Justice Dept To Investigate Google-Yahoo Deal

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."

Comments

Taxdollars wasted...

[dada21]

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.

Re:Taxdollars wasted...

[maglor_83]

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.

Re:Taxdollars wasted...

[morgan_greywolf]

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.

Re:Taxdollars wasted...

[dada21]

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?

Re:Taxdollars wasted...

[dreamchaser]

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.

Re:Taxdollars wasted...

[R.D.Olivaw]

So first you argue that we don't need oversight because consumers can fight monopolies then you give an example of how consumers buy competitor's products to affect a corporation's stock value? Here's the catch, when there is a monopoly, the lowly consumer does not have the choice to go buy another product.

Re:Taxdollars wasted...

[value_added]

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).

At the risk of sounding like a Birkenstock-wearing politically-correct social activist, I'd suggest that while that may a fair generalisation, it smacks of an orthodoxy that has its popularity and appeal founded in a comforting but simplistic view of the world.

I don't shop at Walmart, my food comes mostly from local organic farmers, I donate to animal shelters, and I offer political support to those who see and are willing to act beyond my own (or someone else's) immediate concerns or preferences. That applies to the proverbial pocketbook type issues as it does to things of a more general nature. I do not, however, wear Birkenstocks, stay as far away as possible from activists of any persuasion, and consider myself as very ordinary.

Doing the right thing, at least in principle, was something that we expected of ourselves and each other before we allowed ourselves to be redefined as self-interested mindless consumers, and selfishness was elevated to a virtue.

Re:Taxdollars wasted...

[morgan_greywolf]

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.

Re:Taxdollars wasted...

[Stook]

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.

Re:Taxdollars wasted...

[oldhack]

... 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...

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.

Compaq never was a monopoly, and Microsoft still is. Look it up in a dictionary sometime:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monopoly&x=0&y=0/

Fill me with confidence

[elrous0]

I just hope it's as exhaustive as their investigation into the Valerie Plame leak or O.J.'s hunt for the real killer.

Re:Fill me with confidence

[R2.0]

"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?

Re:Fill me with confidence

[elrous0]

I'm sorry, we can't comment on that--as the investigation is still ongoing.

Hmmmm.....

[morgan_greywolf]

Strange how when Microsoft offered a deal to outright buy Yahoo, DoJ remained silent, but when Yahoo and Google want to team up, they're all over them.

<sarcasm>But there wouldn't be anything shady going on at the Justice Department, oh, no. You can trust those guys.</sarcasm>

Re:Hmmmm.....

[maxume]

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

Re:Hmmmm.....

[morgan_greywolf]

Microsoft isn't the market leader in internet advertising and internet search advertising.

That's a red herring. They are still the market leader in desktop operating systems and, at the end of the day, they intend to leverage that to knock Google out of business because Google has been threatening their core business, especially with Google Apps.

Microsoft going after Google isn't about Microsoft expanding its market, it's about removing a potential threat to their core OS and office suite usiness.

Re:Hmmmm.....

[MrNaz]

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?

Re:Hmmmm.....

[morgan_greywolf]

If they want material evidence, they just need to look at every other market Microsoft has been in and see how they've managed to leverage their OS and office suite monopoly to dominate it.

Investors versus consumers

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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.

So people who don't have money to invest will have no say in how the economy is run, even if their life depends on how the economy is run? Great Idea, dude. 80% of the wealth in the country is concentrated in the hands of 20%. And recursively 64% (80% of 80%) of wealth in the hands of 4% (20% of 20%). So these rich people can get together, buy all providers of a service that is crucial for the population and tell rest of them pay an arm and leg for the service as consumers or pay an arm and a leg to buy shares? You are very confused.

The role of the government is to ensure competition. To enable the consumers not investors to vote with their dollars. Truth in labeling laws, truth in advertising laws, fair competition are all essential part of the free markets. Yes, The current top dogs of capitalism will bitch moan and bellyache. But unless we have the second tier dogs snapping at their heels, we all will be screwed dude.

Re:Investors versus consumers

[aztektum]

The role of the government is to ensure competition.

In theory at least. Sadly, that theory doesn't hold up in many cases.

Re:Microsoft?

[Irish_Samurai]

Search isn't their product.

They sell YOU to the ADVERTISERS.