Amit Mehta, district judge for the District of Columbia, issued a brief order on Friday, demanding that Google respond to the Department of justice’s antitrust lawsuit by mid November. Google needs to elaborate on how to deal with the lawsuit, and both sides are about to begin disclosing details of the case. On October 20, U.S. local time, the U.S. Department of justice officially announced a lawsuit against Google, accusing the $1 trillion Technology Company of illegally using its market power to block competitors. This is the largest enforcement action against the power and influence of large technology companies by US regulators in decades. The U.S. Department of Justice accused Google of taking illegal actions to maintain its dominant position in search and search advertising. Google denies any wrongdoing. At a status meeting on Friday, Google Representative John Schmidt lein agreed to inform the District Court of the District of Columbia by November 13 whether the search and advertising giant plans to respond to the case on a summary basis. After a number of disputes between lawyers at the Justice Department and Google, judge metta said the two sides should submit a status report on the protection order by November 6, which would protect third parties such as Google customers who provide evidence to the Justice Department. At the same time, both sides should disclose the potential witnesses and evidence that may be used in the trial before November 20. The next status meeting is scheduled for November 18. Judge metta also disclosed personal connections with Google, including a cousin who worked for Google and a friend who had been an executive at Google. Mr. meta said he didn’t know what role his cousin played at Google. Google declined to confirm the identity of judge metta’s relatives or specify the nature of his work. < / P > < p > when confirming a judge, the judge’s family relationship is sometimes questioned by all parties in the lawsuit. It is not clear whether Google or the Justice Department will try to make judge metta avoid. U.S. law requires that “in any litigation in which the impartiality may be reasonably questioned”, the judge should withdraw. < / P > < p > 1) Google has monopoly rights in three markets: general search service, search text advertising and search advertising. Google may fight back by pushing to expand the scope of these three markets, saying it faces a lot of competition. < / P > < p > 2) Google illegally maintains its market control by using a series of exclusive agreements to block competitors’ search engines. Google may argue that consumers benefit from it. < / P > < p > 3) Google damages the interests of consumers and advertisers, and damages competition and innovation. Google may argue that its products are good enough, and consumers can choose to switch to other search engines. The U.S. Department of justice has yet to specify what remedies it will seek to correct Google’s actions if it wins the case. However, the agency is expected to seek a court order to prevent Google from continuing to reach exclusive agreements with device manufacturers. In addition, the justice department may seek structural solutions, which could amount to splitting Google or forcing divestiture of assets. More Samsung devices can now run Android applications on PC through your phone