First, Google identifies Neeva and DDG as two market entrants during the alleged monopoly maintenance period. Neeva, it argues, “was able to build and develop a search engine in a relatively short period of time that [Dr. Ramaswamy] believed rivaled Bing and Google with a much smaller venture capital funding.” Closing Arg. Tr. at 59:25–60:3. Also, “DuckDuckGo exists and . . . they believe they compete in the market.” Id. at 60:4-5; see GRFOF ¶ 25 (DDG CEO “Gabriel Weinberg testified that he built, and continues to operate, DuckDuckGo at a fraction of Plaintiffs’ estimated cost.”).
These market entries are not inconsistent with high barriers to entry and Google’s possession of monopoly power. “The fact that entry has occurred does not necessarily preclude the existence of ‘significant’ entry barriers. If the output or capacity of the new entrant is insufficient to take significant business away from the [monopolist], they are unlikely to represent a challenge to the [monopolist’s] market power. Barriers may still be ‘significant’ if the market is unable to correct itself despite the entry of small rivals.” Rebel Oil Co., Inc. v. Atl. Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421, 1440 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); McWane, 783 F.3d at 832 (“Although the limited entry and expansion of a competitor sometimes may cut against such a finding, the evidence of McWane’s overwhelming market share (90%), the large capital outlays required to enter the domestic fittings market, and McWane’s undeniable continued power over domestic fittings prices amount to sufficient evidence” to support the conclusion that McWane had monopoly power.).
The tales of DDG and Neeva illustrate Rebel Oil’s point. Both entered the market notwithstanding Google’s dominance, but neither has “taken significant business” from Google and they therefore have not posed any meaningful threat to its “market power.” DDG, though in operation since 2008, has barely reached a 2% market share. FOF ¶ 25; Surescripts, 665 F. Supp.
162
