Like most of the rest of his frontbench, Andy Burnham has never had a proper job outside politics. No wonder his policy agenda – the little we know of it – is so unbearably light, says Madeleine Gillies.
The post The Unbearable Lightness of Being Andy Burnham appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
© Nick Rohlman/The Gazette, via Associated Press
Swiss authorities have launched a pilot project to determine whether it is possible to replace Microsoft 365 with similar open-source services, RTS reports. This follows a proof-of-concept project in which 172 civil servants tested the German open-source platform openDesk.
According to Matthias Stürmer, a professor at the University of Bern, there are three main reasons for the switch: to reduce dependence on US services, to improve operational reliability, and to reduce costs.
In the first phase, the migration involves 3,000 computers, which corresponds to 7% of Switzerland’s federal workforce. The government has more than 54,000 workstations in operation. The pilot will prioritize employees who have access to highly sensitive data, according to RTS.
A move by the Swiss Armed Forces from Microsoft 365 to openDesk is already underway, with that migration expected to be completed in October, It’s FOSS reports.
Switzerland’s move is part of a larger ‘digital sovereignty’ effort in the European Union that aims to retain local control over data, applications, and infrastructure. In January, lawmakers directed the European Commission to map critical technology dependencies and then develop policies to reduce reliance on foreign providers.
This article originally appeared on Computer Sweden.
More on the EU’s digital sovereignty push:
Back in April 2025, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) proudly proclaimed that it had prevailed in a landmark antitrust case against Google’s ad business. Yeah. Right.
You see, just last week, US District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema rejected the DoJ’s effort to force Google to sell its AdX ad exchange. What began as a major anti-monopoly victory has become a mouse-sized settlement.
Does any of this this sound familiar? It should. We’ve seen this show before. Last year, Google had also been convicted of abusing its search business. At first, all the talk was about how Google might be forced to divest itself of the Chrome browser and/or the Android operating system.
Instead, Google was allowed to keep making search deals and only had to share some search data with its rivals.
I say rivals, but in fact Google still dominates the search market. Indeed, its control has actually expanded a bit. By StatCounter’s numbers, in August 2025, Google search owned 89.89% of the market. By last month, almost a year after the company had been slapped on the wrist, its share had grown to 91.1%.
Boy, wasn’t that a win?
The remedies phase of the government’s ad-tech antitrust case order is a similar Google win. No, it doesn’t overturn the April 2025 finding that Google unlawfully maintained monopolies in the publisher ad-server and ad-exchange markets, or that it illegally tied its ad server and exchange together. Instead, it determines how the company must change its conduct.
The DoJ wanted Google to divest itself of AdX, the company’s ad exchange for matching publisher inventory with advertiser demand. It also sought to require Google to open-source the final-auction logic in its DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) ad server and, if necessary, divest its DFP business.
Brinkema rejected all three requests. Instead, her short order accepts “most” of the parties’ proposed behavioral remedies, subject to modifications described in a memorandum opinion that remains sealed while the parties identify confidential information for redaction.
Specifically, the court directed Google and the plaintiffs to meet and submit a joint proposed final judgment within 30 days. If they cannot agree on the details, each side must submit its own proposed version.
Google — as it should — sees this as a win. As Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said in a statement, “We’re very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ’s proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow.”
Far less convincing is the DOJ’s characterizing the decision as a win. “The Antitrust Division is pleased that the court ordered substantial relief in the Google ad-tech case. We are one step closer to restoring competition and bringing relief for the American people in online advertising markets.”
Oh please! It does nothing of the sort.
To quote Laurel Kilgour, research manager at the American Economic Liberties Project, an anti-monopoly, nonprofit group: “Judges keep finding Google guilty, but Google keeps walking away with both its ill-gotten gains and its empire intact. Without actual structural remedies, antitrust rulings are just inconvenient speed bumps that allow Google to lock down search and ad tech markets today while using that same unchecked power to monopolize tomorrow’s AI frontier.”
Exactly so.
The specific obligations Google will face are not yet public, because Brinkema’s explanatory opinion remains under seal. Earlier, Google had proposed making real-time bidding responses from AdX available to rival ad servers, removing Unified Pricing Rules, and accepting a monitoring trustee for a three-year supervision period. None of that will even dent Google’s ad business.
When all’s said and done, Google is still in charge of both its exchange and publisher ad-server operations. I expect the minor changes required won’t amount to a hill of beans. Restoring competition in markets where the company was found to have used its vertically integrated position unlawfully? Give me a break.
Public Knowledge, a free speech and internet advocacy group, described the decision as one that leaves Google’s monopoly power substantially intact.
As Public Knowledge Legal Director John Bergmayer said, “The court found that Google illegally acquired and maintained monopolies in publisher ad servers and ad exchanges, and used its control of DFP and AdX to shut out rivals.” He concluded, “Telling a monopolist to do better is not the same as restoring competition.… A finding of liability means little if the remedy leaves the market fundamentally unchanged.”
Ya think?
In Google’s last reported quarter, the company reported $81.6 billion in advertising revenue. Next year, when Google is being “punished,” I expect its revenue will be even higher.
Google’s dominance in the search arena has given rise to two major antitrust lawsuits from the US government alleging the company has manipulated the market to maintain that dominance, to the exclusion of competitors and the detriment of the public at large.
The first lawsuit, targeting Google’s search business, kicked off in mid-September 2023 and drew to a close in May 2024; US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled against the tech giant in August 2024. The remedy phase of the trial ended in September 2025 with Judge Mehta rejecting the DOJ’s request to break up the company, instead imposing data-sharing requirements.
The second trial against the tech giant, focused on advertising, took place over 15 days in September 2024, with US District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruling against Google in April 2025. In September 2026, Judge Brinkema ruled that Google is not required to break off its ad exchange, instead opting for behavioral changes that have yet to be revealed publicly.
The cases heavily echo the turn-of-the-century Microsoft antitrust case in several respects, most notably that Google, like Microsoft before it, has evaded the forced breakup requested by regulators.
Here’s our condensed timeline of the two overlapping lawsuits and their progress through the court system.
Sep. 2, 2026, advertising lawsuit: In a second big win for Google, Judge Brinkema rules that the company does not have to sell its AdX ad exchange. The search giant is also not required to open-source the final-auction logic in its DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) ad server or divest its DFP business. Behavioral remedies are sealed while the parties identify confidential information for redaction.
Sep. 2, 2025, search lawsuit: In a significant win for Google, Judge Mehta rules that the tech giant does not have to divest its Chrome and Android businesses as the US government had requested, and it will be allowed to continue paying Apple and other browser makers for default search placement. To level the competitive playing field, Google will have to share search index and user-interaction data with rivals and offer search results syndication.
April 21, 2025, search: The remedy phase of Google’s search antitrust trial begins with Judge Mehta presiding. Federal prosecutors warn that Google might leverage artificial intelligence to entrench its search monopoly, demanding “strong measures” to prevent the tech giant from extending its market control into the AI era. These include requiring Google to divest Chrome, end exclusive default search agreements, license its search data to competitors, and potentially sell its Android operating system if other remedies fail.
April 17, 2025, advertising: In a second landmark defeat for Google, Judge Brinkema rules that Google illegally monopolized the ad tech market. The company’s “exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,” she wrote in the ruling. Remedies, which could include the breakup of Google’s advertising products and/or changes to its business practices, will be imposed at a future date.
Oct. 8, 2024, search: The US Department of Justice submits a court filing proposing that the Chrome browser and Android operating system be split off from Google as part of sweeping remedies aimed at curbing the tech giant’s monopoly in online search and advertising.
Sept. 20, 2024, advertising: The US Department of Justice is set to wrap its case in the Google antitrust trial after an eventful two weeks. The tech giant is accused of engaging in monopolistic behavior by strategically acquiring certain companies and controlling the adtech industry’s most widely-used tools and exchanges, beginning with its acquisition of advertising company DoubleClick in 2008.
Sept. 9, 2024, advertising: The second major case against Google begins with the company defending itself against claims it engaged in illegal behavior to maintain control of the ad tech market. The US government is accusing Google of purposefully manipulating that market, snuffing out competitors and gobbling up key technologies through acquisitions. If the DoJ successfully makes its case, Google risks being broken up by regulators.
Aug. 5, 2024, search: In a major defeat for Google, Judge Amit Mehta rules that the company had engaged in anticompetitive behavior in an effort to protect its search business. In the 277-page decision, Mehta was blunt: “After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.” Mehta’s ruling did not include remedies for the anticompetitive behavior; those will be decided later.
May 3, 2024, search: Over two days of closing arguments, the DoJ revisits its case for Google having a monopoly on search advertising, and Judge Mehta quizzes both parties about whether other platforms could be viewed as substitutes for Google’s search advertising business. He hasn’t said how long he expects to take to reach a decision, but if he rules against Google, a second hearing will take place to decide on any remedies.
Nov. 16, 2023, search: The evidentiary phase of the trial finishes, as Judge Mehta issues instructions for post-trial submissions. Despite considerable amounts of redaction and closed-door testimony, the case revealed some unprecedented details about the relationships between the largest tech companies in the world, including the fact that Apple apparently keeps 36% of the search revenue from Google searches in Safari, and Apple once considered buying Microsoft’s Bing search engine as leverage against Google. Judge Mehta has scheduled closing arguments in the case for May 1, 2024.
Oct. 31, 2023, search: Google CEO Sundai Pichai takes the stand, for long-awaited testimony about the relationship between his company and Apple. He gave some details about Google’s negotiations with Apple over a contract that made Google the default search engine on Apple’s iPhones, iPads, and Macs. Google has paid billions for the privilege of being the default search on Apple products, and the relationship is a key part of the case – which was underlined by the Justice Department’s cross-examination of Pichai, during which he admitted that default search status is a major driver of market share.
Oct. 18, 2023, search: Google begins its defense, calling Paul Nayak, a vice president of search, to the stand as its first witness. Nayak downplays the importance of scale in his testimony, stressing that machine intelligence, compute infrastructure, and a team of 16,000 staff that checks on search results are crucial to maintaining quality of service. DOJ witnesses including DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella had testified that Google keeps an edge over competitors via an ever-increasing trove of data — the result of its default search engine status, maintained through exclusive contracts and billions of dollars in payments to Apple, Samsung and other companies. This data gives Google an advantage in refining search engine results, they said.
Oct. 3, 2023, search: As a witness for the prosecution in the Google antitrust trial, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella warns that Google’s monopoly profits could lock in publishers as AI-enabled search arrives. Nadella argued that it’s almost impossible to compete with Google, given the search leader’s massive competitive edge in collecting and analyzing user data. He also warned that Google, with its vast profits and lock on the search market, stands poised to extend its monopoly power in a new era where artificial intelligence technologies will turbocharge the search business.
Sept. 26, 2023, search: Apple’s Eddy Cue testifies behind closed doors in the Google search case, as critics slam presiding Judge Amit Mehta’s decision to hold much of the trial’s testimony from witnesses secret, allow documents to be heavily redacted, and block some documents from public view — mainly at the insistence of Google, but also at the request of other companies, including Apple. By the end of Cue’s testimony — and after a wek of wrangling by all parties — Judge Mehta rules that documents used during the trial can be published online at the end of each day, but still allows time Google and third parties to object to exhibits being shown publicly before the DOJ presents them in court.
Sept. 21, 2023, search: Judge Mehta rules that public access to court exhibits, which have been mostly internal Google documents thus far, should be removed, after Google challenged the Justice Department’s regular publication of them. The company said that it was concerned for its employees’ privacy.
Sept. 12, 2023, search: The default search trial begins with opening statements, and the government begins its case.
Aug. 2023, search: Judge Mehta grants partial summary judgment for Google in the search case, saying that the government had failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact on antitrust charges relating to contracts around the use of the Android operating system, as well as Google Assistant and IoT devices. The claims relating to Google’s exclusive “default search” contracts, however, are allowed to proceed to trial.
July/Aug. 2023, search: Google and the plaintiffs in the search case argue various motions in limine, designed to control what evidence should be included or excluded in the actual trial. Discovery and motion practice over evidence continues in the advertising case.
June 2023, search: Judge Mehta schedules a trial date of September 12, 2023 for the search case.
April 2023, advertising: Judge Leonie M. Brinkema denies Google’s motion to dismiss in the advertising case.
March 2023, advertising: Google’s motion to transfer the advertising case to New York is denied by Judge Brinkema, who orders the parties to propose discovery schedules within two weeks of the order. Two weeks later, Google moves to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim, arguing that the plaintiffs have simply produced legal conclusions, and not specific facts, that could support their claims. Judge Brinkema schedules pre-trial conferences for January 2024.
Feb. 2023, search: The plaintiffs in the default search case case move for sanctions against Google, accusing it of spoliation, which refers to the destruction, alteration or failure to preserve relevant evidence in a case. Elsewhere, in the advertising case, Google moves to transfer the case from the Eastern District of Virginia to the Southern District of New York, which is seen as an attempt to consolidate the case with related digital advertising antitrust litigation.
Jan. 2023, advertising: A second antitrust action, pushed by eight states and the DoJ, is filed in federal district court in eastern Virginia. The plaintiffs, who call for Google’s advertising business to be split up, accuse Google of manipulating its dominant position in the online advertising world to squeeze out rivals and control both the supply and demand side of the advertising market. Google, according to the complaint, thwarted fair competition by manipulating fees, punished advertisers for using alternative platforms and ad exchanges, and engaged in a host of further anti-competitive behavior in the interest of monopolizing the marketplace. (This is case that began in September 2024.)
Dec. 2022, search: Google moves for summary judgment against the separate Colorado case and the larger, DoJ-led case. A summary judgement motion is essentially a request by one of the parties in a lawsuit that the judge rule in their favor and end the case, arguing that, based on the undisputed facts, they are entitled to win the case as a matter of law.
May 2022, search: A deadline of June 17 is set for the production of all discovery materials. Further documents – for example, those whose is existence is first disclosed in late in the discovery window – can be produced until June 30.
May 2022, search: Judge Mehta denies a government motion to sanction Google for inaccurately classifying documents as attorney-client privileged. The plaintiffs had argued that emails on which Google’s lawyers were listed as recipients or CCed, but that the lawyers never responded to, constituted a misuse of the attorney-client privilege rules.
Dec. 2021, search: Judge Mehta conditionally splits Colorado’s claims from the case at large, ordering that separate trials on that state’s issues of liability and remedies will be “more convenient for the Court and the Parties, and will expedite and economize this litigation.”
Aug.-Oct. 2021, search: Discovery-related motions and orders continue, as Yelp and Samsung join the fray. (Those companies, like Microsoft and Apple, are relevant to the case even if they aren’t parties themselves, as their internal records are potentially relevant to Google’s liability.)
June/July 2021, search: The discovery process continues, and the US and Google both file several documents with the court under seal. (Microsoft files two sealed documents, as well, in response to Google’s subpoenas for company records, and Apple becomes involved after the government requests access to some of its internal information.)
March 2021, search: Meetings between Google and the various governmental plaintiffs continue, with periodic status reports on the discovery process.
Jan. 2021, search: Google files a response to the complaint, admitting to many of the facts alleged by the Justice Department and associated attorneys general, but categorically denying the substance of the government’s claims of illegality. Further responses to separate but related claims, generally to specific state attorneys general, follow in the subsequent weeks and months.
Dec. 2020, search: Judge Amit Mehta approves the joinder of Michigan, Wisconsin and California to the suit.
Oct. 2020, search: The Department of Justice, along with the attorneys general of 11 states, sues Google in DC federal district court for unlawfully maintaining a monopoly, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The case centers on Google’s use of exclusive contracts that mandate its use as the default search engine in a host of different hardware and software applications, with the government alleging that this represents an artificial constraint on any possible competition for the search giant.
© George Frey/Getty Images
© Maryorin Mendez/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
© Clayton Steward for The New York Times
© The New York Times
Trade talks between the US and Canada broke down last week, leading to a wave of tariffs and retaliatory tariffs. US President Donald Trump also fell back on an old favorite to needle his opponents, signing an executive order on Thursday to rename Lake Ontario to "Lake America."
The body of water, which straddles the US-Canada border, gave its name to the Canadian province rather than the other way around. Regardless, the US government now refers to this great lake as Lake America—or it will soon. Official US government maps have yet to be updated, but Google wasted no time adopting the new, Trumpian name.
Google began rolling out this change for US users on Saturday. The company posted a brief update on its Google Maps blog, noting that it follows the US Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) for its maps, so the company implies it had no choice but to rename Lake Ontario in Google Maps, which is the most popular mapping platform in the US by a wide margin.
© Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York Times
© Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York Times
Login