Slashdot Mirror
Google Antitrust Suit May Go Forward
TechForensics writes "KinderStart, whose page hits and AdSense revenue dropped sharply after changes by Google demoted its appearance in search results, brought suit claiming the search engine effectively suppressed its first amendment rights by lowering the site's visibility. While the Court rejected that argument out-of-hand, it appeared more amenable to KinderStart's argument that since it was a search page, Google's suppression of a rival search engine is prohibited by antitrust laws. The suit may go forward with the judge's commentary."
See no results, hear no complaints.
I think that this whole case is a load of shit. Honestly, I think Google has the fairest ranking system for it's results, compared to MSN or Yahoo! especially. The only reason "KinderStart's" 'ranking' would be decreased, is if less sites linked to it. Well, is their engine really 'all that' if so many less sites linked to them this month, that their Google PageRank value decreased?
NO~, I read Slashdot because I think it's stupid.....
might be dependent upon whether or not Google treated this outfit any differently than the hundreds of millions of other sites out there. If Google changed the rules but applied them to everyone, this is just a case of sour grapes. If Google deliberately shafted what I'm loosely terming "competition" I suppose it would be different, but it sounds like KinderStart just wants to get their rankings back to where they would like them to be and want the court to force Google to do it. I dunno ... like somebody else mentioned the last time this story appeared on Slashdot, if your business model is entirely dependent upon Pagerank then you're putting all your eggs into one very capricious basket.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
How do we tell the difference between "lowering their appearance in search results" and "failing to raise their appearance in search results"?
If google wasn't aware that it was a search engine, but was just treating it like any other site... how could they possibly be expected to do otherwise? It seems like the only way they could have not satisfied this lawsuit would be if they had treated search engines differently from other sites, and I really don't think that's what antitrust law wants.
I notice if you search for "search" on google, the #1 hit is MSN search and the #2 hit is Google. I don't think this suit will survive much further than it has already.
I wouldn't be worried -- it won't go very far. Too many people like Google, and that actually matters. Less importantly, it's a silly lawsuit.
At the same time, I wouldn't consider Google stock a good bet. They make all their real money through advertising, of which some significant fraction is fraud. They are desperately groping around for some other way to make money, but none has shown up yet, despite their having snapped up every bright mind in the tech industry for the last couple years. Google knows as well as anybody that as soon as they start trying to make money by charging for all their free services, there will be an instant public relations backlash. There is nothing that the public hates more than having to pay for something that used to be free. When Google starts cashing in on everything they've built, they a) still won't make more money from it than from search, which is probably tapped out, and b) they will become more hated than AOL.
Was this a deliberate act or can they just not accept that they have less importance in the eyes of the google web crawler/indexer. I believe google uses a "vote" system where every link counts as a vote... as far as I am aware no human is directly involved with this so unless google was being malicious the case should have no grounds.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Pages are ranked by an automatic formula. Unless Google modified their search engine to intentionally lower KinderStart's page, then there is no case. I hope the judge throws them clear out of the courthouse.
This signature was left intentionally blank.
I'm sure if you set up a hamburger stand in Burger King's parking lot they would surely have you removed. They are trying to build their business of a search engine on the back of Google's. No one forces Google down your throat, it just happens to be the #1 search engine. Google's ranking is its "parking lot", a property of Google. Every scumbag website loves to cry when Google delists their deserving ass. Even if you didn't deserve it, it is their search ranking. KinderStart should focus on Yahoo or MSN and watch when they do the same thing as Google. If KinderStart.com had better content, it would rise on its own. Digg or Slashdot didn't jump into the top 10 of sites on the web because of Google, it did it with good content and the search results came after.
Cthulhu Saves.
And never mind that Google, being a private enterprise, can present its results any way it wants (assuming that the claims are accurate), so that there's no grounds for a lawsuit. This whole incident smells frivolous.
...but is it art?
So if I set up a search engine, add it to Google, and it slips down a couple of places, I can sue Google? I don't think so. Sounds like another sue-happy company out to make a quick buck. I hope they get their asses handed to them in court.
