The US wants to break Google and Meta. This can be difficult.

Last time the courts severely weighed the intelligence of breaking a huge technology company, when Microsoft was found illegally stable competition in individual computer software.

A federal district court judge said yes to force Microsoft to divide into two, separating its monopoly Windows operating system from your office productivity products and other software. But an appeal court excluded this order, a breakup option “a measure that is only imposed with great caution, because its long -term efficacy is rarely certain.”

This month, in a pair of landmark proceedings in the Washington Court room this month, the issue of breaking a large technology company will be again on the judicial table.

In an antitrust test starting on Monday, the Federal Trade Commission argued that Meta maintained an illegal monopoly on social media through the acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp. The agency wants to force Mata to divide both. In a separate proceedings next week, a federal judge heard arguments from the Department of Justice as to why the court should break Google to remove the company’s monopoly in internet search.

“Dewistcher can be a completely acceptable measure, which depends on the severity of loss,” a law professor of a law of George Washington University and former president of FTC said, “a law professor and former president of FTC, a law professor and former FTC chairman William Kosik, said” but it could be a risky surgery. “

For generations, the courts have once been found to be a major company engaged in anti -incompatible behavior, once the courts have faced the courts to take action in the major antitrust cases. In the Supreme Court’s decision of 1947, Justice Robert H. Jackson recalled that if the court solution did not open the market for competition, the government would “win a case and have lost a reason.”

But when the decision of a court is based on investigating the facts in the past, the future is visible to the future. The goal is to free the markets rather than hobby – and create a competitive environment resulting in more new ideas, new companies, more innovation and low prices.

The challenge is taking new importance as regulators make a big push to curb technical giants, which object to communication, commerce and information with them.

In a separate trial against Google, the Department of Justice is awaiting the decision of a judge on the company’s dominance in advertising technology. The department has also filed a lawsuit on its strategy on Apple for the protection of its attractive iPhone franchise. FTC has sued Amazon, saying that the company illegally gave up its monopoly in online retailing from competition.

This wave of antitrust litigation, including the appeal, is likely to last for years. And if the government wins any of its cases, a judge can order a breakup-the result of the worst situation for the competers.

History suggests that these orders may be effective, the antitrust experts said. But the results of improving competition have been added.

John D in 1870. An energy legendary standard oil founded by the rockfeller was a defined case of the trustebsting era, progressive, at the end of the 19th century and the late 20th century. The company was Broke by Supreme Court In 1911, it was divided into 34 institutions, which formed the original standard oil trust, which controlled the production, refinement, distribution and pricing of the oil industry. While initially helped competition, over time the descendants of the trust became their own oil giants, including Exone Mobil, Chevron, and Konocophilips.

At a disposal in 1982, the AT&T breakup suit a long antitrust suit by the Department of Justice, accusing the company of illegally monopolizing the telecom market in the US. The local phone business was divided into seven regional “baby bell” companies, and the order opened long -range phone and telephone equipment markets, increased competition and reduced prices.

In the antitrust jargon, such a “structural” solution generally means a breakup. But there are Steps less than a forced sales It can shape the markets and stimulate competition, the antitrust experts said.

In 1969, under the pressure of a government antitrust suit, accused of monopolizing its day’s computer market, the IBM disconnected its hardware from the software – they are considered, sold and independently priced. Software will no longer be “free” involved in computer price. This helped ignite the rise of the commercial software industry as the largest winner with Microsoft.

Microsoft avoided a breakup, but in 2001 its final disposal was a prohibition against contracts that essentially used their Windows monopoly as a club, restricting to individual computer manufacturers from distributing the software of upstart rivals to individual computer manufacturers. That restraint kept the door open for browser software and new competition in search. Google was the main beneficiary.

“He was a strong measure without a breakup, which created more competition,” said Fiona Scott Morton at the Economics of Yale University School of Management.

The next powerful technical companies facing the investigation of the court room are Mata and Google.

On Monday, FTC and Meta, East Facebook, presented their initial statements in the US district court for Columbia district. The company’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stand. The essence of the government’s case is that Facebook had overpaded for more than a decade for Instagram and WhatsApp for more than a decade to kill him to protect an attractive monopoly in social networking.

Meta replied that Instagram and WhatsApp grew up in their own ownership and were fluffy. And, the company argued, there is a lot of competition in the social networking market, including the rise of Tiktok.

Whether the government should win the meta case, potential therapeutic steps, antitrust experts said, there will be a court order to sell Instagram and WhatsApp.

Next week in the same Washington Court, Google has faced measures in the case by the Department of Justice and a group of states on its internet search monopoly. In August, Judge Amit P. Mehta found that Google illegally maintained a discovery monopoly.

To restore the competition, the government asked the court to order Google to sell Chrome, its popular web browser, and either spin Android, its smartphone operating system, or stop their services on Android phones. Chrome and Android are powerful distribution channels for Google search.

Google has described the government’s list as a “wild overboard proposal” which is “miles away from the court’s decision” and this will harm consumers by offering inferior products to consumers. The company has also said that it will appeal.

Professor Tim Wu, a law at the University of Columbia, who was a White House advisor on technology and competition policy in Biden administration, supports the breakup in Google and Meta matters.

“If you want to shake the pot, the structural solutions are clean and essentially self-composed-you break it and walk away,” he said. (Sri Wu writes for the Opinion section of the New York Times.)

But any breakup order will be appealed, and the High Court today echoes the suspicion of the Microsoft era.

In a rare unanimous judgment in 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the National Collegiate Athletic Association could not use its market power to prevent payment to student-athletes. This was essentially a wage value-term case, it was completely fixed for the plaintiff.

Still Justice Neel M. Gorsach, writing to the court, digested to create a broad point about judicial restraint in antitrust cases.

“In short,” he wrote, “Judges make the poor ‘central planners’ and they should never aspire for the role.”