USDOJ Sniffing Google Antitrust Suit, Hires Ex-Disney Lawyer

I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by CrazyJim1 · 2008-09-09 06:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

And every Tom, Dick and Harry who creates webpages. Oh and Google is competing with Verizon and AT&T... Maybe because Google has so many competitors that the competitors are trying to indirectly litigate.

I'm not quite a Google fanboi, but I can't figure out how Google is stopping others from innovating.

--
God spoke to me.

Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by Quasar1999 · 2008-09-09 07:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

Is it just me, or does everything in the US start with secret allegations that are insane, completely disproven before they're even made public, and yet still acted upon fiercly only to suffer humilation in the end?

Be it military, with imminent threats of destruction from a nation that has no way to harm anyone but themselves, yet turning a blind eye to nations that could (Iraq vs. North Korea for example?)... or be it corporate, where anti-trust is thrown around at google, yet there isn't anything substantial while other companies like microsoft are clearly doing it and are ignored.

It's an upsetting pattern to watch unfold.

--

---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 07:06 · Score: 3, Funny

Americaaaa!! Fuck Yeah!
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by H0p313ss · 2008-09-09 07:12 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Americaaaa!! Fuck Yeah!
Troll? Dude that was either humor or insight.
Well it made me laugh anyway

--
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by Fishbulb · 2008-09-09 07:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

My first reaction was that this has Microsoft written all over it (being that Yahoo refused to sell itself to them).
Microsoft learned a lesson about the DOJ when it went toe-to-toe with it: it's a tool to be used like any other.
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by foobsr · 2008-09-09 08:18 · Score: 1, Informative

My first reaction was that this has Microsoft written all over it

Same with me. My idea is that M$ is starting an international campaign against Google. Hint: Just a few days ago, the TAGESSCHAU (dominant news-show here in Germany) warned against using Chrome on the basis of an 'official' statement of some gov institution describing Chrome as an immature product, at the same time mentioning that no one company should have a monopoly on data. I do not recall a similar incident regarding M$.

CC.

--
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by afabbro · 2008-09-09 08:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Is it just me, or does everything in the US start with secret allegations that are insane, completely disproven before they're even made public, and yet still acted upon fiercly only to suffer humilation in the end?
It's just you.

--
Advice: on VPS providers
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 10:26 · Score: 0

yeah but german news agencies have their own / goverment 'inspired' agenda. it's the worst state propaganda of any country with a worth-while constitution and claim to freedom and all that bs. if tagesschau was aired in the uk they'd be sued in the blink of an eye.
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2008-09-09 11:17 · Score: 1

The government likes to look at market segments and make sure that there is healthy competition in each one. In providing search results, google and yahoo combined ( due to their recent agreement) takes up a huge portion of the market share. Its work keeping an eye on.

Its worth noting as others have that Microsoft may be behind it. I think there is a tradition of the last big target of the trust busters fingering the next one. Att -> IBM-> Microsoft (and now) -> Google

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by hedwards · 2008-09-09 12:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

This isn't baseless or in any way shape or form non-obvious, I've been expecting this to happen for months. It's a matter of history repeating itself. The same thing happened to MS at approximately this point in it's history. Google has enough power via information and access to information that it was only a matter of time before there was an investigation.
I wish I could have given you a +5 tinfoil hat, but seriously, the DoJ is supposed to look into these things. The DoJ happens to not have jurisdiction in either Iraq or North Korea. And not even Iran is under the jurisdiction of the US DoJ.
MS wasn't completely ignored, sure they weren't taken to task as much as they ought to have been, but they weren't just let off the hook. More likely than not Google will end up with a similar arrangement after all is said and done.
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by ScrewMaster · 2008-09-09 12:12 · Score: 1

Forgetting innovation for the moment ... Federal regulators had to approve the deal before it could go through. Is the Department of Whatever-Passes-for-Justice-Nowadays saying that the Federal government slipped up in this case? If so, maybe they should be taking a closer look at whoever authorized the acquisition in the first place.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by Korgan · 2008-09-09 14:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Surely there is a difference here in that Google's so called Monopoly is borne of natural migration. People use Google because its better than the other options. Yahoo had its opportunity in the 90s and even at the beginning of this decade and did nothing. They could even have *bought* PageRank when Page and Brin first made the sales pitch to them.
Microsoft is no different in that regard. If it hadn't been too busy looking at AOL and CompuServe and trying to reproduce it with the original MSN, the could have gotten a head start. Instead they're at least half a decade behind everyone else and only making ground by tying their online products into their offline products (Look at MS Office 2007 running on Vista for an example.)
Google created a better product and captured the market share naturally. There is absolutely no impediment to people switching from Google to Yahoo's Overture (or whatever they call it now) or MS AdCenter. In fact, Google make it damn easy for you to get your information out of any of their products to take it to another company. From GMail (and Google Apps) all the way through to their AdWords platforms.
While the DOJ may have an obligation to investigate a monopoly, they cannot rightly charge Google with any anti-trust violations given it does not impede people leaving and the marketshare it has was generated simply by having a better product. They have not in any way used that dominance to force people to only use their product at the expense of others.
Remember BeOS vs Windows 98?
If anything comes of these investigations, it will be a very dark day for the so-called Justice system in the US.
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by H0p313ss · 2008-09-09 14:43 · Score: 1

It's a song....
You don't fucking say...

