Apple Defends Google Search Deal in Court: 'There Wasn't a Valid Alternative'

An anonymous reader shares a report: Eddy Cue, in a dark suit, peered down at the monitor in front of him. The screens in the Washington, DC, courtroom had briefly malfunctioned and left witnesses with only binders, but now the tech was up and running -- showing an image of three iPhones, each demonstrating a part of the phone's setup process. Cue squinted down at the screen. "The resolution on this is terrible," he said. "You should get a Mac." That got some laughs in an otherwise staid and quiet courtroom. Judge Amit Mehta, presiding over the case, leaned into his microphone and responded, "If Apple would like to make a donation..." That got even bigger laughs. Then everybody got back down to business. Cue was on the stand as a witness in US v. Google, the landmark antitrust trial over Google's search business. Cue is one of the highest-profile witnesses in the case so far, in part because the deal between Google and Apple -- which makes Google the default search engine on all Apple devices and pays Apple billions of dollars a year -- is central to the US Department of Justice's case against Google. Cue had two messages: Apple believes in protecting its users' privacy, and it also believes in Google. Whether those two statements can be simultaneously true became the question of the day. Apple is in court because of something called the Information Services Agreement, or ISA: a deal that makes Googlea(TM)s search engine the default on Apple's products. The ISA has been in place since 2002, but Cue was responsible for negotiating its current iteration with Google CEO Sundar Pichai in 2016. In testimony today, the Justice Department grilled Cue about the specifics of the deal. When the two sides renegotiated, Cue said on the stand, Apple wanted a higher percentage of the revenue Google made from Apple users it directed toward the search engine. [...] Meagan Bellshaw, a Justice Department lawyer, asked Cue if he would have walked away from the deal if the two sides couldn't agree on a revenue-share figure. Cue said he'd never really considered that an option: "I always felt like it was in Google's best interest, and our best interest, to get a deal done." Cue also argued that the deal was about more than economics and that Apple never seriously considered switching to another provider or building its own search product. "Certainly there wasn't a valid alternative to Google at the time," Cue said. He said there still isn't one.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.