#anticompetitive

There were some leaks in regards to the Google Antitrust case and it's nice to finally see this in writing with a section of it:

"One document the company unsuccessfully tried to keep behind closed doors — Judge Amit Mehta made it public — involved a Google vice president bragging about how “addictive” the search giant’s services are, comparing them to tobacco and illicit drugs.

The executive, Michael Roszak, said that means Google is free to “mostly ignore the demand side” — i.e., consumers — in favor of “the supply side of advertisers, ad formats, and sales.” "

-----

Well well well... I wonder what all those naysayers/fanboys that blindly said Google listens and is trying to make the world a better place have to say now. I mean this is pretty sickening stuff. Like being proud of creating an addiction like alcohol and/or tobacco?... No wonder they want to keep this trial as secretive as possible: Because it'll make them look really bad. But I have a strong hunch we'll be seeing more leaks as time goes on. ;)

In any case, I for one am glad that I seen it long ago and only use the bare minimum of their stuff. I also don't adopt anything new (I use the term "new" loosely too because a lot of it is copies/buyouts) that they make because we all know they'll just shut it down later anyway. So I wonder if a lot of people picked up on that because they are no longer getting the widespread support for stuff like they used to. Or maybe people are tired of their crappy services in general and just use the bare minimum as well. Hard to say because there can be a lot of reasons. All I know is that their new stuff doesn't last long because of a lack of adoption and being unable to make profits. Which is good! Bad companies don't deserve to make money.

I guess if you still have to use their "services" and want to try and give them feedback on how to change things for the better, you've gotta throw in something that relates it with money so it has the best chance of not going in the proverbial paper shredder. But even then it's not guaranteed of course as they'll do whatever benefits "them" and not the users they claim to care about publicly while boasting about creating addictions privately.

Please spread the word on this. The more people who see them for who they are the better.

Your thoughts?

It has come to my attention that Adobe has acquired Figma, a tool that I heavily use for graphic design on various aspects (mock-ups, icons, etc.). This raises serious concerns for me, and I cannot continue using Figma.

Adobe already has a competitor to Figma called Adobe XD. Though I've never used this product before, it does seem incredibly weird, if not concerning, that Adobe has acquired Figma while still having XD there. Generally, I try to stay out of conversations pertaining to antitrust and anticompetitive practices (see my current stances regarding Apple and sideloading), but this acquisition rings alarm bells.

Furthermore, I don't pay anything to Figma because the free plan does exactly what I need. I'm afraid that, in the future, Adobe will forcibly put Figma under their Creative Cloud subscription, which I have been vehemently avoiding. That is, if Figma still exists; there is also the concerning possibility that Adobe kills Figma to promote their product instead.

As it stands, I'm moving my project files off Figma and looking elsewhere. I am heavily considering using Affinity Designer instead, as I have had great experiences with the Affinity product line on both iPad and Mac (and heck, even Windows). I also have tried Designer before, and the software was solid.

sabrina ballet (Reuters) – Pfizer filed a second lawsuit on Monday accusing Danish drugmaker Novo Nordisk of planning its $9 billion bid for Messera to delay the biotech company’s entry into the obesity treatment market rather than completing a deal. Novo and Metsera on Monday rejected Pfizer’s claims, dramatically escalating the fight for control of the biotech startup. A judge is scheduled to…

Elon Musk’s X and xAI filed a lawsuit towards Apple and OpenAI on Monday, alleging that the 2 corporations are colluding to stifle competitors. “In a determined bid to guard its smartphone monopoly, Apple has joined forces with the corporate that the majority advantages from inhibiting competitors and innovation in AI: OpenAI, a monopolist available in the market for generative AI chatbots,” the…

Privateness-focused software program supplier Proton, makers of Proton Mail, Proton Calendar, Proton Drive, and different apps, has sued Apple, alleging anticompetitive practices in Apple’s App Retailer. Within the new lawsuit, Proton says the iPhone maker holds a monopoly within the smartphone, app distribution, and app cost processing markets. It additionally compares Apple’s charges to tariffs…

At first blush, that might seem counterintuitive. How can preventing a merger lead to greater consolidation?

The answer lies in the third party that played a major role in blowing up the U.S Steel/Nippon Steel deal: Cleveland-Cliffs, the Ohio-based steelmaker that lost to Nippon in the bidding war to buy U.S. Steel.

It is widely assumed that Cleveland-Cliffs will be able to purchase U.S. Steel (probably at a steep discount) if the deal with Nippon does not go through, and that likely explains why Cleveland-Cliffs has lobbied so hard to tank the deal. The company pulled together an unconventional alliance of politically connected allies, including labor unions and environmental groups, to bolster its own significant lobbying efforts.

If Cleveland-Cliffs ends up buying U.S. Steel, it will enjoy a near-monopoly on a variety of steel products produced in America. Combine that with the fact that tariffs and other trade barriers make it more expensive to import steel, and it means steel-consuming industries will have few options for supplying their needs.

That is, of course, exactly what Cleveland-Cliff is counting on. "A Cleveland-Cliffs-U.S. Steel combo would control 100% of U.S. blast furnace production, 100% of domestic steel used in electric-vehicle motors, and 65% to 90% of other domestic steel used in vehicles," wrote The Wall Street Journal's editorial board on January 3. "Cleveland-Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves lobbied the White House to block the Nippon deal because he wants to create a steel-making cartel shielded from foreign competition by tariffs and Buy America rules."

A good deal if you can get it—but an outcome that flies directly in the face of the Biden administration's yearslong campaign against corporate monopolies.

In a lawsuit filed Monday challenging Biden's decision to block the deal, U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel point out that Cleveland-Cliffs' top brass have not exactly been shy about their anticompetitive goals.

A part of the lawsuit alleges that Cleveland-Cliffs' senior vice president of finance told investors that blocking the Nippon deal "would result in 'less competition' and 'one less competitor pushing down prices.'"