Slashdot Mirror


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."

8 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.

    2. Re:Taxdollars wasted... by R.D.Olivaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. Fill me with confidence by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. 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
  3. 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.
  4. Re:Hmmmm..... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Investors versus consumers by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact