U.S. v. Google: Inside the Biggest Tech Antitrust Trial in Decades

>>> AND WE TURN NOW TO THE WORLD OF BIG TECH.

IN A LANDMARK CASE IN THE UNITED STATES A FEDERAL JUDGE HAS FOUND GOOGLE GUILTY OF U.S. ANTI-TRUST VIOLATIONS.

IT'S A STAGGERING DEFEAT FOR THE TECH COMPANY THAT COULD UPEND DECADES OF DOMINANCE AND POTENTIALLY RESHAPE HOW MILLIONS OF AMERICANS GET THEIR INFORMATION ONLINE.

THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL JONATHAN KANTER JOINS WALTER ISAACSON TO DISCUSS THE VERDICT AND WHAT COMES NEXT.

>> THANK YOU, CHRISTIANE.

AND JONATHAN KANTER, WELCOME BACK TO THE SHOW.

>> IT'S WONDERFUL TO BE HERE.

>> YOU HAD A REALLY BIG VICTORY IN YOUR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTI-TRUST CASE AGAINST GOOGLE.

IT'S THE BIGGEST ANTI-TRUST CASE IN AT LEAST 20 YEARS, AND THE JUDGE RULED THIS PAST WEEK THAT GOOGLE IS A MONOPOLIST, AND IT'S ACTED AS ONE TO MAINTAIN ITS MONOPOLY.

BUT LET ME READ YOU SOMETHING ELSE THE JUDGE SAID.

HE SAID IT'S HIRED THOUSANDS OF SKILLED ENGINEERS, INNOVATED CONSISTENTLY, AND MADE SHREWD BUSINESS DECISIONS.

THE RESULT IS THE INDUSTRY'S HIGHEST QUALITY SEARCH ENGINE.

SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE?

THEY GOT A MONOPOLY BY BEING THE BEST.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING AFTER THEM FOR?

>> WE WANT COMPANIES NOT JUST TO ATTAIN POWER BY BEING THE BEST, BUT WE WANT THEM TO TRY TO COMPETE AND MAINTAIN THEIR POSITION BY TRYING TO BE THE BEST, NOT ENGAGING IN CONTRACTS OR MONOPOLISTIC BEHAVIOR THAT PREVENTS THEM AND INSULATES THEM FROM COMPETITIVE PRESSURE.

ULTIMATELY, WE BELIEVE THAT ALL COMPANIES WHETHER THEY'RE BIG OR SMALL DO BETTER AND DELIVER MORE FOR THE PUBLIC WHEN THEY HAVE OTHER COMPANIES, COMPETITORS NIPPING AT THE HEELS.

IT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS FOR OUR MARKET SYSTEM.

IN ORDER TO HAVE A MARKET, YOU NEED COMPETITORS.

AND SO WE WANT COMPETITION DRIVING COMPANIES LIKE DOING AND ALL OTHER COMPANIES TO DO BETTER AND TO DELIVER MORE.

>> SO WHAT DID IT DO THAT WAS ANTI-COMPETITIVE?

>> COURT DECISION DESCRIBES A WHOLE RANGE OF CONDUCT, BUT GENERALLY IT FALLS INTO THE CATEGORY OF PARTNERS TO MAKE GOOGLE THE DESOLUTIONARY DEFAULT.

RATHER THAN SAYING USE US BECAUSE WE'RE THE BEST, WE'RE GOING TO PAY OUR PARTNERS TENS OF BILLIONS DOLLARS A YEAR TO KEEP THEM FROM WORKING WITH RIVALS.

>> TO TRY TO PREVENT COMPETITORS EVEN THOUGH IT GAVE A GOOD AND LESS EXPENSIVE PRODUCT.

>> YEAH, HISTORY HAS A TENDENCY TO RHYME, AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP IN OUR CASE HERE AGAINST GOOGLE, IT RESEMBLES MANY OF THE SAME ISSUES THAT WERE PRESENT IN STANDARD OIL AND MANY OF THE PRESENT ISSUES PRESENT IN U.S. v. MICROSOFT.

SO ULTIMATELY THE MONOPOLY PLAYBOOK IS ONE THAT REPEATS ITSELF OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO ENFORCE THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS WHEN WE SEE THAT PLAY BOOK COME TO FRUITION.

>> YOU TALKED ABOUT U.S. v. MICROSOFT ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO.

IN PREPARING FOR THIS I TALKED TO JOEL KLEIN WHO HAD YOUR POSITION BACK THEN AND BROUGHT THAT CASE.

AND HE SAID ONE OF MAJOR THINGS THAT MICROSOFT AT THE TIME, BECAUSE THAT'S WHO THEY WERE GOING AFTER, WAS LEVERAGING ITS MONOPOLY IN ONE FIELD, MEANING OPERATING DESKTOP SYSTEMS, TO GET DOMINANCE IN OTHER FIELDS.

IS THAT RELEVANT IN THIS CASE?

>> WELL, THE MICROSOFT DECISION WAS CITED THROUGHOUT THE COURT'S OPINION IN U.S. v. GOOGLE.

AND THAT WAS THE LAST MAJOR, FRANKLY THE LAST MONOPOLIZATION CASE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BROUGHT FOR FILING U.S. v. GOOGLE.

SO THESE CASES DO NOT COME ALONG VERY OFTEN.

THEY'RE VERY RESOURCE INTENSIVE, AND THEY'RE HISTORIC.

AND SO THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES THAT WERE ESTABLISHED IN MICROSOFT OF COURSE WERE HIGHLY RELEVANT TO THIS CASE.

MANY OF THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS THAT WERE PRESENT IN U.S. v. MICROSOFT WERE ALSO PRESENT IN U.S. v. GOOGLE, IN PARTICULAR THE IMPORTANCE OF NETWORK EFFECTS OR FEEDBACK EFFECTS.

DO THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS APPLY TO THE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY, THE PC, THE COMPUTER INDUSTRY?

AND THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION WAS UNEQUIVOCALLY YES.

SAME KIND OF QUESTIONS CAME UP IN U.S. v. GOOGLE.

DO THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS AND CAN THEY APPLY IN THE WORLD OF THE INTERNET, A WORLD WHERE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ARE GIVEN TO CONSUMERS FOR FREE IN EXCHANGE FOR ADVERTISING?

THE ANSWER ONCE AGAIN WAS UNEQUIVOCALLY YES.

THE COURT FOUND ANTI-TRUST LAWS NOT ONLY DO APPLY BUT GOOGLE ENGAGED IN CONDUCT TO BREAK THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.

>> EVER SINCE THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS AND CLAYTON ACTS MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO, THERE HAVE BEEN TWO PRONGS TO ANTI-TRUST THEORY.

ONE IS HARM TO CONSUMERS.

DO THE CONSUMERS GET HARM BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PAY MORE BECAUSE IT'S A MONOPOLY?

BUT THE SECOND IS SOMETHING LIKE HARM TO COMPETITION.

EVEN IF A PRODUCT IS FREE LIKE GOOGLE SEARCH IS FREE AND FOR THAT MATTER MICROSOFT BUNDLES A BROWSER FOR FREE.

IT DOESN'T DIRECTLY HARM CONSUMERS, BUT IT HARMS COMPETITION.

WHY SHOULD THAT BE PART OF ANTI-TRUST LAW?

>> THAT'S THE BASIS OF ANTI-TRUST LAW.

ANTI-TRUST LAW EXISTS TO PROTECT THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT COMPETITION, RIVALRY IN OUR ECONOMY ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO DO BETTER, ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO DELIVER MORE, ENCOURAGES LOWER PRICES, MORE INNOVATION, GREATER OUTPUT.

BUT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO THE DIVERSITY OF VIEWS AND IDEAS.

WHEN WE GET OUR INFORMATION ESPECIALLY ON THE INTERNET, WE WANT TO HAVE A RANGE OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION SO THAT WE CAN BE WELL-INFORMED ELECTORATE AND CITIZENRY.

AND SO THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT PART OF WHY WE HAVE ANTI-TRUST LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT U.S. v. MICROSOFT WID NOT FOCUS ON HIGHER PRICES.

IT FOCUSED ON HARM TO COMPETITIVE PROCESS BECAUSE THAT IMPEDED INNOVATION.

IT IMPEDED MARKET FORCES FROM DELIVERING BENEFITS AND RESULTS TO THE BROADER ECONOMY.

IT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE HAD HERE IN U.S. v. GOOGLE.

THE ONE EXCEPTION, THOUGH, IS WE DO HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE U.S. v. GOOGLE CASE THAT FOCUSES MORE ON PRICE.

IT'S ADVERTISING.

ONE OF THE KEY MARKETS AT ISSUE IN U.S. v. GOOGLE WAS TEXT-BASED ADVERTISING WHICH YOU GET, PEOPLE BUY ON SURGE.

AND THESE ARE NOT JUST HIGH-PRICED ADVERTISERS.

VIRTUALLY EVERY COMPANY WHETHER IT'S A VIRTUAL STOREFRONT OR THE CORNER STORE IN YOUR LOCAL AREA BUY SEARCH ADS, AND THEY BUY THEM IN LARGE VOLUMES.

AND WHEN THE PRICE OF ADS GO UP, THE PRICES OF THE PRODUCTS BEING ADVERTISED GO UP.

SO THIS IS AN ISSUE GNAT NOT JUST AFFECTS THE INTERNET HIGHWAY, IT AFFECTS OUR MAIN STREETS AS WELL.

>> YOU TALK ABOUT HOW THIS PAVES THE WAY FOR INNOVATION THIS TYPE OF DECISION BY MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF COMPETITION.

WHEN I TALKED TO MY STUDENTS AND THEY ALL WANT TO START BUSINESSES I SAY, OKAY, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF GOOGLE DECIDED TO GO INTO THAT BUSINESS AND CRUSH YOU?

AND THAT IS SOMETIMES WHY WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF STARTUPS.

CAN YOU DESCRIBE SPECIFICALLY WHY THIS WOULD PAVE THE WAY FOR INNOVATION?

>> YEAH, THERE'S A TERM OF ART CALLED KILL ZONES.

IF YOU TALK TO VENTURE CAPITALISTS THEY'LL TELL YOU IF YOU'RE IN A KILL ZONE, MEANING THAT THE BUSINESS YOU'RE GOING TO GO INTO CAN BE ELBOWED OUT BY A LARGE MONOPOLIST, YOU'RE BETTER OFF INVESTING IN THAT BUSINESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

THAT IS NOT HELPFUL TO OUR ECONOMY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH.

WHAT WE WANT IS THE BEST IDEAS, THE BEST INNOVATIONS, THE BEST PRODUCTS AND SERVICES TO COMPETE ON THE MERITS.

>> KIT WALKER, GOOGLE'S PRESIDENT OF GLOBAL AFFAIRS SAID IN THIS DECISION, HE SAID THE DECISION RECOGNIZES GOOGLE OFFERS THE BEST SEARCH ENGINE BUT CONCLUDES WE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO MAKE IT EASILY AVAILABLE.

IS IT POSSIBLE THIS CASE WILL END UP WITH US GETTING WORSE SEARCH ON THE INTERNET?

>> I BELIEVE THE WORDS OF THE COURT, WHICH IS THE DECISION STANDS FOR THE PRINCIPLE THAT GOOGLE IS A MONOPOLIST AND BEHAVED LIKE ONE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN ITS MONOPOLY.

COMPETITION WHETHER IT'S COMPETITION AMONG SMALL COMPANIES OR COMPETITION AGAINST A VERY LARGE COMPANY, YIELDS BETTER OUTCOMES FOR EVERYONE.

AND THAT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAW.

THAT'S THE PRINCIPLE EMBEDDED IN THE COURT'S DECISION.

AND WE'RE THRILLED THAT THE COURT AGREED WITH OUR -- OUR ARGUMENTS.

AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO TAKING THIS TO THE NEXT PHASE.

>> AND LAST WEEK'S VERDICT, WHICH GOOGLE SAYS IT'S GOING TO APPEAL, THE JUDGE HASN'T YET RULED AND YOU HAVEN'T YET PRESENTED ON WHAT THE REMEDIES SHOULD BE.

WHAT IS THE REALM OF WHAT THOSE REMEDIES COULD BE?

>> IT'S IMPORTANT WE RESPECT THE PROCESS.

