The director general of Google, Sundar Pichai, told a federal judge on Wednesday that a government proposal to Break the business Hobble the business, because it aimed to avoid drastic changes to repair an illegal monopoly in online research.
Judge Amit P. Mehta of the American district court for the District of Columbia reigned last year That Google had violated the law to maintain a research monopoly. This month, he summoned an audience To decide the measures, called remedies, which would be set up to approach illegal behavior.
As the second witness to the company, Mr. Pichai was called to argue that the court should Avoid aggressive government solutionsIn particular forcing Google to sell its popular Chrome web browser and to share data with competitors. Mr. Pichai said that the government’s proposal would lead the company to make less investments in new technologies if it were to share the advantages with its competitors for a minimum price.
“The combination of all remedies, I think, makes it not viable to invest in R&D as we have done in the past three decades, to continue innovating and creating Google research,” he said, referring to research and development.
Mr. Pichai is the best profiled witness who should testify during the three -week historical hearing, which could rebalance the dynamics of power in Silicon Valley. The technological industry is locked in a race to develop internet products powered by artificial intelligence, and new restrictions on Google’s activities could overeat the efforts of its rivals and hinder its own.
The Google research case is also the first major test of the American government’s efforts to limit the enormous power of the technology giants on trade, communications and online information. A federal judge in Virginia Judged this month that Google was also monopoly in certain online advertising technologies.
The Federal Trade Commission is in the process of meta in a trial as to whether its Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions illegally smothered the emerging competitors. Additional antitral antitral proceedings against Apple and Amazon should be tried in the coming years.
The Ministry of Justice filed its Google Search trial in 2020, during President Trump’s first term.
Government lawyers argued during a trial in 2023 that Google had locked other search engines by paying companies like Apple, Samsung and Mozilla to be the search engine which is automatically presented in web browsers and on smartphones. The company paid $ 26.3 billion as part of these transactions in 2021, according to testimony at the time.
Justice Mehta ruled against the company in August. Last week, he opened the three -week hearing to determine the remedies.
The proposal of the Ministry of Justice is varied. The government argues that Google must sell Chrome because it automatically sends user requests to the company’s search engine.
In the testimony of Mr. Pichai, who lasted approximately 90 minutes, he said that the company had invested massively in Chrome and was better located to ensure that the application was protected from cyberattacks. Mr. Pichai, who helped to develop Chrome, bristled when a government lawyer wondered if he could predict how a future owner of the browser would manage cybersecurity.
“Given my in-depth knowledge of space and a general understanding of the capacities and commitments of other companies concerning the security of the web, I think I am able to speak on it,” he said.
The government also wants Google to share its research results with competitors. As part of the proposal, other search engines could access the data on the research that Google users carried out and the websites on which they clicked.
Mr. Pichai described the sharing of forced data required by the proposal for “de facto disinvestment” of the intellectual property of the company which “would allow anyone of retro-engineer completely, from start to finish, all aspects of our technological battery”.
Google’s proposal is narrower. He said he should be allowed to continue paying other companies to make his search engine get a main placement. But he also said that some of these offers should be ready to renegotiate each year, and that smartphones manufacturers should have more freedom when they decide Google applications to install on their devices.
Judge Mehta asked Mr. Pichai how other research engines could compete with Google if the company was still able to pay for its own research product to obtain a main placement.
“I can hardly think of exceptions to” the best product wins, “added Mr. Pichai later.