...that you're not a monopoly until the first antitrust suit shows up.
and you're not a true monopoly unless you get them big Euro fines.
Today's post was broght to you by the captchka 'losses'
While the Court rejected that argument out-of-hand, it appeared more amenable to KinderStart's argument that since it was a search page, Google's suppression of a rival search engine is prohibited by antitrust laws.
What's next, forcing Wendy's and Burger King to put McDonald's advertising placards in their restaurants?
Why is it that decent, hard-working business owners are regularly subjected to legal harrasment and abuse while real criminals are allowed to walk our streets and engage in unfair business practices willy-nilly?
Any web developer knows that ranking algorithms are fickle. Sometimes sites come out ranked well, sometimes not. Work on improving your content, and use word of mouth or advertising or whatever to get your name out there. This lawsuit is just going to waste everybody's time and money (except the lawyers', of course).
If Google suppressed other search engines, they might have a point. But Google aren't suppressing other search engines, they simply aren't choosing to promote this particular one. The website still exists.
To use an analogy that people might be more familiar with, this isn't like when Netscape complained Microsoft included Internet Explorer with Windows, this would be like if Netscape demanded that Microsoft included Netscape Navigator with Windows.
And the whole idea that Google are doing this purposefully to kill other search engines is ludicrous, given that Google list plenty of real competitors when you search for "search engine". But somehow this tiny search engine nobody has heard of is worse competition than MSN, etc?
They actually claim that their First Amendment rights are being infringed. For those of you completely unfamiliar with the USA constitution, as their attorney apparently is, the First Amendment says:
Last time I checked, Google not including KinderStart in their index is substantially different from Congress making a law.
Remember: freedom of speech is not the freedom to force your speech on others.
KinderStart are either kooks or publicity-whoring barratry artists, the SCO of search engines.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
-William Brendel
This is totally stupid. First, Google is not required to list any website, especially not those of competitors. That would be like suing the yellow pages company for not including a (free!) listing for a competitor's directory. (At least in MA, there are multiple companies selling directories. The phone companies distribute them for free, and then another company, Yellow Book, has started giving them out.) Second, this isn't free speech. Google is free to quash any company it feels like. The Webmaster Guidelines are very clear that anything "evil" won't be tolerated, and could result in delisting of a website. If this site is so great, why don't they buy AdSense ads? Then they can pick the keywords themselves and get whatever rank they want. By the way, 50% of the first two pages of results for "kinderstart" are about the lawsuit. :-b
Does anyone think it's worth Google bombing these guys with some clever phrase, like "sore losers" or "search scammers"?
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
Since google is not a monopoly, why on earth would they be required to actively promote (search engines are promoting sites with results and the higher the ranking the stronger the promotion) the competition?
I wouldn't see any problem with google removing this site from their database and giving them NO ranking.
It looks like KinderStart's primary content is a web directory. That's all that Google would spider. Web directories generally rank very poorly on Google. Google's indexing is written to take into account that when a person is searching for something they generally don't want to be sent to a directory. People want to go directly to the info they're really searching for. And if other highly ranked sights are taking about KinderStart then they'll rank higher in Google's search results for the name. So I don't see this as Google doing anything wrong.
Developers: We can use your help.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Wait, I think we skipped a step or two.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
I'm sick of typing in "yahoo" and "MSN" and not seeing the search portals. It's such a terrible anti-competition practice. *tries it* Oh, wait. They are the first results. In that case, Google must consider this niche search engine to be a bigger threat then MSN and Yahoo!. Who would have thought? And on a side note, KinderStart now comes up as #4 in an article pertaining to the lawsuit.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
that google is a private entity(/corporation/whatever) and has no obligation to promote any site, and has the right to change there rules whenever if they see fit (since your not paying for the pagerank - your not a customer, and thus have no real rights).
/.'ers have pointed out - the constitution refers to the goverment stopping free speach - and since google isnt strictly affiliated with uncle sam, nor were they following someone elses orders - this isnt a real case.
