Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Complains About Google's Monopoly Abuse

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the play-fair-or-i'll-tell-mom dept.

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Frustrated at the FTC's blessing of the Google/Doubleclick merger, Microsoft is complaining to the EU. Its latest filings detail how the merger would give Google a stranglehold on the advertising industry. While these complaints aren't new, the diagram [PDF] Microsoft created gives you an interesting look at the sort of competition Microsoft fears from Google."

25 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. Well if anyone knows... by lisany · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If anyone knows about what a monopoly is it's Microsoft.

    1. Re:Well if anyone knows... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. Check those "Senator Stevens" pipe charts and substitute "file formats" for "ads".
      Sweet, sweet irony.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Knave75 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If anyone knows about what a monopoly is it's Microsoft.

      I know that we all despise our Monopolizing Micro$oft overlords and such, but that does not invalidate their argument. Imagine that the complaint was coming from a small company with a solid innovation that was getting pulverized by Google, would you at least hear out the small company?

      That said, I agree, it is funny to hear microsoft whining about monopolies. Just try to remember that their past does not, in itself, make them wrong.

    3. Re:Well if anyone knows... by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it was a small company, I would listen. But this is a MONSTER company, with a LONG reputation of doing anything illegal to keep their monopoly. Worse, I expect to see a bunch of small companies coming out of the woodworks who will cry about Google abuse. Then the money will be traced back to MS on the vast majority of them. Lost in all that FUD and fakery from MS probably will be a couple of companies that do feel like they can not take on Google. IOW, the multitude of lies and FUD from MS will serve to obscure what is really going on.

      I also expect to see a number of congressman start gripping about Google.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Well if anyone knows... by arivanov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did the kettle just call the pot black?

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    5. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. Check those "Senator Stevens" pipe charts and substitute "file formats" for "ads".
      Sweet, sweet irony. I'd like to note that personally, although MS has a bad reputation here, I'm inclined to agree with them. And MS' bad reputation here shouldn't justify Google's actions. It's a bit frightening how big in the online ad market Google is becoming. It's also easy to draw conclusions of how cool Microsoft was early on, and how evil they are now. I'm already starting to see it happen with Google... They've already got the private information networking done, and now they're going after dominance and purchasing market via company mergers.
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    6. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it was a small company, I would listen. But this is a MONSTER company, with a LONG reputation of doing anything illegal to keep their monopoly. I don't think a company should be ignored depending on their reputation. I personally think Google is on thin ice here and would personally not like to see this deal go through. The only reason I'm starting to belive Google isn't doing evil things in the OEM bundling business is because that monopoly is already occupied. Google has seen their chance in the online ad business and they'll do anything in their power to build a monopoly there. But sure, you just go ahead and point fingers at Microsoft.
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    7. Re:Well if anyone knows... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's also easy to draw conclusions of how cool Microsoft was early on, and how evil they are now.
      Do you mean, "Using the C-language escape character as a path separator cool"
      or
      "Merging disk partitions and formats in a way that keeps people stupid (c:) cool" ?
      But your point is well taken.
      Can't let the bugbear-as-messenger become a distractor, for all the idea of "shooting the messenger" never seemed more appropriate.
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    8. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Onan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wait Microsoft used to be cool? When was that?

      Was it in 1976, when their only actual product (BASIC) was less well-known for its use than for Bill Gates's whining letter to the community scolding them for piracy?

      Or was it in 1980, when they managed to dupe IBM into shipping machines with an OS they licensed in beta form, ported badly, and quietly acquired the rights to just before IBM made it popular?

      Those events are my first knowledge of Microsoft, so maybe they had a few seconds of coolness somewhere even earlier than that. But if so, it was in a far more fetal stage than Google's current one.

    9. Re:Well if anyone knows... by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then the money will be traced back to MS

      SCO Search?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    10. Re:Well if anyone knows... by joto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google still has a helluva long way to go before it reaches Microsoft's level of unethical business practices
      Sure, but when google acquired doubleclick, they certainly made sure they'd be able to walk that path. And while they've been careful not to trample over smaller companies the way Microsoft does, it's only because they're wiser, and moving slower, so they can achieve world dominance over Internet advertizing without too many people complaining loudly. Google is positioning themselves to be as important as any of the government-monopoly utilities, such as water, sewage, or electricity. What face they will show then is anyones guess, but they are certainly positioning themselves to become a monopoly.

      Besides, there is a fundamental difference between a web-driven advertising company and a company that has a stranglehold on the actual computers on which the web is normally accessed
      Uhm, no. Yesterday it was the computers themselves that was important. Today it's what's on the web that's important. Microsoft controls the operating system and browser. Google controls everything else. This is analogous to the situation between Intel and Microsoft a decade ago, only one level higher in the abstraction hierarchy. Google is todays equivalent of Microsoft 10 years ago.
    11. Re:Well if anyone knows... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that Google isn't isolating themselves simply to the dominant browser. It works well with Firefox, Safari and others. Google is not doing what Microsoft did with the x86 platform.

      Besides, the web is a wide open platform. If you can do better than Google, you have a much cheaper distribution path than Microsoft ever had. It's not the same kind of business at all.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Well if anyone knows... by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't think a company should be ignored depending on their reputation.

