Today’s federal court ruling on Google’s antitrust case brought some mixed results. While Judge Amit Mehta decided against breaking up the tech giant or forcing it to sell Chrome, he did mandate that Google share certain search index data and user interaction information with competitors. Many are celebrating this as a win for competition, but I firmly believe that the courts are making a mistake here.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not writing this as some corporate apologist for Google. The company has plenty to answer for, and healthy competition benefits everyone. But requiring Google to hand over the data that powers its search engine feels like forcing a chef to give away their secret recipes to every restaurant in the city.

Think about what search index data actually represents. This isn’t just raw information sitting in a database somewhere. It’s the result of decades of research, billions of dollars in investment, and countless hours of engineering work. Google’s algorithms don’t just magically know which websites are most relevant for your search. They’ve learned this through processing trillions of queries, analyzing user behavior patterns, and constantly refining their understanding of what people actually want when they type something into that search box.

The court’s decision means Google must now share this hard-earned knowledge with competitors who haven’t made the same investments or taken the same risks. Imagine if we told Toyota they had to share their hybrid engine technology with every car manufacturer, or required Netflix to hand over their recommendation algorithms to every streaming service. It sounds absurd when you put it that way, but that’s essentially what we’re asking Google to do.

Competition thrives when companies build better products, not when they’re handed the blueprints to someone else’s success. Microsoft has Bing, DuckDuckGo offers privacy-focused search, and newer players like Perplexity are innovating with AI-powered results. These companies should succeed by creating superior experiences, not by getting a free ride on Google’s research and development.

There’s also a practical problem nobody seems to be talking about. Search algorithms are incredibly complex systems that work because all their pieces fit together perfectly. Handing over chunks of data without the context of how Google’s entire system operates is completely nonsensical. Competitors will likely end up with data they can’t effectively use, while Google’s search quality could suffer if they’re forced to modify their systems to accommodate these requirements.

The privacy implications worry me too. Google’s search data includes patterns about what millions of people are looking for, when they’re searching, and how they interact with results. Even if personal information gets stripped out, sharing this level of behavioral data creates new opportunities for misuse. Do we really want more companies having access to this kind of information about our collective online behavior?

Consider what actually drives innovation in search. Google didn’t become dominant by copying someone else’s homework. They revolutionized how we find information online by developing PageRank, creating faster crawling systems, and building infrastructure that could handle massive scale. Today, they’re continuing to advance search with AI integration and multimodal search capabilities. This kind of breakthrough thinking happens when companies can invest heavily in research and development knowing they’ll benefit from their innovations.

If we start requiring successful tech companies to share their core innovations with competitors, what incentive do they have to keep pushing boundaries? Why would Google invest billions in developing new search technologies if they’ll just have to hand them over to rivals? This approach might create short-term competition, but it could stifle the long-term technological progress that actually benefits consumers.

The ruling does preserve Google’s ability to pay partners like Apple for default search placement, which strikes me as the right balance. These deals happen because Google’s search engine provides value to users. If a competitor builds a better search experience, they should be free to make their own deals and win users based on merit.

Market forces already provide natural checks on Google’s dominance. People switch search engines when they find better alternatives. Businesses use multiple platforms for online marketing. New technologies like voice search and AI assistants are creating fresh opportunities for competition. The market has ways of correcting itself without government intervention that could harm innovation.

I understand the frustration with big tech companies having so much power. There are legitimate concerns about market concentration and barriers to entry. But forcing companies to share their proprietary technology sets a dangerous precedent that could harm America’s competitive advantage in global tech markets. Other countries would love to get access to American innovations through regulatory requirements rather than having to develop competing technologies themselves.

The better path forward involves addressing specific anticompetitive behaviors while preserving incentives for innovation. Break up truly harmful monopolistic practices, ensure fair access to distribution channels, and prevent companies from using one market advantage to unfairly dominate others. But don’t undermine the fundamental principle that companies should benefit from their investments and innovations.

Make no mistake: this data sharing mandate crosses a line that should concern anyone who believes in rewarding innovation. We’re essentially telling one of America’s most successful companies that their decades of research and development now belong to everyone else. That’s not competition but redistribution of intellectual achievement. If we want a thriving tech sector that leads the world, we need to protect the principle that companies earn their advantages through superior work, not government intervention that levels playing fields by penalizing winners.