Within the Internet giant Google, antitrust has always been a taboo. Over the years, whether it’s company meetings, intranet forums or work emails, Google’s management and employees have deliberately avoided topics and discussions in this regard, and can never use such expressions as “crush”, “kill” and “block” competitors. Clearly, Google is trying to prevent it from becoming court evidence in the event of future investigations. < / P > < p > the same thing happens inside Intel, a chip giant. Even when it comes to market share, it will be replaced by market segment share. In fact, the leading giants in every industry will bear the pressure of antitrust. Intel is like this, so is Google. Since becoming the Internet search giant, Google has always hung the antitrust sword of Damocles. In 2008, the search advertising cooperation negotiated by Google and Yahoo was directly rejected by the Ministry of justice. In the plex, Steven levy wrote that as early as 2006, then Google CEO Schmidt realized that the company would inevitably face the threat of antitrust in the future. In public, he repeatedly stressed that Google’s share of the global advertising market is only 1%, trying to put Google into the global advertising market (even not online advertising market) to discuss regulation, downplaying that Google did not gain a dominant market advantage, but never mentioned Google’s nearly 70% share in the online search market. Within the company, Schmidt is constantly emphasizing the importance of keeping away from the antitrust high-voltage lines. Schmidt is well aware of the power of the antitrust stick. In the late 1990s, as a direct competitor of Microsoft (Sun president and Novell CEO successively), Schmidt actively lobbied the Clinton administration to launch an anti-monopoly investigation on Microsoft, and filed a lawsuit against Microsoft’s use of the dominant advantage of windows to suppress its competitors. Microsoft was nearly forced to break up, and Gates left in dismay. Even today, more than 20 years later, gates still regrets that he was too young to take government antitrust litigation seriously. However, Schmidt’s worries have come. Google’s first antitrust investigation by the U.S. government was in 2010. In turn, Christine valney, who once sued Microsoft on behalf of Netscape, became the antitrust Commissioner of the Obama administration and began to target the antitrust investigation on Google. In 2011, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of the Obama administration launched an investigation into Google for nearly two years, believing that Google was suspected of bias in search results for its own services and products. < / P > < p > with the lessons learned from Microsoft and gates, Schmidt is faced with a big enemy. In the nearly two years since the FTC launched its investigation, Google has hired as many as 25 lobbyists to move up and down Washington, D.C. In 2012, Google became the technology company with the largest investment in political lobbying in the United States, and this “throne” has been maintained until now by investing tens of millions of dollars a year. Schmidt not only visited important members of Congress in Washington, D.C., but also actively participated in Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign to boost his momentum. During his eight years in office, Obama has always maintained a good relationship with the Internet giants in Silicon Valley. In addition, Google has also engaged in some covert and indirect lobbying measures: they hire senior consultants who may influence FTC, sponsor influential think tank scholars, and fund academic research projects of universities. At the direct request of Google’s funding, these think tanks and universities either publicly express their views against bringing an anti-monopoly lawsuit against Google, or invite politicians and legislators to participate in their own internet forums, imperceptibly sending the message that Google should not be punished. In 2012, Google even drafted an invitation for the Internet Forum at George Mason University. During the congressional hearing at the end of 2011, Schmidt constantly stressed that Google has brought economic and entrepreneurial opportunities to small and medium-sized enterprises in the United States. He publicly accused the so-called preference for its own products, which was totally frustrated competitors. He also named and listed Microsoft, yelp, Expedia and other competitors. Under Schmidt’s multi pronged role, just after Obama’s re-election in January 2013, the U.S. government announced that it would not take further litigation measures against Google. Google escaped a regulatory catastrophe unscathed. < p > < p > nearly ten years later, Google is once again standing in front of the edge of antitrust. The Justice Department of the trump administration has launched a 14 month antitrust investigation into Google to determine whether Google has hindered market competition in search and advertising. But this time, I’m afraid it will be very difficult for Google to retreat. Of the four big tech giants under investigation, Google is in the most dangerous position: antitrust litigation is just around the corner, and if not split up, it will almost certainly hurt. < p > < p > over the past decade, Google’s advantages in the U.S. Internet market have been further expanded. Today, Google has more than 90% of the Internet search market, more than 80% of the mobile operating system market, and more than 70% of the web browser, map, video and other segmentation services. Among the four Internet giants under investigation, Google has an overwhelming advantage in its core market compared with Amazon in e-commerce, Facebook in social networking and apple in mobile. Looking around the world, Google also occupies a dominant position in almost every market except China and Russia. < p > < p > Google and Facebook were the main targets of Congress at the four major technology companies’ congressional hearings in July. Legislators from both parties have very different concerns about the two companies: Republicans are more concerned about whether the two platforms are biased in political discourse, while others are more focused on whether the two technology giants are hindering industry competition. Although the two parties have different starting points, they have reached an agreement on how to deal with Google. Last week, the U.S. House antitrust Committee (led by people) released a more than 400 page antitrust investigation report, which clearly stated that the four major technology companies had abused their market position, called on Congress to legislate to split their businesses, and Google’s monopoly in the search field was also highlighted. Judging from the current poll results, it is likely that the two houses of Congress will be controlled next year, which means that they may continue to push forward the current anti-monopoly legislative agenda. According to US media reports, the United States Department of justice has reached a consensus on the Google antitrust case, but there are differences in the progress of the lawsuit. Investigators want to gather more evidence to hold more chances in subsequent antitrust lawsuits, while Attorney General William Barr and others want to sue Google as soon as possible. There is a contradiction between the White House and Google. The current president has been accusing Google of being biased and presenting search results that are not good for itself. The U.S. Department of justice previously divided into two groups to investigate Google: Google’s search business is the focus of antitrust; the other group is investigating Google’s online advertising business. According to the previous definition of natural monopoly in the U.S. antitrust regulations, it is not a monopoly for a company to obtain a dominant market position by relying on its own products and technologies, but it is illegal to use the dominant position to suppress competitors. < / P > < p > in addition to the U.S. Department of justice, there are also more than a dozen state attorneys general who intend to sue Google together, including Texas, Colorado, Iowa and Louisiana. In suing Google about the issue of non dividend States and blue states. Although some companies such as Qualcomm have been involved in FTC antitrust litigation before, considering the market size and influence of Google, this antitrust case will undoubtedly become the most prominent antitrust lawsuit in the United States in the past 20 years after the United States v. Microsoft in 1998. However, according to the normal litigation process and the possible continuous appeal process in the future, it may take four to five or even more time from the US Department of justice to the final sentence. The two sides are more likely to reach a settlement, and Google will accept the government’s request to make major business adjustments, or even spin off part of its business. In 1998, the United States and the United States of America jointly sued three cases after reaching a formal settlement. During this period, Microsoft was ordered to split into two companies by a federal district judge, and then overturned in the court of appeal. < / P > < p > the current anti-monopoly investigation of Internet giants will have a profound impact on the future antitrust legislation process of the United States. The United States was the first to carry out anti-monopoly legislation. As early as 1890, it passed the Sherman Act, which made clear provisions on monopoly. Then, in 1914, it passed the Clayton Act to define price discrimination and hinder competition, thus establishing the Federal Trade Commission. Subsequently, a series of laws were adopted to amend the anti-monopoly law. As mentioned in the investigation report of the US House of Representatives, the basic criterion for judging the antitrust regulation laws in the United States before is to focus on consumers, that is, whether monopoly affects the economic interests of consumers. The investigation report of the US House of Representatives suggests that the Congress should re draft the anti-monopoly law to adapt to the new changes in the Internet era, and change the judgment standard of monopoly to focus on industry competition, that is, whether monopoly affects the innovation of other competitors in the industry. According to the House report, today’s technology companies have become the monopoly power of the oil and railway tycoons. In a sense, today’s apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook can be compared to the big families a century ago: Rockefeller (oil tycoon), Morgan (financial tycoon), Vanderbilt (transportation tycoon) and Carnegie (steel tycoon), all of which occupy unshakable dominant positions in their respective industries. However, compared with the traditional industries where monopoly giants occupy resources and production capacity, the giants in the Internet era dominate data and algorithms. Who controls user data controls the market. < / P > < p > today’s user data has greater value than previously unsustainable physical assets. Moreover, the data is sustainable. Users will continuously generate new data when using the product. A large number of data continue to promote the algorithm improvement, and continue to expand the dominant advantages of the giants. Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook are also giants in the field of AI. They control the user’s network access, and control almost all the data of users’ social contact, consumption, shopping, hobbies and so on. < p > < p > in the past century’s antitrust litigation in the United States, several monopoly giants were forcibly split up, including: in 1911, standard oil company of Rockefeller family was divided into 34 companies, and now mobil oil company is one of them; in 1945, Alcoa was forcibly divided after eight years of litigation, and now Alcoa is one of them; in 1984, standard oil company of Rockefeller family was divided into 34 companies After 12 years of antitrust litigation, at & T, a telecoms giant, finally split into eight subsidiaries (one long-distance telephone company and seven)