If your claim is that the prosecution is making up wild shit, then Google's attorneys should have a field day rebutting it.
This doesn't happen very often.
If your claim is that the prosecution is making up wild shit, then Google's attorneys should have a field day rebutting it.
This doesn't happen very often.
In particular, the linked article mentions 'squashing', and a quick research finds https://www.theregister.com/2010/09/16/yahoo_does_squashing/ where it is mentioned that ads are ranked not by bids, but rather by "bid multiplied by click probability".
In the ideal world, the first question to the auction expert should be "what price is charged, if due to click probability, the second bid ad wins the auction?" and the follow ups would be "but surely, the price charged isn't higher than the bid, or else the advertisers would notice that?" and "supposing the third bid ad wins due to the click probability, how would disabling that multiplying by click probability affect google revenue?"