Judge in US v. Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine

The judge in question is 51 years old. He’s not old enough to be this clueless about basics like the difference between a search engine and a web browser and popular examples of each.

So we have two options:

1. A 52 year old federal judge is somehow tech illiterate in a way that would imply they have absolutely no idea about the fundamentals of modern technology.

2. A federal judge is asking a large number of extremely basic questions to get their answers on official records so that the cases parameters are clearly defined. He is taking extra care because there's not a lot of direct precedent on these issues.

I'm heavily leaning towards number 2 here. The internet likes to pretend everyone over the age of 40 has no idea how a computer works. The year is 2023. A middle-aged person today was fairly young when computers started to be incorporated into all aspects of society and is well versed in computer literacy. In some ways they are actually much more tech literate than the younger generations. It's almost certain that he knows the difference between Firefox and Google.

I'm disappointed in arstechnica for only supporting their provocative headline (Judge in US v. Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine) with this vagueness in the article:

While Cavanaugh delivered his opening statement, Mehta even appeared briefly confused by some of the references to today's tech, unable to keep straight if Mozilla was a browser or a search engine. He also appeared unclear about how SEM works and struggled to understand the options for Microsoft to promote Bing ads outside of Google's SEM tools.

What did he actually say?!

|unable to keep straight if Mozilla was a browser or a search engine

It is neither. It is a foundation that maintains a browser. It is like asking if Microsoft is a browser or a search engine.

It would be naive to expect Google to be broken by anti-trust laws, just look how microsoft dodged that in the 2000 and went back to the same practices today . this is a circus show

How can anyone make a judgement about something they know nothing about? We are so doomed.

Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine::Google accused DOJ of aiming to force people to use “inferior” search products.

Google search is an inferior search product.

When asked about a perceived ignorance in computers, the judge proclaimed, "I'm not ignorant about computers! In fact, just last week I finished Space Quest, and I'm now getting through Leisure Suit Larry!" The judge's report, written using WordPerfect 5.1, is expected to be released soon.

I'm not surprised at all. Only people who work in IT are aware or care about anything other then the default apps and operating systems.

I really think it's a matter of context; how one was raised, what kind of people one interacts with, interest, etc.

I'm older and i know so much more than most of my age group. I learned a long, long time ago to not be afraid to try things out, my pc is not going to explode; to investigate when i'm stuck with some computer stuff; and i have adult kids who teach me things that i don't know enough about or share their views. Some of the communities i subscribed to are about tech, FOSS, android etc. I'm always really open to boost my knowledge.

So I got to wonder, when that judge goes home at night, does his family, and especially his kids, let him know what everyone is saying about him in relation to this article?

And then I wonder how that affects him going into court the next day, when he has to ask more 'dumb' questions, does he actually ask or not.

The people making decisions often don't know shit about what they're deciding. I used to wonder why huge companies with a shitload of cash make horrible decisions for their products. Hint: It's not because they hire bad engineers.

I feel like most average people (regardless of age) don't even know alternatives to internet browsers exist, so why would I expect a judge to know? They're obviously not experts in every field, it's up to the attorneys to inform them and persuade them one way or another.

Are people here unable to see that the layman might not know what Firefox is off-hand?

I don't care, i use Duck.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Today, US District Judge Amit Mehta heard opening statements in the Department of Justice's antitrust case challenging Google's search dominance.

To prove this, the DOJ plans to bring in Hal Varian, who served as Google's chief economist at that time.

William Cavanaugh, a lawyer representing the state of Colorado, also appeared to raise one unique claim still being weighed in this case regarding Google's search engine marketing (SEM) tool SA 360.

During the more than 10-year time period that the case covers, browsers, phones, and search engines all evolved rapidly.

So, on top of weighing complicated antitrust questions, Mehta might also struggle to keep track of basic facts like how search was conducted at any given point in the case's timeline.

While Cavanaugh delivered his opening statement, Mehta even appeared briefly confused by some of the references to today's tech, unable to keep straight if Mozilla was a browser or a search engine.

The original article contains 496 words, the summary contains 153 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

I think the automotive analogy is relevant, some think using technology means they understand it. I’m a pretty good driver, but it would be unwise to ask me to repair your car’s transmission. My grandmother spends more time on her computer glued to Facebook than I spend using my computer on a given day, but I’m not asking her to build my next gaming rig.

Why do they call it Firefox only once in the title but Mozilla in the article? And why do they refer to "Meta" as "Mehta"?

When you have technical cases like this, a good expert witness can explain everything like the judge is five. I like to consider myself tech literate enough to know the basics.

This is about how Google used technology (algorithms) and it's buying power to cement it's monopoly.

From the DoJ's pre-trial brief.

First, Google designed its ad auction algorithms to include adjustable variables (internally known as “pricing knobs”);...Google has also reduced advertisers’ visibility into where and why Google displays ads, impeding advertisers’ ability to optimize advertising and lower costs.....Google knows that a search engine “get[s] better as you have more users” because its quality improves on metrics such as personalization, refinements, and the ability to decipher what the user is searching for “Large-scale machine learning[,]”

Start throwing in technical jargon about how the ad algorithm works, and even the most technical lay person is going to shrug their shoulders and go "I dunno, sounds like magic".

Other expert witnesses will still have to explain how Google fits a monopoly under an economic system, again too many technical jargon and people will shrug their shoulders and go "I dunno, sounds like voodoo."

The reason google is so good is that it has had a monopoly for so long it has all the data.

I think the case is crystal clear even to someone who has no technical knowledge. The question is whether the judge will be swayed by the lobbying power of the Big Tech

It's just one of the pipes in the interweb plumbing system duh. (That's actually a slightly better metaphor than I was going for come to think of it.)

Fuck boomers and Eat The Rich

Why won't these fuckheads just fucking RETIRE already?!?!