      This would be similar to having China pointing their finger at GWB and saying that he is a totalitarian. His admin shows elements of that, but they certainly are not. Likewise, in the courts, if you have been shown to be a liar, you are rarely used as a witness (and certainly none that you want to have credibility). MS is the WRONG company to be speaking out about this. What does Yahoo have to say about this? And a really great example is that back in 97 (actually, even before then), we were griping on the net that AltaVista had a monopoly on search. Everybody was using it. Where are they today?

      Look, Google does not have a monopoly. While they certainly appear to be rocketing towards it, they are not likely to obtain it. Why? Because South Korea, china, and Russia are all backing their own search engines. Even EU is trying to build one. So, will Google obtain it? Not likely. But lets assume that they do. Is it illegal? Nope. Not one iota. What is illegal, is the abuse of that position. MS started from the git-go, abusing everything. In fact, so did IBM and ATT once they got their monopoly. But so far, Google shows NO signs of abuse. In fact, far from it. They seem to want to work with just about everybody, and expand the market rather than control it. About the ONLY company who is likely to oppose this IS MS. This combined with Linux appears to be slowly killing MS's monopoly. That is WHY MS is screaming to EU.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    13. Re:Well if anyone knows... by trianglman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that Google isn't isolating themselves simply to the dominant browser. It works well with Firefox, Safari and others. Google is not doing what Microsoft did with the x86 platform.

      What does this have to do with Google's take over of online advertising? Google isolating itself would hurt more than anything. MS isolating itself to x86 was a business move that helped it grow because the other competitors to x86 were weakening, not growing stronger as Firefox and Safari are doing now against IE in the web sphere.

      Besides, the web is a wide open platform. If you can do better than Google, you have a much cheaper distribution path than Microsoft ever had. It's not the same kind of business at all.

      You may have a cheaper distribution path, but you have the same difficulty breaking into the market. Do you think that website X would rather go with a large, well established advertiser such as Google or DoubleClick, or with Advertiser Joe Shmo to serve ads on their page? You are likely to get a very small niche along the lines of Linux at best, but you have very little chance of getting more than a couple percent of the internet's ad revenue, even if your product is light years ahead of Google's tools.

      --
      Clones are people two.
    14. Re:Well if anyone knows... by HermMunster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Frankly, I do not think you are being real. No insult intended, but let's be real here. Microsoft is no golden child intent on helping the industry do anything any longer (unless it gets a cut of the pie). Microsoft is a pit, dark and deep. Its intent is to keep others from gaining dominance, anywhere. Microsoft is simply a competitor in a field where they are rather unsuccessful. Microsoft has found a company they can't compete with and now they are trying to get other governing bodies to step in and take their side to help them against a better competitor.

      Google is not a monopoly and has never been one. You become a monopoly when you are ruled one by the court. Microsoft was ruled a monopoly. Apple nor Google are monopolies. Not only that, monopolies are not illegal. It simply means that they must comply with additional laws meant to govern their behavior. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they were convicted of criminal use of their monopoly. They had their day in court.

      We will see the EU essentially just chastise Microsoft for their obviously blatant attempt to get a government to intercede in a market they are not able to compete in successfully. There's really no justification for this and there's no reason anyone should be giving Microsoft any credit. What they are doing is for their own benefit, not the benefit of others. They are doing it to make money for them, not for others. Microsoft, given the chance to be in the same position as Google is with advertising, would be doing the same thing--pushing for even greater market share.

      What does Microsoft think we are? Do they think we are willing to listen to every complaint they have? It's like a criminal robbing a store and then complaining that they just can't make any money any other way. Microsoft has been robbing us blind for years and locking us their software with various technologies thus denying us choice. Only through the efforts of the Open Source community have we been able to even remotely consider something else. For the average Joe there's no choice still, because they don't know its there. Do advertisers have a choice? Can they hit the customer with their ads? Of course they can. They can chose to use Microsoft. They can choose to use Yahoo.

      You're going to tell me that they are complaining to the EU because Google gives them a better choice to reach a larger crowd than Microsoft can provide to them?

      That's just silly and it is in a way another abuse of its dominance in computing to influence by obfuscation. They obfuscate the issue, making it seem more complex than it is, and then push some of the uneducated -- because the computing industry workings are complex due to software being complex, software patents and copyrights.

      Without obfuscation it clearly becomes an issue where Microsoft is being a child here who is saying that "we're loosing, so please change the rules to favor us".

      When we can prove that Google is doing something illegal then we can petition the courts and the EU (and/or others) to correct the wrong. But right now they are not doing anything that has been proven to be wrong, so it is simply one company complaining that they can't compete. Period.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    15. Re:Well if anyone knows... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I simply do not agree. Microsoft's business model relied upon its stranglehold of the x86 PC marketplace and its ability to beat OEMs into supplying only its operating system on their machines. During that key period between the late 1980s and early 1990s when all the other competitor platforms were dropping off, they were able to beat the market into submission by unethical and illegal practices.

      Thus far I know of no one saying that Google is doing anything illegal. Yes, when they go in purchase something like Doubleclick we should be wary, but there is no meaningful analogy between the growth of the two companies. Microsoft was willing to bully and extort its way into dominance, and because the wheels of the market watchdogs are so slow, by the time they first went after Microsoft for those nasty OEM deals, it was too late.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Well if anyone knows... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As I said, I don't think that we should allow a growing behemoth like Google to just wantonly buy companies and technologies without considering the risks to a free marketplace. That is the mistake that was made with Microsoft. Everyone was so happy to see it killing IBM's powerful market position in the mid and late 1980s that they didn't stop to think that they might have to start shooting Microsoft down in its turn. And we shouldn't make the same mistake with Google, that just because it's doing what, up until recently, governments haven't been able to do and start taking some of the wind out of Redmond's sails, that we should just simply wave a happy thank you to Google until the day that we discover that it isn't all that nice a company.

      But, by the same token, the platform that Google's technologies work on is significantly different than the one that Microsoft gained dominance on. The x86-based PC was a bottleneck that Microsoft could use to great effect. Only a limited number of player produce it, only a limited number of players distribute it, and, because the DoJ was several years too late, those restrictive OEM agreements basically gave Microsoft vast control of what went on to the overwhelming majority of personal computers sold throughout the world.

      The web simply isn't like it. There's no way to set up a roadblock in the distribution of a web site. Microsoft tried that with the serious incompatibilities it intentionally put into Internet Explorer, and in the end, guys like Google put up with the development and support pain and worked around various browser idiosyncrasies. Rather than trying to beat Microsoft head on, these guys have played the game by the rules Microsoft created once it had wiped out Netscape as a competitor.

      We're within five years by my guestimate of a serious competitor to the Windows-Office monopoly which is the core of Microsoft's business. Everything else; Zune, XBox etc. are meaningless in what keeps Microsoft ticking. They are scared, and watch for them to start trying to open channels to various governments to try to attack Google legalistically. We're going to see patent bombs being thrown within the next year or two against open source projects that look like they're going to eat into Microsoft. They already have a disaster with Vista, and their business model is dangerously close to compromise.

      It's gonna get ugly.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. Confidential by orclevegam · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone else notice the little confidential text in the corner of all the slides in the linked PDF?

    --
    Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  3. As an old prof once told me.... by tacokill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those who can, do. Those who can't....litigate.

    It's one of the oldest strategies out there. If your competitor is beating you with their offerings, then you find a nice friend (the govt) to help make it more difficult for them. Hopefully, the govt will not take up this cause as M$ is already a convicted monopolist, themselves.

    From Ayn Rand's Reardon character to the latest round in the ongoing SCO saga, the courts have ALWAYS been used by lesser competitors to slow down/stop/hassel the competition.

  4. Re:Microsoft knows by Anomolous+Cowturd · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft could defeat Google in this arena by bundling Firefox+Adblock with their operating system :)

    --
    Software patents delenda est.
  5. In other news... by calebt3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...Microsoft recently acquired the copyright on monopolies and is demanding royalty payments.

  6. Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft Complains About Google's Monopoly Abuse

    Of course, the monopoly being abused here is Microsoft.

  7. Microsoft is big and powerful by gilesjuk · · Score: 4, Funny

    So instead of complaining why don't they sort out their own tarnished image and produce a good alternative?

  8. Re:Any less true? by Repossessed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (that is, 78% of all ads served to the Web pages of publishers who do not have proprietary ad-serving toolstoday, only MSN and Yahoo! have such tools
    The claim the MSN and Yahoo are the only 2 companies with their own advertising tech is laughable. To start with, *anybody* can create a system of barter over email and Paypal. And I visit websites whose owners actively make a living that way. As far as private Doubleclick style software goes, the Keencorp pages seem to be littered with ads served off of something called 'gavsad', which seems a good example of 'publishers with proprietary ad-serving tools' to me.

    The complaints also seem to ignore the rich plethora of small, hardly heard of ad networks/tools that various websites use. (Indieclick and Project Wonderful both come to mind). These ad companies seem to manage to exist without any real threat from monopolies.

    Internet advertising seems to be a bad place to hope to squeeze the life out of all the competition simply by being bigger. It's not like traditional businesses. Overhead costs are largely linear, there are no suppliers to fight with simply because the small guy is beneath their notice. And refusing to use one product will never prevent you from using a different one.

    Google also fails to engage in ani anti competitive tactics. Nobody is ever asked to sign contracts that prevent them from using a Google competitor as well (Something Microsoft continues in to this day). Nobody is refused search results or advertisement because they're competitors. (Given the dominance of Windows Live junk ads out there, Microsoft knows this damned well). And frankly, simply because Google *might* commit a crime at some point in the future, is no reason for them to be punished now.
    --
    Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
  9. Re:Whining. by Marcion · · Score: 4, Informative

    The definition of a monopoly is not having 100% of the market. It is having enough (e.g. 25%) to distort the market and unfairly control your supplies or customers, e.g. to make prices rather than to take them, to dictate your own proprietary standards rather than open standards and so on.

    --
    My little Linux and tech blog