U.S. DOJ may break up Google after antitrust ruling; ex-google CEO warns of AI startups stealing IP

Top 3 Key Points:

• The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is considering breaking up Google after ruling it has an illegal monopoly in search.
• Potential divestments could force Google to separate from its Android operating system and Chrome browser.
• Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt suggests AI startups could bypass legal concerns by launching first and dealing with lawsuits later.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is weighing the possibility of breaking up Google following a ruling that the company maintains an illegal monopoly in search. According to reports, the DOJ is exploring two major options for divestment: forcing Google to separate from its Android operating system or its Chrome web browser. This move comes after Judge Amit P. Mehta found that Google unfairly leveraged its dominance, requiring smartphone manufacturers and other device makers to agree to specific terms to access essential apps like Gmail and the Play Store.

If the DOJ pursues this breakup, it would mark one of the most significant antitrust actions since the division of AT&T in 1984. However, other options are also on the table. For instance, the DOJ might consider a less drastic measure, such as requiring Google to share its search data with competitors like Microsoft’s Bing and DuckDuckGo. Google currently holds a massive lead in search data, reportedly controlling 16 times more data than its closest competitors, further solidifying its market position.

While no final decision has been made, any action would need approval from Judge Mehta before Google is compelled to comply. Should the DOJ move forward with breaking up Google, it would represent a historic step in the ongoing battle against monopolistic practices in the tech industry.

In a related development, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently made headlines for his remarks on how AI startups might succeed by bending the rules. During a talk at Stanford University, Schmidt suggested that new AI companies could potentially steal intellectual property (IP) and quickly launch products, only to hire lawyers later to “clean up the mess” if the products become successful. He later clarified that he wasn’t advocating for illegal actions but was instead commenting on the aggressive nature of Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurial culture.

Schmidt’s remarks reflect a broader concern about how rapidly advancing AI technologies could disrupt established companies, including giants like Google. His comments underscore the competitive pressures within the tech industry, where startups might take bold risks to gain a foothold.

Schmidt, who stepped down as Google’s chairman in 2015, remains a significant figure in Silicon Valley. He continues to invest in startups and maintain close ties with influential tech leaders, including OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Tesla’s Elon Musk. His comments at Stanford have sparked discussions about the future of AI, intellectual property, and the evolving landscape of the tech industry.