Official: Google Appeals Search Monopoly Ruling

Google appealed a ruling finding it an illegal search monopoly and challenged remedies that required sharing search index data, user-interaction information, and syndicate results with competitors. Google asked the appeals court to overturn the remedies while the appeal proceeds. Google argued that the lower court punished it for outperforming competitors and building a dominant product, calling the liability finding a fundamental antitrust error. Google said its distribution agreements, including a default search deal with Apple, were won fairly and did not prevent rivals from offering better terms or stop device makers and browser developers from promoting alternative search services. Google also argued there was no evidence partners would have chosen competitors absent the agreements, citing trial evidence that Apple viewed rivals such as Bing as inferior.

"Google asked the appeals court to completely overturn the remedies imposed by the lower court, which mandated that Google share specific search index data, user-interaction information, and syndicate results with competitors to level the playing field."

"Google again argued that its success and dominant market position are the result of developing a superior product through hard work, bold innovation, and shrewd business decisions rather than anticompetitive behavior. It asserts that the district court made "as basic an error of antitrust law as a court can make" by finding liability despite recognizing Google's product quality."

"Google emphasized that its multi-billion-dollar distribution agreements, such as its deal with Apple to be the default search engine on Safari, were won "fair and square." Google argues that these agreements did not block rivals from proposing better offers, nor did they restrict device manufacturers and browser developers from promoting alternative search services."

"Google also contended that there is no evidence or finding that partners like Apple or Mozilla would have selected a competitor's search engine even if the revenue-sharing agreements did not exist. The brief cites evidence from the trial highlighting that Apple explicitly viewed rivals like Microsoft's Bing as "inferior.""

Read at Search Engine Roundtable