• by Laurie Sullivan , Staff Writer @lauriesullivan, Yesterday

A California friend and I exchanged text messages this morning. She wanted to know what type of coffeemaker I used the last time she and her husband came to visit at my home in Wyoming.

At the time, I told her I just had a Keurig, mostly for tea, but since then I have added a Nespresso for iced almond milk lattes. Then I went back and read her question again -- and saw the "411." And I thought to myself, what generation would not know the meaning of 411?

Technology changes quickly, and that is one of the most common phrases I hear today. And I said to myself, because I think a lot, it changes faster than you think. Just look at search engines.

A few years before Google, Lycos and Yahoo were probably two of the early search engines I used in the mid-1990s while working in the art department at the computer distributor Micro D, pasting up copy and art for printed advertisements in magazines and catalogs.   

Now, we are on the brink of a possible breakup of one very popular and iconic brand at the start of a sweeping change that will forever change search.

A federal judge nine months ago, a federal judge ruled that Google has a monopoly in the search engine market. Today the company is back in court for closing arguments in the final phase of this trial.

The Department of Justice has presented aggressive remedies to U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who will ultimately decide the fate of the company.  

The government’s case originally focused on search, but it moved to artificial intelligence (AI)-based search, which has become a very competitive field.

Lawyers for the DOJ have had discussions about how Google's AI development might impact competition in the future. It initially proposed remedies that would have required it to divest its AI investments and forgo future investments in AI companies.

The Associated Press reported that Google’s lawyers said only minor concessions are needed, especially because of advances in AI have already begun to reshape search.

“We’re not looking to kneecap Google,” the judge told the courtroom, AP reported. Rather, the goal is to “kickstart” competitors’ ability to challenge Google’s dominance.

Mehta reportedly said in court Friday that he remains undecided on how much AI’s potential to shake up the search market should be incorporated in his forthcoming ruling.

Perhaps he does not understand the full scope of the industry or remember the way search engines eliminated the need to call 411.

Traditional search will one day fold into AI-based search and give consumers much more information than they could have possibly learned from a query box on a blank page or a human operator at the other end of a rotary phone.

Not all are in agreement with the breakup. Developers Alliance Board Chair Jake Ward wrote in an email to MediaPost: “the Google search trial was political theater. It was never about promoting innovation or a more competitive marketplace.”

“A crusade against Google won’t help developers, and claiming that it will is a disservice to the entire innovation economy,” Ward wrote.

The judge plans to take time in the summer to make a decision and issue it prior to Labor Day.