Home > Opinion > Editorials

More innovations rather than regulations

Published: 08 Aug. 2024, 20:02

A U.S. federal court has defined internet behemoth Google as an illegal monopolist for abusing its dominant market power to quench the competition in internet searching. The bench sided with the Justice Department that claimed Google violated antitrust laws by paying phone makers multibillion dollars — $20 billion in 2022 alone to Apple — to make them install Google as the default search engine on smartphones. U.S. media called the ruling “a milestone” that can influence other lawsuits related to abusive practices of dominant big-tech companies. If the ruling is upheld in higher courts, Google could end up breaking up or shedding some of its sprawling businesses.

The United States was the first to enact an antitrust law — the Sherman Act of 1890. A country based on liberalism mothered a law to regulate private commerce and business activities to curb abuses of dominant companies and ensure fair trade. The Sherman Act became the basis for court orders to dissolve Standard Oil founded by John Rockefeller and telecommunication giant AT&T. The antitrust suit by the Justice Department forced IBM to outsource its software business, giving rise to Microsoft. The Justice Department 25 years ago also went after MS for its monopolistic abuse with PC operating system Window, forcing the company to share the Windows source code with its competitors. Mobile competitors Apple and Google were able to flourish as a result. The Sherman Antitrust Act helped feed a benign cycle in the evolution of innovations.

Big tech companies symbolizing innovation have now become the locus of concern for interrupting and disrupting competition and innovation. They are accused of violating copyrights with unauthorized use of published materials. The New York Times late last year sued OpenAI and Microsoft for unpermitted use of its articles to train GPT for large language models.

Tech companies that impede with innovative activities must be regulated. But the situation can differ by countries. Of the top 100 digital platforms used worldwide, 80 percent are U.S. names. European origins make up just 2 percent. The Digital Markets Act of the European Union primarily aims to regulate U.S. big-tech encroachment and breed European players.

The complaint with tech majors in Korea mostly centers on their domineering position over vendor or partner companies. The self-employed are crowded in the platform business, making competition fierce. Active market competition can widen choices for consumers and liven up the industry. It is premature to strengthen regulations from the Google event. A regulation in the likes of the EU’s can do more harm than good to the Korean market active with homegrown platforms. Regulation on big players in the digital field is premature as the market still demands more innovations.