Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Justice Dept To Investigate Google-Yahoo Deal

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the no-surprise-here dept.

Anonymous Oddity writes "The Washington Post is reporting that the Justice Department's investigating the Yahoo-Google advertising deal. Obviously the deal controls a massive portion of the internet advertising market. US Antitrust law isn't entirely intuitive, but it does tend to frown on large deals between companies that operate on the same level if those deals can be interpreted as restrictive of trade."

9 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Taxdollars wasted... by dada21 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Considering that both these companies are publicly traded, I think it is more important for those who are investors to consider what is best for them. If the general public thinks it might be hampered by consolidation of two large competitors, than the public should invest en masse and vote against it.

    I've always been confused how publicly traded companies can be considered "monopolies" in any situation except where your governments regulate them into becoming monopolies. If you don't like how a company acts, buy some stock and get your friends and family and cohorts to do the same, then go in and work to change it.

    Owning a share is owning a voting right, albeit a tiny sliver minority share. But if you want to change things, do it from within, not from outside.

    Yahoo is still profitable, but they're losing market share. Why? Because Google does a better job providing their users with services they want. Duh. If Yahoo can't compete, then it's time for liquidation. There are still thousands of search engines out there, so competition will work its magic.

    IBM was the monopoly, but they were chopped down by Compaq. Compaq was the monopoly, and they were chopped down by Microsoft. Microsoft was the monopoly, and they were chopped down by Google. Google's the monopoly, and they'll be chopped down by the next 18 year old college drop out startup that implants a realtime search engine in your sunglasses.

    1. Re:Taxdollars wasted... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've always been confused how publicly traded companies can be considered "monopolies" in any situation except where your governments regulate them into becoming monopolies. If you don't like how a company acts, buy some stock and get your friends and family and cohorts to do the same, then go in and work to change it.

      Just because a company is publicly traded, that doesn't excuse them from monopolistic practices, sir.

      Nobody I know -- even die-hard Windows fans -- likes how Microsoft acts in the business world. That doesn't stop them from buying their products, though.

      None of the people I know who trade stocks trade based on the ethics of a company, either. All of them care only about shareholder value and potential shareholder value. It's all about the dinero.

      The problem you have, Mr. Dada, is that you tend to assume that people care about how a company acts enough to influence their choices. But people choose based on what's best for their own livelihood (as well they should). They also don't often choose what's best for their own livelihood in the long run, but tend to look at the short-term. And in the short-term, companies maintaining a monopoly always seem to have the most shareholder value.

      And, in the end, public shareholder don't always get a vote anyway. Most of the voting shares of Google are held by Sergei and Larry and guys like that. All the rest of the shareholders don't get much of a say.

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:Taxdollars wasted... by dada21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because most people don't have the millions of dollars needed to buy enough shares to make a difference. And if they did, then they'd buy the shares and not vote to change anything because they would stand to benefit in the form of increased share value.

      So you just proved my point!

      If millions of people felt they were harmed in any way, what is the problem with each of them putting up $100 or $500 to control the so-called monopoly? Let's say that 50 million Americans would feel harmed by a merger. Let's say that each of them would, on average, feel harm to the tune of $1000 over 5 years. Let them take $1000, and each buy some stock together as the "We're going to keep Google from harming us" group. That's $50 billion, probably enough to get a decent say in a voting direction. Problem solved.

      If millions of people don't see any harm, then Google has done nothing wrong. Government has to do NOTHING. The market works like it does because millions, billions of people each make completely unique and individual decisions hundreds of times a day. Together it makes a difference, but no single person can by themselves.

      Don't like your local Starbucks? If you stop going, it means ZERO. If millions stop going, it harms them completely.

      Heck, you can even beat down Google if you want by not using their search engine, blocking only THEIR ads, and staying away from their subsidiaries (blogspot, etc).

      There's no need for government intervention. If people are harmed, they have the option to fix it, right there in front of them.

      Oh, and if the harm is worth less than the cost to buy in, then it isn't a big harm, is it?

    3. Re:Taxdollars wasted... by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If millions of people felt they were harmed in any way, what is the problem with each of them putting up $100 or $500

      To millions of people even $50 is a lot of money. Your utopia sounds great, but in reality it's not that black and white.

    4. Re:Taxdollars wasted... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't shop at Walmart, my food comes mostly from local organic farmers

      Sure about that? If you shop at, say Whole Foods Market, for instance, most of the organic produce they sell is produced by Big Agra, not local farms.

      As for Walmart, while I don't like some of their business practices, some of their other business practices are actually okay. For example, they have very good non-discriminatory hiring practices in place and they give lots of money to community non-profit organizations and schools and support higher education through scholarships. So they're not all bad. But, in the end, Walmart has the lowest prices on most of the stuff I buy, so I shop at Walmart -- mostly because it helps me save money so that I can afford to do things like donate to those charitable organizations you mention.

      In the end, we all our make choices. Unfortunately, most Americans aren't as smart, intelligent or well-educated as you and I, and they don't care about anything but themselves.

      --
      My blog
    5. Re:Taxdollars wasted... by Stook · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you can get 50 million Americans to rally behind a single cause with $100-$500, you sir could either A) Take the $5-25 billion and start your own company or buy several countries; B) Rig the next election (only 62 million people voted) or C) All of the above.

      The fact of the matter is that it would be easier to get a job and work your way up corporate ladder than to for the average Joe to buy shares and change the system. Aside from the cost it would take just in logistics for that individual, or coordinating group, once there, they're still going to be faced with other million/billionaires with controlling stake in the company. Aside from that, if the company has any brains at all, they'll own a majority share of the stock so even if you do convince all the other stockholders to see your point of view, they can still follow their own interests.

      I would propose rather, that if you want to change a company, either start a competitor, become employed at the company, file a valid lawsuit or take your business elsewhere.

  2. Re:Hmmmm..... by maxume · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Microsoft isn't the market leader in internet advertising and internet search advertising. Microhoo still would have been the second place company behind Google.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  3. Re:Hmmmm..... by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Strange how when Microsoft engages in big deals they're called monopolists, yet when Google takes over advertising from the only real competition it has, you act all surprised the the DoJ raises an eyebrow.

    Microsoft was the geeks' darling 15 years ago. Is it going to take us another 15 years to realize that Google is just another Big Corp that will bite, scratch and steal its way into a position where it can dictate our lifestyles to suit its profit agenda?

    --
    I hate printers.
  4. Re:Fill me with confidence by R2.0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "I just hope it's as exhaustive as their investigation into the Valerie Plame leak "

    You mean how they found the source of the leak (Richard Armitage), but didn't prosecute him?

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson