direct. I wouldn't go so far as to say as they're out of the woods; the fact the [DOJ] is bringing a lawsuit means there's something there.

But does the lawsuit read as much on these other companies? We don't know. It's so factual; it's not just that it's narrow, it's factual and narrow, and that may limit its scope. This is intentional in a lot of ways. If you're going to try to prove this case, you need the help of these other companies. It would be good if Amazon did testify.

Which elements of the case do you think are the most damning for Google?

I think they do a very good job of constructing this web: web of exclusions, through contracts and applications and penalties and incentives. The government does a good job of laying that out in a way that does show both power and effect. Now of course, the vulnerability is they're laying out a bunch of different things so there are a lot of different ways for Google to attack. Nevertheless, the contracts are well-known and provable and so forth. So what's damning to Google is, I think it's going to be hard to argue against the facts. They're going to have to argue on some quasi-legal basis, "These are just ordinary-course exclusive dealing agreements."

You recall the Obama administration didn't do anything. A reasonable person might ask, "Weren't all these facts available at that time?" The answer is, pretty much. Restrictions on Android were just getting started. The Obama administration faced a lot of criticism at the time that they were covering for Google. The government shut down a search manipulation case, and they also shut down all the other things they were looking at in Google, including Android. We knew at the time that this is what was going to happen, and if you stop it now, you don't have to do structural relief. That's the thing about these contractual things: If you get in early and fix them early, your remedy is a lot less. It becomes easier to fix them.

If you prevented the Android stuff back in 2012, 2013, you could've done it by precluding these contracts. The market shares weren't that different: 82[%] as opposed to 88%. This is something that could have been brought earlier and somebody needs to ask, what in the world?

Do you think startups could potentially benefit from this case?

I don't think startups are going to benefit unless there's something further down the line that's a remedy that's going to benefit startups. These carriers … have been chafing under this for a long time. Would one of them set up its own search? Yeah, maybe. Where does the primary benefit flow? I think it flows to companies like that.

There's some people mentioned in the complaint, like the handset makers. Maybe the handset makers would like to auction off this slot, and this would be good for them. I don't know. But is it going to benefit startup innovation? Not until we see something more, I don't think. These other big companies, though, they might be able to get into a situation where they pay Google a lot less. And so if you consider that a benefit, then that's a benefit.

We're currently anticipating more antitrust cases against Google by coalitions of attorneys general. Do you think those cases, taken together, could do more to change the ecosystem?

I wouldn't get it way over my ski tips. We've just started this case, and this is a big start, an important start. It doesn't have a lot of that conservative rhetoric that people were afraid of, [like] search bias against conservatives. It doesn't have any of that. It's a standard, traditional type of antitrust complaint. It's backed by the Republican AGs, who may or may not back some broader theory. But we know now what everybody agrees with: I think all the Democrats would agree with this, and Republicans would agree with this as well.

If you search "Wordle" on the App Store right now, you'll find nearly a dozen copycat versions of the game.
Screenshot: Nick Statt/Protocol

On this episode of the Source Code podcast: Nick Statt joins the show to discuss the rise of Wordle, the subsequent rise of the Wordle clones, and why it’s so easy to copy a game. Then Ben Pimentel chats about the fight over Web3, why Jack Dorsey and Marc Andreessen are at odds, and the killer app for the future of the web. Finally, Allison Levitsky explains some of the big new future-of-work trends, including the four-day workweek and dog-walker perks.

For more on the topics in this episode:

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.


Greg Petraetis, SVP and Managing Director, Midmarket and Partner Ecosystem, North America at SAP

As businesses grow during the pandemic, they also encounter pressing challenges to maintain that success. Among them is the pressure to strengthen their digital backbone, which leads to the question: How can companies find the ideal technology provider suited to their evolving needs?

In the midmarket space, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) often need support to buoy them through any choppy waters ahead. As a SaaS solutions provider, SAP has extensive expertise developing strategies to connect innovative companies with their customers.

“We’ve seen how so many SMBs want to become the next billion-dollar companies as they move from being innovators and disruptors to global leaders,” says Greg Petraetis, senior vice president and managing director, Midmarket and Partner Ecosystem, North America at SAP, in an interview with Protocol. “And we’re there to catch them along that trajectory and help them achieve that profitable growth.”

Keep Reading Show less
David Silverberg
David Silverberg is a Toronto-based freelance journalist, editor and writing coach. He writes for The Washington Post, BBC News, Business Insider, The Toronto Star, New Scientist, Fodor's, and several alumni magazines. He also writes for brands such as 23andme, Shopify and Bold Commerce. He has served as editor of B2B News Network, Canada's only B2B news magazine, and Digital Journal, a leading pioneer in citizen journalism. Find more about him at www.davidsilverberg.ca
China

Will there be China tech IPOs to watch in 2022?

After the DiDi chaos, Chinese companies are cautiously looking to return to the capital market.

If TikTok parent company ByteDance went public this year, it would undoubtedly become the biggest IPO of any Chinese company in 2022.

Photo Illustration: Omar Marques/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

As 2022 begins, the biggest question for China IPO watchers is: Will there still be any significant IPOs this year worth anticipating?

For them, 2021 was divided into two halves: The first six months were filled with ambitious Chinese companies listing overseas, culminating in ride-hailing giant DiDi’s IPO on June 30, but it was all downhill from there. In the wake of DiDi’s rushed IPO, Chinese regulators imposed harsh cybersecurity reviews on several companies that were about to go public. Others put their IPO plans on hold. Stock markets reacted accordingly: Alibaba, Pinduoduo and others saw their share prices slashed in half.

Keep Reading Show less
Zeyi Yang

Zeyi Yang is a reporter with Protocol | China. Previously, he worked as a reporting fellow for the digital magazine Rest of World, covering the intersection of technology and culture in China and neighboring countries. He has also contributed to the South China Morning Post, Nikkei Asia, Columbia Journalism Review, among other publications. In his spare time, Zeyi co-founded a Mandarin podcast that tells LGBTQ stories in China. He has been playing Pokemon for 14 years and has a weird favorite pick.

Boost 2

Can Matt Mullenweg save the internet?

He's turning Automattic into a different kind of tech giant. But can he take on the trillion-dollar walled gardens and give the internet back to the people?

Matt Mullenweg, CEO of Automattic and founder of WordPress, poses for Protocol at his home in Houston, Texas.
Photo: Arturo Olmos for Protocol

In the early days of the pandemic, Matt Mullenweg didn't move to a compound in Hawaii, bug out to a bunker in New Zealand or head to Miami and start shilling for crypto. No, in the early days of the pandemic, Mullenweg bought an RV. He drove it all over the country, bouncing between Houston and San Francisco and Jackson Hole with plenty of stops in national parks. In between, he started doing some tinkering.

The tinkering is a part-time gig: Most of Mullenweg’s time is spent as CEO of Automattic, one of the web’s largest platforms. It’s best known as the company that runs WordPress.com, the hosted version of the blogging platform that powers about 43% of the websites on the internet. Since WordPress is open-source software, no company technically owns it, but Automattic provides tools and services and oversees most of the WordPress-powered internet. It’s also the owner of the booming ecommerce platform WooCommerce, Day One, the analytics tool Parse.ly and the podcast app Pocket Casts. Oh, and Tumblr. And Simplenote. And many others. That makes Mullenweg one of the most powerful CEOs in tech, and one of the most important voices in the debate over the future of the internet.

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

Entertainment

Will NFT backlash stop the blockchain gaming boom?

Few players seem to want NFTs. But that might not be enough to stop blockchain gaming from going mainstream.

NFTs in particular, and the broader blockchain gaming movement of which they are a part, have elicited a rare level of polarization among players, developers and large game-makers.
Illustration: fairywong/DigitalVision Vectors/Getty Images; Protocol

The non-fungible token debate has moved from the art world to the gaming industry, and it’s morphed into an all-consuming fight about the future of entertainment and what role, if any, the crypto movement should play in the way video games make money.

From microtransactions to crunch culture, the video game industry is full of unsavory business practices that persist in spite of widespread backlash among the general gaming audience and near-constant denunciation from outspoken industry leaders and critics. That’s in part because such practices are often lucrative or steeped in industry norms that are difficult or costly to change.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt
Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.

Tech workers want three-day weekends. It won’t be possible everywhere, but more companies are starting to consider it.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Welcome back to Ask a Tech Worker. For this recurring feature, I’ve been hitting the streets of San Francisco’s Financial District at lunchtime to chat with tech employees about how the workplace is changing. This time I asked about the four-day work week, that elusive schedule that companies like Bolt, Signifyd, Panasonic, Eidos-Montréal and Wildbit have adopted and a number of others have tested or considered. Got a suggestion for a future topic? Email me.

The four-day work week may be the next frontier for tech companies using work-life balance to compete for talent. Since the New Year, Bolt, commerce protection platform Signifyd and Panasonic have all announced that they’re offering four-day weeks to employees.

Keep Reading Show less
Allison Levitsky
Allison Levitsky is a reporter at Protocol covering workplace issues in tech. She previously covered big tech companies and the tech workforce for the Silicon Valley Business Journal. Allison grew up in the Bay Area and graduated from UC Berkeley.
Latest Stories
Bulletins