AND SO WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE I CAN'T COMMENT ON WHAT WE MIGHT REQUEST OR SUGGEST TO THE COURT.

THERE'S A PROCEEDING THAT WILL -- A PROCESS THAT WILL TAKE PLACE.

IT'LL START IN SEPTEMBER, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO ENGAGING WITH THE COURT.

GENERALLY SPEAKING OUTSIDE OF THIS CASE, THERE ARE -- THERE'S A RICH BODY OF LAW THAT EXPLAINS WHAT WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT IN THE CONTEXT OF REMEDIES, AND U.S. v. MICROSOFT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE WHERE IN THAT CASE THE COURT BOTH AT THE DISTRICT COURT LEVEL AND AT AN APPEALS LEVEL SAID THAT REMEDIES SHOULD BE FORWARD LOOKING IN NATURE IN THE CONTEXT OF ANTI-TRUST CASE INVOLVING TECHNOLOGY.

SO MAKING SURE THE REMEDIES ARE MEANINGFUL, MAKING SURE THE REMEDIES REFLECT THE VIOLATION, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS VIOLATION AND DEALS WITH MONOPOLY AND MAKING SURE THAT REMEDIES REFLECT THE MARKET AS IT EXISTS TODAY AND AS IT WILL EXIST IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE ARE IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES TO KEEP IN MIND IN ANY CASE.

>> YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW THIS CASE INVOLVED NOT JUST HARM TO CONSUMERS BUT HARM TO THE WHOLE COMPETITIVE PROCESS AND THAT BOTH THOSE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT TO ANTI-TRUST LAW.

BUT LET'S GO BACK IN HISTORY.

ABOUT 40 OR 50 YEARS AGO THERE WAS A MAJOR SHIFT.

CHICAGO SCHOOL, JUSTICE SCALIA, MANY OTHERS SAYING LET'S JUST FOCUS ON PRICE.

IF IT DOESN'T HARM CONSUMERS, NO HARM, NO FOUL.

HAS THIS BEEN A SHIFT RECENTLY WITH YOU AND LINA KHAN AND OTHERS TO GET IT BACK INTO BALANCE WITH BOTH THOSE THINGS CONSIDERED?

>> THE SHIFT IS TO BRING IT BACK INTO LAW.

THE LAW IS QUITE CLEAR AND RECENTLY CONFIRMED WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ANTI-TRUST DOESN'T JUST APPLY TO PEOPLE WHO BUY THINGS.

IT CAN APPLY TO PEOPLE WHO OFFER THEIR LABOR IN THE CONTEXT OF COLLEGE ATHLETES AND A CASE INVOLVING THE NCAA.

THE COURT EXPLAINED ANTI-TRUST VIOLATIONS GEARED AT PEOPLE WHO WORK ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN ANTI-TRUST VIOLATIONS GEARED AT PEOPLE WHO BUY.

THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS HAVE MAINTAINED THESE PRINCIPLES.

IN FACT, WE BLOCKED A TRANSACTION INVOLVING BOOK PUBLISHERS ON THE BASIS THAT AUTHORS WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF COMPETITION FOR ADVANCES FOR PROFESSIONAL ORIGINAL WORKS OF AUTHORSHIP.

AND SO THESE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES.

ANTI-TRUST, ULTIMATELY, FOCUSES ON COMPETITION.

THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF RED HERRINGS PUT IN PLACE ABOUT PRICE.

LET BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS, PRICE MATTERS.

ANTI-TRUST CARES A LOT ABOUT THE WELFARE OF CONSUMERS.

IT CARES A LOT ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT COMPETITION CAN DELIVER THE BEST, LOWEST PRICES TO CONSUMERS.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE BRING A LOT OF OUR CASES TO FOCUS ON AND THAT WE CARE ABOUT DEEPLY.

IT'S JUST NOT THE ONLY VALUE THAT IS EMBODIED IN THE ANTI-TRUST A LAS.

>> WE LIVE IN A REALLY POLARIZED, PARTISAN AGE AND ALMOST ANY ISSUE IMMEDIATELY THERE'S A SPLIT.

BUT WHAT SURPRISES ME OR IN SOME WAYS PLEASES ME ON THIS ONE IS THIS WAS A CASE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT BY BILL BARR, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY GENERAL.

PEOPLE LIKE J.D.

VANCE HAVE PRAISED YOU AND LINA KHAN FOR DOING THIS.

WHY HAS THIS NOT BECOME A PARTISAN ISSUE?

AND TO WHAT EXTENT IS THERE SOME IDEOLOGICAL DIVIDE HERE ON ANTI-TRUST ENFORCEMENT?

>> BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT RESONATES WITH THE BROADER PUBLIC.

PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE BENEFITS OF A COMPETITIVE ECONOMY BECAUSE A COMPETITIVE ECONOMY RESULTS IN GREATER OPPORTUNITY, WHETHER IT'S A FARMER WHO AIR CARES ABOUT RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR THEIR CATTLE OR SOMEBODY WHO CARES ABOUT GETTING AFFORDABLE ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE OR LOWER PRICES AT THE CHECK-OUT LINE AT YOUR GROCERY STORE.

AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN, PEOPLE WANT OPPORTUNITY, ECONOMIC FREEDOM, AND THEY WANT CHOICE.

AND WHETHER IT'S A CONSERVATIVE OR SOMEONE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POLITICAL CONTINUUM THEY DON'T WANT ANY ONE COMPANY OR ANY ONE IDEOLOGY TELLING THEM WHAT TO THINK, SEE, OR HEAR.

AND I THINK THESE ARE IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES, AND IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THEY HAVE GENERATED SO MUCH SUPPORT ACROSS THE POLITICAL CONTINUUM.

BUT ULTIMATELY, THE VALUES OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS ARE ABOUT RULE OF LAW.

THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS ARE WRITTEN BY CONGRESS, ENACTED IN 1890, UPDATED MANY TIMES SINCE THEN WITH THE CLAYTON ACT AND A NUMBER OF OTHERS.

AND OUR JOB IS TO ENFORCE THE LAW AS WE FIND IT BASED ON THE FACTS, BASED ON THE LAW AS WE FIND IT.

AND SO IF WE STAY FOCUSED ON MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE ENGAGING IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND DOING IT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS WHEN THE FACTS SUPPORT IT, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO FIND WIDESPREAD SUPPORT, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE ENCOUNTERED.

>> IN A RECENT INTERVIEW WITH THE FINANCIAL TIMES, YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT A.I., INTERFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, AND SAID WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT ARE THE MONOPOLY CHOKE POINTS FOR A.I.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

>> THAT MEANS THAT IN ANY INDUSTRY ESPECIALLY AN INDUSTRY INVOLVING TECHNOLOGY AND FEEDBACK EFFECTS THAT HAS A TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT ON OUR SOCIETY, IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PRESERVING COMPETITIVE PROCESS AND WE'RE DOING SO IN REALTIME.

AND SO WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT A.I.

IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THE INTERNET OR THEY TALK ABOUT COMPUTERS.

THEY'RE USING VERY JENNUAL TERMS FOR AN INDUSTRY THAT HAS LOTS OF DIFFERENT COMPONENTS.

SO WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT A.I.

IT'S NOT A SINGLE TECHNOLOGY, IT'S A CONSTUILATION OF TECHNOLOGIES FROM CHIPS AND HARDWARE TO SOFTWARE LAYERS TO APPLICATION, TO ALL SORTS OF USE CASES AND SCENARIOS.

IT RELIES ON DATA.

YOU HAVE GENERAL DATA BUT YOU ALSO MIGHT HAVE INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC DATA.

YOU MIGHT HAVE HEALTH CARE-BASED A.I.

OR CERTAIN TYPES OF ENTERPRISE BASED A.I.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WE UNDERSTAND THOSE DISTINCTIONS, THE IMPORTANCE OF ALL THOSE DIFFERENT VARIATIONS AND ENSURE THAT EACH ONE OF THEM, EACH MARKET WITHIN THE BROADER UMBRELLA OF A.I.

HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE COMPETITIVE SO THAT INNOVATORS CAN INNOVATE.

>> LET ME PICK ON DATA BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE YOU USE.

SHOULD GOOGLE HAVE TO SHARE ITS DATA?

