Google ruled an illegal monopoly, ordered to fix it, allowed to keep the fix a secret

…(cont) So today the paper says the judge ruled Google doesn't have to break up that business — the AdX exchange. The Department of Justice wanted it sold off. That's what they asked for. Denied. And in the same story, near as I can tell the same breath, the paper says the judge ordered Google to "address antitrust issues" — but didn't say what that means. Address them how. What measures. That's the word I keep circling.

I've got a garage at home, half of it's my wife's gardening stuff, half's mine, and the toolbox in there has got a drawer that sticks. I know it sticks. My mechanic knows it sticks. If I brought him that toolbox and said "there's an issue with the drawer, please address it," and he nodded, took it, handed it back a week later — same drawer, still sticks, but he tells me "I addressed it" — I'd want the invoice. I'd want to see what he actually turned a wrench on. That's not me being difficult. For a twenty-dollar drawer, fine, I trust the guy, no invoice needed. But this is a company a federal judge already found, in writing, running an illegal monopoly over an entire industry. That's a bigger toolbox.

I had my nephew look it up — he's better with the computer than I am — to see if the remedy got attached anywhere. A schedule. An order. Anything with a number on it, a date, a page. Nothing. Just the two rulings sitting there side by side: monopoly, illegal, last year. Measures, address, undisclosed, this week.

The Times had a headline on it too — called it a big win. I read that twice, because I wasn't sure which side won. The Department of Justice wanted the exchange sold off. Judge said no. Company keeps running the exchange the judge already said was run illegally. Somebody's calling that a win. The paper says who. I just wrote it down and put a question mark after it, because I like to see it stated somewhere before I believe it, and there it was — stated.

I'm gonna go check on the Malibu — that belt's been squealing since Tuesday, and my guy says he'll "look into it," which I've come to understand means one thing in his mouth and another thing in mine. Say — before I forget — one more thing, since I've got the notebook open anyway. A judge writes "illegal monopoly" in one ruling, one year. A judge writes "must address antitrust issues" in the next ruling, the next year, no measures attached. So what are the measures? The page doesn't say. I checked twice.