Also - as other
I just see no merit here - if they dont like it, they should stop relying so desperatly on adsense and their pagerank to make profit.
There are plenty of other search engines out there that will gladly take their money for a nice - biased - pagerank, and plenty of sites that would love to get promoted in their search engine (there always are).
Disclaimer - im not a citizen of USA, and may be wrong in uderstanding how your constitution works.
Does NBC have to advertise CBS programs or risk an antitrust lawsuit?
I did a search for "kids chat" in Kinderstart, and did not find my Kids chat listings. Google shows my site at #14 on the results for "kids chat".
I don't have a problem with Google, but...anyone know a good lawyer? I have this new girlfriend who is teaching me the meaning of "high maintenance", and I figure Kinderstart may be good for a few bucks.
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
day.
Nothing but soccer going on today.
.... When has it been Google's responsbility to line Kinder's profit margins?
Whats next? Have me sue you because you are not making me money? Is google even costing them money at all? They had free advertising for awhile from a competitor of all places!
So by chance Kinder just happened to be highly rated in Google(a competitor I may add), and all of the sudden they are not advertised as much when tweaking some algorithm. Kinder cries boo hoo! Why should Google go out of their way to help a competitor?
What pisses me off is this site has nothing to lose and the more they are mentioned on slashdot and in the news, the nigher their page rank becomes and the more money they make. Right now I bet they are raking in ad money from slashdotters checking out their site. They have nothing to lose! And as a bonus they can give free negative publicity to Google in the process.
In Europe the losing side pays the winning side legal fee's. I wish we had this system in the States so frivelious lawsuits like this can't happen.
http://saveie6.com/
If dropping in rankings constitutes "suppresion" that is subject to antitrust restrictions under the theory that for a search business, the very act of placing other search engines in the rankings is inseparable from the business implications of such placement, then we have a very problematic logical extreme:
The first twenty pages of results at every search engines must be full merely of links to other search engines, since to drop them in the rankings is anticompetitive business practice. It would render search enginges useless. Such a ruling might even imply that search engines are by definition anticompetitive, since under that understanding the primary function of a search engine is to "suppress" the visibility of sites to varying extents, with the first result being least "suppressed" and the last result most "suppressed," excepting of course those who aren't even listed and are completely "suppressed."
Any search engine not turning up as the very first link in a major search engine's results would have an antitrust claim against them.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Irrelevance does not equal suppression of first amendment rights. If it did, then I would have been gagged years ago.
"Hello Paypal this is google. Can you please put a link to our payment system?"
"What? No. Fuck off".
"But, we have a link to yours!"
"Huh? Ok. Fuck off".
"Maybe we'll take out all references to Paypal if you won't reciprocate"
"We'll sue. Fuck off".
"So, that's a no?"
Once you let judges have a say in how and what Google has in it's index you open a real can of worms and how hard would it be for some very good attorney and some very bad judge to decide that indeed the nature of the web is cooperation and reciprocal links and Google should have a link to it from paypal OR the Goog gets to take out Paypal if they won't reciprocate.
Stupidist lawsuit. Ever.
Need Mercedes parts ?
I think we should all stop reading TFA and stop searching for "kinderstart" so they don't climb any higher.
Either that or we could all link to them and ruin their case. . .
My page rank went up... well, actually it didn't exactly go up so much as finally appearing in the results at all.
So this guy's harming me by trying to get Google to raise his pagerank, thereby lowering mine. I'm gonna sue the bastard!
<\sarcasm>
AND he's not even a search engine per se; it's a directory, with its search box using real search engines like Google and Yahoo.
What a loser.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Is this the time to say that monopolies have to follow a different set of rules. It is, after all, a very popular notion on Slashdot.
Actually, I don't think Google has reached the monopoly level yet, but it will be interesting to see if Slashdotters are consistent about their opinions when the monopoly isn't MS.
On the hand, just as MS could only qualify as a monopoly when the market in question was artifically restricted to desktop OS's, you could certainly make the case that Google has a monopoly on web searches performed by companies starting with the letter 'G';
http://www.kinderstart.com/terms_of_service.html Section 16: KinderStart.Com's PROPRIETARY RIGHTS Except as expressly authorized by KinderStart.Com or advertisers, you agree not to modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on the Service or the Software, in whole or in part. Whoops, I say due to the TOS google needs to stop linking to them whatsoever. Asshats.
..a page that (in general) gets almost no traffic --- and got a lot less traffic right before they made their fuss the first time --- gets a huge traffic boost every time a stupid artcle like this comes out. Just look at the Alexa traffic listing for fun. Notice the traffic drop in Q4 2005 and then the sharp rise in Q2 2006.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's bad enough when tech-clueless managers (think 'Pointy-Haired Boss') make decisions regarding technology; it's a thousand times worse when tech-clueless judges make decisions regarding technology legislation.
For whatever reason, the issues surrounding computer technology mystify average people (including average judges) in a way that no other subject quite can. I cringe at the thought of a 50-something, greying, clueless bureaucrat judge making decisions regarding technology that he knows of only through occasional quotes in the Wall Street Journal.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
I don't see this as a valid claim. Yeah, I'd be pissed if my rank suddenly dropped, but this is Google's site. For the most part, you don't pay to go into the rankings. The Adsense stuff might have some validity, but I wasn't certain if KinderStart had AdSense and were getting less money from it, or if hits from their own ad in AdSense had decreased.
As for the anti-trust thing, I don't think that sticks, either. This isn't Microsoft telling stores they'll lose product if they stock non-MS stuff. Google isn't stopping anyone from going to that site. Google hasn't blacklisted KinderStart. KinderStart probably has retained its rankings in other search engines.
10^100's search engine belongs to it. It can make the results whatever it wants. It can get rid of Yahoo and MSN. It can make Google.com the only result. And people can use their freedom of association and use another browser. Most of these antitrust suits are pandering to irrational dislike of corporations. They also represent dangerous government control over free entities.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
In the market for online products and services, Google provides shelf space by returning links to the sellers (of such products and services) in the Google web page of search results. The analogy between shelf space at Google and shelf space at Safeway is quite strong, and anti-trust laws apply in both cases.
How does Kinderstart fit into this picture? Well, first, consider the case of shelf space at Safeway. Kroger is a direct competitor of Safeway. Both Safeway and Kroger produce their own in-house-branded versions of many foods. For example, Kroger sells Kroger-branded frozen vegetables, and Safeway also sells Safeway-branded frozen vegetables. Should Safeway be expected to give shelf space to Kroger-branded frozen vegetables? Can Kroger's president claim anti-trust violations if Safeway refuses shelf space to Kroger. The answer is "no". Kroger and Safeway are direct competitors, and Safeway cannot be expected to help a direct competitor.
As for Kinderstart, it is a direct competitor of Google. Google is a general search engine that handles all searches in the known universe. Kinderstart deals with only a subset (of that universe): search results dealing with only parenting. Since Google and Kinderstart are direct competitors, we cannot expect Google to help a direct competitor. Google's management is well within its right to even remove Kinderstart from all of Google's search results (i.e. Google's shelf space).
By the way, Google now owns more than 60% of the market for search queries, and Google's marketshare is growing. Google has now entered monopoly territory, and we must keep a watchful eye over Google. Google is fully capable of evil (like catering to Beijing in censoring search results). However, in this particular case involving Kinderstart, Google has not done any evil -- yet.
...by modding this post up.
;)
/. comment page...)
Kinderstart is a miserable failure!
(No, this is not karma whoring. Unless, of course, Taco added a new level above 'excellent'. Think what what would happen if we had a link like this to Kinderstart at the top of every
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
"SAN JOSE, Calif.--A federal judge in California"
This reason and this reason alone is why this rediculous case is being heard by the courts.
So, let me get this straight. If I post a blatent troll and get modded to -1 and lose my karma bonus as a result, I can sue the moderators and Slashdot for violating my First Amandment rights since less people will see my posts? 'Cause it sure sounds like what's happening here. Kinderstart posted a garbage link-farming site, Google moderated it as such, and now it's not on the first page results anymore. Give me a break.