SHOULD APPLE HAVE TO SHARE THE DATA ON THE PHONES?

>> WELL, THESE ARE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, RIGHT?

AND SO I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF BROADER QUESTIONS ESPECIALLY AROUND PRIVACY AND OWNERSHIP, WHETHER DATA IS A PUBLIC GOOD.

BUT THE REALITY IN THESE TECHNOLOGY DRIVEN MARKETS ESPECIALLY MARKETS THAT HAVE MACHINE LEARNING IS THAT DATA IS THE OIL.

IT'S THE OIL THAT MAKES THESE BUSINESSES RUN.

THEY LEARN BY DOING LARGE AMOUNTS OF DATA AND NOT JUST LARGE IN TERMS OF WHAT WE MIGHT CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, A BIG BOOK OR A LIBRARY.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LIKES OF -- VOLUMES OF DATA THE LIKES OF WHICH WE CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE RUNNING THROUGH SERVERS ARE PLACED ACROSS THE WORLD.

AND SO DATA IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT, AND IT IS A FACT THAT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND TO DETERMINE HOW THE COMPETITIVE MARKET FUNCTIONS.

SO IF YOU NEED ACCESS TO MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF DATA TO COMPETE, THAT IS A MARKET REALITY.

I'M NOT SAYING IT NECESSITIES THE COMPANIES HAVE TO SHARE, SHOULD OR NOT SHARE DATA.

I'M SIMPLY SAYING IT'S A MARKET REALITY WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE WHEN UNDERSTANDING HOW COMPETITION WORKS.

>> YOU TALK ABOUT HOW SOMETIMES THE MOST MEANINGFUL INTERVENTION IS ONE THAT HAPPENS IN REALTIME.

YOU JUST SAID WE HAVE TO DO THIS RIGHT AWAY.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU -- WHY NOT LET THE MARKET PLAY OUT FOR A WHILE?

NACHKT, GOOGLE COULD HAVE LOST ITS DOMINANCE IN SEARCH BY THE ADVENT OF A.I.

ISN'T IT BETTER TO LET THINGS SETTLE OUT BEFORE WE JUST BARREL IN?

>> I THINK ONE OF THE LESSONS THAT WE'VE LEARNED IS THAT IN TECHNOLOGY MARKETS THAT HAVE MASSIVE NETWORK EFFECTS, MARKETS CAN TIP.

AND WHEN THEY TIP, IT BECOMES EXPONENTIALLY MORE CHALLENGING FOR RIVALS TO COMPETE.

BECAUSE OF THE SCALE, BECAUSE OF THE DATA THAT'S NECESSARY.

AND SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF IT'S NECESSARY AND THE FACTS AND THE LAW SUPPORT IT, THAT A LITTLE BIT OF INTERVENTION EARLY ON WILL HOPEFULLY ELIMINATE THE REGULATION LATER ON.

WE WANT THE COMPETITIVE MARKET ULTIMATELY TO BE THE REGULATOR.

WE WANT COMPETITION.

WE WANT COMPANIES FIGHTING IT OUT TO DELIVER BETTER AND MORE, TO ENCOURAGE AND DELIVER MORE BENEFITS TO ENTIRE SOCIETY.

IF WE HAVE MONOPOLIES, THE THEN WE LOSE THOSE BENEFITS TO COMPETITION AND THEN WE'RE FACED WITH REGULATION OR IN THIS CASE AGAINST GOOGLE AND OTHERS A BACKWARD LOOKING REMEDY THAT TRIES TO ADDRESS 15 YEARS OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR.

IT'S MUCH HARDER TO DO THAN IT IS TO ELIMINATE A FEW SMALL IMPEDIMENTS IN REALTIME.

SO I THINK WHAT WE'VE LEARNED IS WHEN IT'S MANDATED AND IT'S APPROPRIATE UNDER THE FACTS AND THE LAW, THEN A LITTLE BIT OF INTERVENTION EARLY ON COULD HOPEFULLY SAVE US FROM UNNECESSARILY INVASIVE REGULATION OR INTERVENTION LATER ON.

>> JONATHAN KANTER, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US AGAIN.

>> THANK YOU.

PLEASURE TO BE WITH YOU.