Sunwalker Dezco for Warchief in 2016
The judge only let them proceed with the case. This is the pitiful remnant of the case for which the judge actually needs to consider evidence on before dismissing. It's sort of like SCO vs. IBM, except that I don't think they have a PIPE fairy to send them money to drag costly litigation out for years to come. Or maybe they do, I don't know.
Anyhow, this is yet another dumb lawsuit that will prove futile in the end when Google doesn't cave in. IANAL, but if so little of your claim ever actually gets up to discovery, your chances of winning are approximately nil.
my website is benefield dot net. when I do a search on "benefield" my site is the third in the list. benefield dot org which is an elementary school website is first and debbiebenefield dot org is second. She is a US congresswoman. Granted my last name is uncommon but I also know that there are precious few links to my website. Regardless I expect a search on the string of letters "benefield" will turn up a high ranked listing of my site just because it makes sense.
If you do a search on "phouebarre" and there were a site called phoubarre.com it had better appear on the first page of any half competent search engine, period. kinderstart.com appears on the fourth page of a search of the work "kinderstart" after a few dozen sites with stories about the lawsuit.
It seems suspicious, but maybe it is innocent. It is a bit bothersome that searching on such a specific string of letters like "kinderstart" would not turn up a website named exactly that on the first page. Either google's usefulness is heading downhill or they really are picking on the little guy.
BTW in the initial press release they say they were seeking to be recognized as a class (as in class action suit) so there are others with similar complaints.
-- QED
This sort of litigation is the cause of so many injustices. While we waste our time smacking down these stupid cases all sorts of money/time/attention is drawn away from more important issues. I mean, there are real and serious things to be debated and decided by those who work for and with our justice department, but we spend all our time arguing about something that doesn't particularily make sense at all. Since when does google HAVE to do anything? People have a choice in using their system or not; they are not a monopoly. (Isn't MSN the most used search engine still?)
1) I think Google's lawyer said it all; they have no obligation to promote competitors. .com at the end of a business name? That is how I found the site.
2) Why are people too stupid to put the
3) They are not paying Google to place their site in the rankings, and Google has absolutely no contractual agreements to place them anywhere. They should be happy with what they get. . . or should I sue becuase my site is not even near the first few dozen pages?
Why can't people just shut up and go away. I am tired of stuff like this.
Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO (or Linux) is the answer.
That's all this lawsuite is about.
But this raises a question: if I ask someone to explain me how s/he thinks in order to make her/him say what I want her/him to say, am I damaging her/his freedom of speech ?
Hum...
I think that the antitrust argument can be easily refuted by searching for "search engine" on Google. If Google were really manipulating the results (and maybe even if it weren't), you'd expect "Google" to be the first result returned.
But it's not.
In fact, the first three are: Dogpile, AltaVista, and MetaCrawler. The next 10 are: Google UK, Google, MSN, Yahoo, Netscape, HotBot, FreeFind, Lycos, Mamma, and Vivisimo.
So, if they were manipulating results, wouldn't that be an obvious place to start?
For some reason I don't see a monopolistic company allowing themselves to drop down to 4th or 5th in their own results.
Anyone care to guess who the top result in Yahoo and MSN are?
The correct phrase is don't be evil. Check Google's site yourself. It is surprising how many people can get a simple phrase like this incorrect.
Plan 9 from Bell Labs.
-
12
Things to Do to Improve Your Site's Google Page
Rank
-
12
Things NOT to Do to Improve Your Site's Google Page
Rank
Enjoy!this article covers 12 techniques that will help raise your page rank and move your site to the top of the search hits.
this article covers 12 techniques that must NOT be used if you want your site's Google page rank to be high (and not to get banned)
Stas Bekman Photography
Do McDonald's say "You can also buy burgers from Burger King" on their website ? Do Dell advertise HP Compaq ? Do Nike sell Adidas shoes in their stores ? No, of course they don't. Why should Google have to advertise for their competitors at all ?