--
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by GigaplexNZ · 2008-09-09 15:41 · Score: 1

Be it military, with imminent threats of destruction from a nation that has no way to harm anyone but themselves, yet turning a blind eye to nations that could (Iraq vs. North Korea for example?)
But North Korea doesn't have oil...

Just sayin'.
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by falconwolf · 2008-09-09 19:54 · Score: 1

This isn't baseless or in any way shape or form non-obvious, I've been expecting this to happen for months. It's a matter of history repeating itself. The same thing happened to MS at approximately this point in it's history.
It is baseless and Google is not like Microsoft. As "The Wall Street Journal's" FA says Google's advertising market share is about 80%. When MS was sued it's market share of the desktop was more than 90%. And it's easier to get into advertizing or searching than it is to get into the operating system market. Provide better advertizing, and searching, and you can eat into Google's market share. You need more than that to break into the OS market. Linux has billions of dollars behind it, as does OS X, yet they are only slowly eating at MS's lead. Google got big because they offered better search results and ads.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by PainKilleR-CE · 2008-09-10 01:07 · Score: 1

There are different things involved in anti-trust cases. In Microsoft's case they were accused of leveraging a monopoly to sell other products, and of putting barriers to entry in place to prevent other companies from competing. The DoJ is usually much more concerned about the latter than the former.
Google struck a deal with Yahoo that may be seen as preventing competition. This is what the DoJ is looking into.
The real problem here is with the law. The company being investigated isn't informed before-hand that it now has to operate as a monopoly, it simply becomes one. Without being told that different laws now apply, they can be destroyed by a lawsuit brought on by the government (usually acting on complaints from other companies). Of course, this is usually why the first time the DoJ comes after a company for antitrust violations the company gets a slap on the wrist and some government oversight.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-10 10:48 · Score: 0

Microsoft learned a lesson about the DOJ when it went toe-to-toe with it: it's a tool to be used like any other.
Amusingly enough, Microsoft's biggest partner - Intel - already knew the value of that lesson. As a result, Intel, who arguably abused monopoly power through their OEM deals every bit as much as Microsoft, was completely spared from the DOJ.

So, lemme get this straight... by R2.0 · 2008-09-09 06:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

1) Google proposes deal with Yahoo.
2) Federal Trade Commission, the government entity charged with regulating business activities vis a vis anti-trust regulations, gives the OK.
3) Google goes through with deal
4) Justice department investigates for anti-trust violations.

Why does this remind me of when the Big Three were getting sued for the type of airbags that the Feds REQUIRED they install, and not having switches to turn them off which they were prohibited from installing by the same regulations?

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

Re:So, lemme get this straight... by jcr · 2008-09-09 07:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

You've got it straight.
In many ways, it sucks to try to do business in this country, particularly if your company is big enough to plunder.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by UnknowingFool · 2008-09-09 07:44 · Score: 3, Informative

Technically speaking on the air bag issue, the NHTSA required that driver and passenger 2nd generation airbags be mandatory in vehicles made after 1998. There was some specification on the airbags but where the Big Three were getting sued was that their airbags tended to be a bit more aggressive than airbags made by other manufacturers. There airbags did fall under the NHTSA specifications though. I think the Big Three modified their airbags with kill switches and sensors, etc. Also at the time, it was not recommended that children not be seated in the front seat.
So on the Google issue, the deal may have been approved by the FCC, but do we know if any laws were broken outside the deal? Remember, MS wasn't prosecuted for being a monopoly but rather for abusing its monopoly power over rivals and partners.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by magus_melchior · 2008-09-09 08:00 · Score: 1, Troll

Does the SEC have much power to investigate potential foul play? If they do, the DoJ movements can be political-- note that the Bush administration let Microsoft off with a fine and a big document saying "don't do it again, we'll be watching you with this kaleidoscope."

--
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by jollyreaper · 2008-09-09 08:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

1) Google proposes deal with Yahoo.
2) Federal Trade Commission, the government entity charged with regulating business activities vis a vis anti-trust regulations, gives the OK.
3) Google goes through with deal
4) Justice department investigates for anti-trust violations.
Why does this remind me of when the Big Three were getting sued for the type of airbags that the Feds REQUIRED they install, and not having switches to turn them off which they were prohibited from installing by the same regulations?
Oh, I think it sounds more like Google not paying up to the appropriate parties, now here's the threat of something unfortunate happening to their business. Note that Microsoft got off on the anti-trust charges after the bushies came in.

--
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by collinstocks · 2008-09-09 08:18 · Score: 1

You've got it straight.
In many ways, it sucks to try to do business in this country, particularly if your company is big enough to plunder.
-jcr
Unless, of course, you are Microsoft.
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 08:36 · Score: 1, Informative

"Remember, MS wasn't prosecuted for being a monopoly but rather for abusing its monopoly power over rivals and partners."
That is the only thing you can be prosecuted for, it is not illegal to be a monopoly, only to abuse monopoly powers...
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by sp3d2orbit · 2008-09-09 08:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

This whole thing sounds like something out of an Ayn Rand book.
When do we get the Equalization of Opportunity Bill?
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by atraintocry · 2008-09-09 09:05 · Score: 2, Funny

That's a nice-lookin' datacenter you got there. All hot and loud, runnin' them queries. Be a shame if something were to, eh, happen to it...
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by atraintocry · 2008-09-09 09:29 · Score: 1

(I should add, though, that I do agree.)
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by recharged95 · 2008-09-09 10:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

5) Google makes money off deal.
6) US Gov't makes money from [winning the] antitrust case.
7) Lawyers on both side win. (cause lawyers ALWAYS win).
I see a win-win for both sides. Well, except for the consumer/taxpayer....
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2008-09-09 11:31 · Score: 1

Note that Microsoft got off on the anti-trust charges after the bushies came in.
It wasn't necessarily the bushies, it was that Microsoft figured out how to play the game and then played it better than even Enron.
So it may not be that Google has failed to pay off the appropriate parties, just that MS has paid the appropriate parties even more than Google did.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by 5of0 · 2008-09-09 12:08 · Score: 1

I see a win-win for both sides.

As opposed to those pesky one-sided win-wins. Gotta watch out for those.

--
You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by ScrewMaster · 2008-09-09 12:13 · Score: 1

Why does this remind me of

Because it's probably pretty much the same thing. Careers get made in big antitrust suits (not to mention a lot of billable hours.)

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by n+dot+l · 2008-09-09 12:21 · Score: 1

Oh, I think it sounds more like Google not paying up to the appropriate parties, now here's the threat of something unfortunate happening to their business.
I miss the days when casually discussing this sort of massive corruption would have shocked me and made me think, "no, it can't possibly be so, we live in the free world where everything is happy and good and we have justice..."
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by DamienNightbane · 2008-09-09 13:44 · Score: 1

That's not funny! My system administrator died that way!
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by DamienNightbane · 2008-09-09 13:48 · Score: 1

About ten minutes before lawmakers start getting shot en masse.
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by Miseph · 2008-09-09 14:14 · Score: 1

Yeah, it makes me want to just quit on humanity and start offing idiots (like Ayn Rand and her "ethical" followers) before I go down in a blaze of glory and kerosene.

--
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by ral8158 · 2008-09-09 14:37 · Score: 1

wow, Rand was wrong about a lot of things, but you clearly don't understand Objectivism if you think she's an idiot. Objectivism != Anarchy.
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 15:11 · Score: 0

The strikers didn't off anybody, "go down", or have anything to do with kerosene. In fact, they used a new, non-fossil renewable source of energy. For better or worse, you can expect that as those with sufficient accumilation of wealth can go 'on strike', they will. Only they don't really go away, they retire and boss the rest of us around - mostly indirectly.
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by wallsg · 2008-09-09 15:15 · Score: 1

When do we get the Equalization of Opportunity Bill?
What do you think Anti-Trust is?
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by anilg · 2008-09-09 18:26 · Score: 1

Rand was wrong about a lot of things
I hear people saying that a lot, but I've never seen an actual point or list of things wrong with her theory. Care to list them.. I'm genuinely interested in anything that is wrong with her philosophy.

--
http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 21:09 · Score: 0

1) Google proposes deal with Yahoo.
2) Federal Trade Commission, the government entity charged with regulating business activities vis a vis anti-trust regulations, gives the OK.
3) Google goes through with deal
4) Justice department investigates for anti-trust violations.
Why does this remind me of when the Big Three were getting sued for the type of airbags that the Feds REQUIRED they install, and not having switches to turn them off which they were prohibited from installing by the same regulations?
5) Justice department drops suit after Google gives them access to the data they want.
Please don't take my tinfoil hat
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-10 04:56 · Score: 0

I knew it was Bush's fault somehow
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by ral8158 · 2008-09-10 09:06 · Score: 1

She goes off on a lot of her own personal tangents that don't really organically fit into the rest of the Objectivist idealogies.
Specifically:
-Her ideas about sex are probably more related to her personal life than they are direct throughthoughts about objectivism
-She was homophobic, said that individuals should have the right to do that but that it wasn't a rational self interest because it was unnatural. We now know differently.
-Her views about certain wars were largely influenced by the fact that she was so anti-communist. While objectivism would condemn the vietnam war for the use of non-reactionary physical force, for example, she believed the united states needed to slow the spread of communism and the soviet union.
-She and many other objectivists believe that the government shouldn't be able to stop businesses from discrimination based on race or sexuality or gender, and that instead that discrimination should be stopped through social efforts. Arguably, this discrimination is a use of force which could be punishable by an objectivist government as being hedonistic. Objectivists disagree about this.
Rand does say that if you disagree with parts of her beliefs and not others, you shouldn't call yourself an Objectivist, and instead should attribute the parts of your philosophy you believe to their authors, but I think it's fair to say a large amount of her philosophy just doesn't have the perspective we have now
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by Miseph · 2008-09-10 11:52 · Score: 1

So because objectivism != anarchy Ayn Rand wasn't an idiot? That doesn't even make sense.
Sorry, but trying to make a "moral" argument for unfettered selfishness and pursuit of personal gain makes you an idiot in my book.

--
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by atraintocry · 2008-09-10 18:54 · Score: 1

Ah well, I've got karma to burn. Take it for what it is (one dude's opinion), but I when I read AS, which was some time ago now, I felt like what should have been the steamier passages were really cold and flat. Probably because the characters, like Dagny herself, are really idealized...they're either supermen/women or fatally flawed.

Great novel, great plot, but in my mind very simple philosophy and very simple characters, too "stiff" to be capable of believable sex. It was a crude attempt at humor but I guess it got modded "-1 Evader".

Also: you had to cover AS in 8th grade? That's nuts!
Re:So, lemme get this straight... by youngdev · 2008-09-16 09:00 · Score: 0

I see what you are saying but you have to view AS in the context of Ayn Rand's other work. She was not a Novelist. Yes she did write novels but that was not her expertise. Her expertise was actually in philosophy and politics. She founded her own philosophical discipline called "objectivism" and even published at least 2 books (The virtue of selfishness and Objectivism: the unknown ideal) and countless periodicals on her philosophical beliefs. All of her novels were meant to illustrate her political and Ideological beliefs with Characters that would give her arguments context. That is why Atlas Shrugged is a masterpiece. It brilliantly illustrates a philosophical stance without boring the reader to death or even requiring him/her to be aware of the underlying subtext.
Additionally I think her characters were extremely interesting but I think there were far too many to give any of them the complexity we are used to seeing in Novels. I would like to point out that she may have overdeveloped the minor characters (Owen Kellogg, Cherryl Brooks, Lillian Reardan) in lieu of adequately developing the main characters (Dagny, Hank, and John). Additionally if She had developed the characters to adequately deepen the story, the book would have been 30000 pages long.

Wierd theory here by Coraon · 2008-09-09 07:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Could it be that other are having trouble competing with Google because everyone else has lost touch with their user base but google? The only reason I use google search is because how fast it loads, their main page isnt bogged down with crap that takes time to load, it just loads. If one of the big three had been smart enough to know that the hard core among us just want efficiency and we are the ones that provide word of mouth then they would be a lot better of. Google doesn't prevent competition, it just does things better then the competition.

--
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.

Re:Wierd theory here by moderatorrater · 2008-09-09 07:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Let's not forget that there's no more open and free market than the internet. I can load up cuil and use it all day long if I want to, and any website can go to any ad service they want to. As a matter of fact, you'd have to go to MSN to get an ad into Facebook. There are so many ways to compete on the internet and they cost next to nothing. Now, if Google starts offering discounts for people who only use adwords, then there might be an issue. However, as far as I've been able to tell, they don't, so what's the problem?
Re:Wierd theory here by Tim+C · 2008-09-09 07:51 · Score: 1

That's true, but it's rather ironic that in the end I felt forced to block google-analytics.com with Adblock Plus purely because I got tired to pages taking ages to load because of it...

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Wierd theory here by ClosedSource · 2008-09-09 09:21 · Score: 1

Don't forget that you're not Google's customer, you're Google's product.
The real customers are those who pay for online advertisements and they are likely to see increases in prices if there is less competition.
That's the basis for the investigation.
Re:Wierd theory here by shaitand · 2008-09-09 09:21 · Score: 1

I have to speak, people keep demolishing the same strawman. If google has a monopoly it is in the search industry, NOT the online advertising industry. The barrier to entry to look at is in building a search engine that can compete with Google.
Personally, I do not think there is any form of vendor lockin with google and therefore competition is wide open. But building a google class search engine would require millions of dollars worth of networking and data warehousing, and that is ignoring the talent required to actually build such a thing.
Actually, the fact that Google leverages its search technology and engine to profit gain marketshare in the advertising industry would be pretty much textbook anti-trust violation IF Google search technology were determined to be a monopoly.
Aside from that, google bundles other services with its search engine in order to gain marketshare with them. Were they declared a monopoly this would be no different than Microsoft bundling IE with windows.
Re:Wierd theory here by Korgan · 2008-09-09 15:35 · Score: 1

However, their monopoly in search is something that is forced on people, nor is anyone locked in to using Google Search if they don't want to. Google Search has a monopoly because the product is better than the others. It has become the benchmark of what search needs to become.
The back end of Google's Search technology is massive and requires billions of dollars of investment before anyone else could come up with something similar. Of that there is no doubt. But that doesn't stop anyone else doing what Google did and coming up with a better algorithm or a better crawler or any other number of possible ways in which search technology could be improved. Thats how Google started. They built a better AltaVista and tried to sell it. When no one would buy it (including Yahoo, Excite, and others) they decided to run it themselves and the rest is history. They literally started in a garage, just like Apple or a lot of others out there.
Google doesn't leverage its search technology to gain market share in the Advertising. It uses its advertising platform (one that is also considered a benchmark of the online advertising industry) to sell space on its own web properties. It also acts as a mediator to allow third party website owners to sell space on their web properties to people wanting to buy ad space.
Just because Google's Search is the defacto standard doesn't mean it can't use it any way it chooses. Its providing a service by allowing people to put their ads on its own web properties.
And now its doing the same for 3% of pages loaded on Yahoo's search results.
Its a service. And you are not forced to use it or view it :-)
Internet advertising is a tax for using Internet Explorer and Safari. Use crap, see crap.
Re:Wierd theory here by shaitand · 2008-09-09 16:06 · Score: 1

'It uses its advertising platform (one that is also considered a benchmark of the online advertising industry) to sell space on its own web properties.'
It's primary web property being the search engine that is the reason anyone has ever heard of google advertising or its other web properties. None of google's services would exist or be popular if they didn't piggy back off the search.
'Just because Google's Search is the defacto standard doesn't mean it can't use it any way it chooses.'
Actually it does. That's what anti-trust is. You are allowed to have a monopoly, you are NOT allowed to utilize that monopoly to block competition or leverage it to gain market share in other markets. I really can't say I disagree entirely, if a company already has a monopoly I can't see any argument that would justify not being content with what they already have.
That said, I still disagree that Google has a monopoly in the first place. While you couldn't compete with Google out of a garage (times have changed from when Google started) you could compete with some Venture Capital and it could be done for thousands rather than millions or billions with the right people.

They didn't hire him. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 07:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

They didn't hire him. He's on loan, to return the favor for passing legislation that favors Disney (for reference, see all the latest copyright changes influenced by Disney).

Re:They didn't hire him. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 07:24 · Score: 1, Funny

A Mickey Mouse case if ever I heard of one.
Re:They didn't hire him. by Quantos · 2008-09-09 07:29 · Score: 4, Funny

A Mickey Mouse case if ever I heard of one.
Or at least a Goofy one.

--
Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
Re:They didn't hire him. by ScrewMaster · 2008-09-09 12:19 · Score: 1

A Mickey Mouse case if ever I heard of one.
Or at least a Goofy one.
Attorney: "So, Mr. Mouse, I understand that you're are divorcing Ms. Minnie Mouse because, she is crazy, insane?"

Mickey: "No (ha ha) I said she was fucking Goofy."

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 07:00 · Score: 1, Interesting

I'm sure I'm missing something here and maybe someone can fill in the blanks. How does Google and Yahoo selling more online ads prevent anyone one else from competing. Just because the 2 companies make a deal to share ad space doesn't prevent anyone else from doing business. What are the unfair practices here?

Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 08:37 · Score: 0

The Search advertising space is now held by a monopoly.
That's about it, all the other advertising networks are wide open.
Re:I don't get it. by hedwards · 2008-09-09 12:18 · Score: 1

Because ads are about getting the attention of people and then getting those people to buy the advertised item or service.
Big sites generally go with the best price, and the best price goes to the outfit with the most competition for the spots. The people that are buying the space want their ads on the sites with the best traffic and the best shot at a sale.
By having a larger segment of the advertising market, they're able to get and keep the most popular sites more easily ensuring that the cycle continues. And making it more difficult for new comers to snatch up any market share.
The problem in terms here is that Google has bought out their nearest competitor and has share space to Yahoo, IIRC. Which leaves any other competitors in a position where they're at a serious disadvantage. Even without the Yahoo deal, Google shouldn't have been allowed to buy out doubleclick.
Whether or not those deals lead to antitrust violations is up to the courts to decide. But, it could very well lead to sanctions in the future if Google continues to use its market position the way that it has been.

This will mean nothing in the end by mangu · 2008-09-09 07:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

FTFA:

a federal antitrust case against Google could set new boundaries for Internet competition, much as the Justice Department suit against Microsoft Corp. a decade ago broke ground applying antitrust law to new technologies

Yes, and we all know how much that decade-old antitrust suit changed the world...

Re:This will mean nothing in the end by malkavian · 2008-09-09 08:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, it changed the world a lot.. The world used to believe that the US actually had shreds of decency and fairness left in its legal system, and hoped that perhaps the people had a say in their Government, rather than it being owned by the Corporates.
Re:This will mean nothing in the end by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 09:27 · Score: 0

why dont you ask every firefox/safari/chrome user how that anti-trust case and the unbundleing of IE from within the OS.............
Re:This will mean nothing in the end by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 17:46 · Score: 0

no, the US has not been considered as a place of decency and fairness to ANYONE out outside the US for decades. One could also hope when it comes to applying laws the CITIZENS DO NOT get a say in government. Law should be governed by facts, not bigots, opinionated techs or upset zealots. That doesn't mean that letting MS off so lightly was right, but it would be far MORE right then listening the people decide, such avenues are the road to anarchy.

I don't understand antitrust suits by Van+Cutter+Romney · 2008-09-09 07:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

I get the part that Google is monopolizing the online advertising space. But that is no reason to sue them. It's true that they set a high bar for entry into the market and they will continue to do so as long as customers flock to them.

The only reason for an antitrust suit would be when the company stifles innovation. But if it does customers will automatically move away from them and move to others who have better services. That's simple economics. DOJ doesn't help the process in any way by suing Google.

--
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.

Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by Quantos · 2008-09-09 07:19 · Score: 1

I get the part that Google is monopolizing the online advertising space.
/. might be catching up...

--
Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by SirGarlon · 2008-09-09 07:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

The only reason for an antitrust suit would be when the company stifles innovation.

You seem to be confusing "innovation" with "competition." They're not the same, and one does not imply the other.

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by bobetov · 2008-09-09 07:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Google, like Microsoft before it (and so forth to before my time) stifles innovation today simply through its existence. It does not require active malice to do harm. Anyone involved in the startup world will tell you that one of the major questions VC's will push you on is how you are Google-proof. I mean, they give away blogging, mapping, email, news, search, 3d visualization, online doc collaboration, etc, etc.
If you want to start a business today, you have to have some idea why Google won't just Beta you into the ground. Google thus prevents innovation through the *possibility* of actions it might not ever take, or might take with only good intentions.

--
Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by Abcd1234 · 2008-09-09 08:00 · Score: 1

It does not require active malice to do harm
Unfortunately, an anti-trust suit does. A monopoly is only illegal if you leverage it. Simply having one isn't sufficient to run afoul of the law.
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by mrdoogee · 2008-09-09 08:01 · Score: 1

I was waiting for this to be posted.
I totally agree with parent. Its not that Google is trying to kill competition. However their business model is so broad, and their programmers and engineers have such a long leash that Google can't help but "beta" other companies into the ground.
I love Google's products, but then again I've never spent years of my life developing a service or program just to see Google swoop in and a) buy it from me, rename it and re-brand it or b) reverse engineer their own version that their distribution network helps obliterate any chance that my product would have had.
Is Google being anti-competition? Maybe. But I don't believe that they are in a malicious way. Whether or not that matters is up to the courts, I guess.
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by bobetov · 2008-09-09 08:14 · Score: 1

It has surprised me with all the vitriol that Microsoft received for using their desktop dominance to drive IE installs that no one has taken Google to task for using their web dominance to drive Chrome installs.

--
Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by Jewfro_Macabbi · 2008-09-09 08:17 · Score: 1

Google have figured out the only way to monetize blogging, mapping, email, news, search, 3d visualization, online doc collaboration, etc, etc. is advertising. People are not going to pay for this type software or service. Corporations will, as they demand and expect a different standard. Hence "Google earth pro" and "Red Had Enterprise Linux". Some companies get this, and they are doing well. Other companies are trying to find ways of monetizing what is now free (and I mean in practical reality not price or law) and blaming Google for their failed business model.
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by genner · 2008-09-09 08:26 · Score: 1

It has surprised me with all the vitriol that Microsoft received for using their desktop dominance to drive IE installs that no one has taken Google to task for using their web dominance to drive Chrome installs.
Thats because you don't have to install Chrome to use the Google website. You do have to install IE to use Windows,
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by hey! · 2008-09-09 08:27 · Score: 1

OK, we'll probably go through this about once every decade or so. Last decade it was MS, this one it is Google.
It's not obtaining a monopoly that subjects you to anti-trust actions. It evading competition.
So, if you win a monopoly fair and square, bully for you. If you get a monopoly by getting together with your biggest rival and agreeing to cooperate to keep new competitors out ... bad. Using your unique monopoly clout to block entry of new competitors by punishing vendors that work with them ... bad.
There, you see? Simple. See y'all next decade.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by nickspoon · 2008-09-09 08:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's simply because they don't. They have a small, text-based advertisement for the Google Chrome beta on their front page, something which they are perfectly entitled to have, in my opinion. They do not bundle Chrome with their products; you are not required to have Chrome to use Google Search, Maps, Earth or anything at all. You are not constantly pestered to install Chrome or hampered by User-Agent restrictions.
Microsoft, on the other hand, bundle Internet Explorer with their operating system. You have one, you get the other - and they're inseparable. A number of products, Microsoft and otherwise, have a dependency on IE to function - most of those are built using MS developer tools which utilise that.
There is simply no comparison to draw.
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by lptport1 · 2008-09-09 08:39 · Score: 1

I've yet to see a prompt to install Chrome, anywhere. I haven't seen a prompt for it when using Google Updater. Chrome is not currently on my computer. Chrome has not been tied to any Google services I use, so using Google does not obligate me to use Chrome. If I don't want to use some portion of Google's software and/or services, I remove the software from my computer and stop using the web based service.
I don't see the similarity to Microsoft and the way it used its desktop dominance to drive IE installs.
I, of course, may be wrong. Someone else may have experienced Google Chrome otherwise.
Might want to ask Dennis.
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by methuselah · 2008-09-09 09:31 · Score: 1

The point of anti-trust is to keep one small group of people garnering all of the power then wielding it to keep all others in their humble place. This allows them to make the humble pay endlessly for arbitrary reasons while they creep into more and more control over everything. Oh, never mind, pretty much everything works like that now..... Well, it was a good idea but, you know corruption seems to win over time no matter what we are dealing with. Just because google is the darling of the day doesn't mean it will stay that way. After all even the american government was founded on some pretty terrific ideals that have over time been twisted into the irrational mess it is now. But hey, go google! hero of the people! mighty vanquisher of all interwebs injustice! MacroScope of the masses! All Hail the new order!
Do I get my slashdot bozo decoder ring now?
This thread reads like a Scientology website. Xenu says, Google good! Now together everybody, fill in the blank Google ----
just once, I would like to see more than one point of view, on any topic, with divergent opinions rated above three.
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 11:07 · Score: 0

There is a small comparison to draw with Google's update software being installed automatically with Chrome without informing the user and with uninstall difficulties, and you are only unhampered by EULAs when users make a fuss.
Google is a corporation and has to earn maximum profits for shareholders. Therefore, if push comes to shove, the shareholders will get what they want, not the users or even Google CEOs/employees with good intentions.
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 11:22 · Score: 0

I agree. Free stuff is a terrible, evil thing to give to people.
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by ScrewMaster · 2008-09-09 12:21 · Score: 1

The only reason for an antitrust suit would be when the company stifles innovation.
You seem to be confusing "innovation" with "competition." They're not the same, and one does not imply the other.
True enough, although the intent of the Sherman Antitrust Act and similar laws are to prevent harm to the consumer. Stifling innovation or competition does exactly that, harm the consumer.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by GaryPatterson · 2008-09-09 15:49 · Score: 1

Just because google is the darling of the day doesn't mean it will stay that way.
True, but I'm pretty sure they have to commit some crime before being taken to court by the government. Being a monopoly player isn't a crime in and of itself, nor should it be. Having the potential to commit a crime is utterly irrelevant in law, unless some action is taken toward realising that potential (even planning may be enough).
I'll wait until I hear some specifics before I make any judgements on this one.
This thread reads like a Scientology website. Xenu says, Google good! Now together everybody, fill in the blank Google ----
No, what you're seeing is not groupthink in action but people who are yet to hear of any actual crimes. Until we hear of specific criminal activities, Google are indeed good.
Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits by falconwolf · 2008-09-09 20:49 · Score: 1

It has surprised me with all the vitriol that Microsoft received for using their desktop dominance to drive IE installs that no one has taken Google to task for using their web dominance to drive Chrome installs.
Until a few days ago, when /. had an article on it, I hadn't heard of Chrome before. And I use Google virtually every day. Google has not once tried to get me to use Chrome.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Big difference by stox · 2008-09-09 07:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

I have not heard of Google abusing its market position like Microsoft.

--
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "

Re:Big difference by Prof.Phreak · 2008-09-09 07:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

I have not heard of Google abusing its market position like Microsoft.
They're making it difficult for mediocre companies to compete, damn it! In fact, the Fed should step in and use tax dollars to help those companies compete. Or use legislation to make Google less competitive.

--
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Re:Big difference by snl2587 · 2008-09-09 07:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Although one could argue that releasing products for free was akin to underselling the competition, driving other companies out of business by funding these products with alternate revenue streams. Not my opinion, but I can see where they are coming from.
I'm also getting the feeling that this is nothing more than a probe. I guess time will tell on that one.
Re:Big difference by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 07:33 · Score: 0

But this is just about advertising.
What is google doing to stop you from creating your own advertising network?
Re:Big difference by gotem · 2008-09-09 07:48 · Score: 1

Agree, I googled for it and couldn't find anything
Re:Big difference by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 07:50 · Score: 0

Yeah, that's all we need is more government regulation.
Re:Big difference by A+nonymous+Coward · 2008-09-09 07:50 · Score: 1

In fact, the Fed should step in and use tax dollars to help those companies compete.
Don't you follow the news? Bear Sterns, Fannie, and Freddie got rewarded for past greedy incompetence with buyouts for future greedy incompetence, and now GM, Ford, and Chrysler want $50B loan guarantees for their own future greedy incompetence. Meanwhile Toyota and Honda plan ahead and make cars people want, but you can bet your bottom tax dollar they won't get rewarded for competence.

--
Infuriate left and right
Re:Big difference by CrimsonAvenger · 2008-09-09 07:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

They're making it difficult for mediocre companies to compete, damn it! In fact, the Fed should step in and use tax dollars to help those companies compete. Or use legislation to make Google less competitive.
You jest, but this is essentially what happened to Alcoa back in the day - they were hit with an antitrust suit because they kept making aluminum more efficiently than anyone else and lowering their prices.
Note that the similarities end there. There are strategic reasons to not want a single source for a critical material. There are no such strategic reasons relating to Google. That I can think of.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Big difference by jedidiah · 2008-09-09 07:58 · Score: 1

Yeah... this is a potential "dumping" issue.
But who have they "victimized" with this.
Take maps as an example. I used a free service before I
switched to Google. I used this free service for perhaps
longer than 10 years. Then that free service decided to
suddenly get crappy (bad new version).
Now I use the Google product.
One free product displaces another.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Big difference by Abcd1234 · 2008-09-09 08:03 · Score: 1

Although one could argue that releasing products for free was akin to underselling the competition, driving other companies out of business by funding these products with alternate revenue streams.
So much for Linux, then, which is funded by, among other companies, Redhat, Oracle, etc. Oh well, it was a fun ride...
Re:Big difference by snl2587 · 2008-09-09 08:21 · Score: 1

So much for Linux, then, which is funded by, among other companies, Redhat, Oracle, etc.
This doesn't quite fall under the way of thinking I described, since there are many companies that contribute to Linux, not to mention the countless developers.
Re:Big difference by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 08:24 · Score: 0

They've made it impossible for your advertising network to get enough page views for anyone to
a) buy advertising using it and
b) convince someone to use it to serve ads
Re:Big difference by bill_mcgonigle · 2008-09-09 08:27 · Score: 1

Yeah... this is a potential "dumping" issue.
The Feds might see it this way, but the trouble is it's also a new business model.
Did theatres go anti-trust on TV networks when they started giving away free teleplays with ads?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Big difference by Abcd1234 · 2008-09-09 08:33 · Score: 1

This doesn't quite fall under the way of thinking I described, since there are many companies that contribute to Linux, not to mention the countless developers.
What does that have to do with anything? Either free software is dumping, because people are underpricing their product in order to drive out competition, or it's not. The same is true of Google's services.
Re:Big difference by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 08:38 · Score: 0

Microsoft owns the desktop market. IE is pre-installed and is by far the most used browser. IE defaults to MSN search. Why then do people not use MSN and flock to google?
Re:Big difference by RulerOf · 2008-09-09 08:40 · Score: 1

Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I know that out of all of the MegaBillionCorps that exist out there, Google's kool-aid certainly tastes the best. That doesn't however mean that they shouldn't be questioned.

Shit... I love Microsoft and I believe the anti-trust suit against them was warranted. Don't necessarily think the outcome was the best, but that's a different story.

--
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Re:Big difference by snl2587 · 2008-09-09 08:55 · Score: 1

What does that have to do with anything? Either free software is dumping, because people are underpricing their product in order to drive out competition, or it's not.
It has everything to do with determining whether or not something is anti-competitive. Linux cannot be anti-competitive under U.S. law as more than one entity is contributing to the freely released product, and it also does not fall under the restrictions placed on joint ventures because a large chunk of the work is unpaid, voluntary, and not at all commissioned by the monetary contributors. Likewise, free software that is built like Linux is not dumping.
All I'm pointing out is that the vast majority of Google's products are developed by Google alone and then released for free, while the funding comes from an alternate stream. So I can understand where some of Google's enemies are coming from.
Re:Big difference by wtfispcloadletter · 2008-09-09 09:05 · Score: 1

Insightful? How the fuck is this insightful? NO company big or small should be getting ANY sort of help from the government.
Big companies should just have to pay more taxes, not get tax breaks from cities, counties or states to entice them to have a presence there.
Small shouldn't be getting any break or handouts from the government either. Either they make it or they don't.
I'm a small business owner and I see small businesses come and go all over the place. Guess what, the ones that go out of business rarely go out of business because the competition put them out of business. They go out of business because they don't know how to run a business or they just plain had a bad business idea to begin with that was never going to fly.
Re:Big difference by jedidiah · 2008-09-09 09:14 · Score: 1

...and what monopolies were those TV networks abusing then?
What warchest built up from being the only player in a captive
market were they taking advantage of?

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Big difference by ClosedSource · 2008-09-09 09:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because IE never locked its customers out of competitors' sites. Which is why all the legal wrangling over IE bundling was a big waste of time.
Re:Big difference by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 09:30 · Score: 0

Easy, MSN/Live just plain suck. The only "search" engine I've seen that's worse is Cuil.
Microsoft does have some very intelligent people working for them, but not a single one of them has a clue about how to create a decent search engine.
Cuil is only good if you are looking for completely unrelated directory pages not even close to what you were searching for.
Re:Big difference by shaitand · 2008-09-09 09:31 · Score: 1

Toyota and Honda are rewarded by selling cars in this country. The others represent all that is left of the american automotive industry.
Re:Big difference by shaitand · 2008-09-09 09:32 · Score: 1

'here are strategic reasons to not want a single source for a critical material. There are no such strategic reasons relating to Google.'
I'd rate data as pretty critical
Re:Big difference by maxume · 2008-09-09 09:35 · Score: 1

They didn't get rewarded for past greedy incompetence (many greedy individuals within those companies were clearly rewarded too much in the past, but that is a different thing).

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:Big difference by shaitand · 2008-09-09 09:35 · Score: 1

'or they just plain had a bad business idea to begin with that was never going to fly.'
I suppose with a liberal interpretation this would work. Most businesses I see going out of business are going out because of increased fuel costs and less available business.
I suppose if you were starting a business today that went out due to those reasons then it wasn't a viable business idea but for existing businesses the fact that we are in a recession on the fast track to a depression is probably a bigger factor than incompetence these days.
Re:Big difference by bill_mcgonigle · 2008-09-09 09:42 · Score: 1

...and what monopolies were those TV networks abusing then?
Their FCC license?
What warchest built up from being the only player in a captive
market were they taking advantage of?
I think they were mostly 'radio empire' subsidiaries.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Big difference by Prof.Phreak · 2008-09-09 13:12 · Score: 1

Insightful? How the fuck is this insightful? NO company big or small should be getting ANY sort of help from the government.
I was going for Funny, but, eh, I guess some folks took it for real. Scarry.

--
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Re:Big difference by wallsg · 2008-09-09 15:21 · Score: 1

They're making it difficult for mediocre companies to compete, damn it!
Here, that's a joke. In the EU, that's the law.
Re:Big difference by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 18:10 · Score: 0

A single source leads to lack of innovation and inflated prices. Google sells advertising, with no other choice in the advertising space google is losing the incentive to innovate and stay price competitive (as there is no one to compete with). This hurts everyone, businesses, consumers and competitors. There is certainly a good case for anti trust to step in an prevent the yahoo-google deal. monopoly through good products and innovative tech is one thing, buying an unassailable monopoly to basically crush any hope of a competitive ad market is ANTI COMPETITIVE and that is what they are trying to do here.
Even a company that does search better than google will now have a tough if not impossible time competing with them now.
Re:Big difference by falconwolf · 2008-09-09 21:11 · Score: 1

'here are strategic reasons to not want a single source for a critical material. There are no such strategic reasons relating to Google.'
I'd rate data as pretty critical
I can, and do, go to Teoma, oops Ask.com, About.com, Alta Vista, and Dmoz Open Directory Project for searches. And I may start using Cuil as well for searching. Google isn't the only search engine, nor does it have lockin, other than being a good search engine. Actually I use About.com because Google referred me to it, when I first googled for "Monte Verde" archeology the top result was About.com's section of Monte Verde. Now it's number three. Googling for photography returns About.com as number 4.
While data may be, is critical, it can be gotten from search engines other than Google.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Secret? Not so much. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 07:04 · Score: 1, Interesting

"The Justice department has SECRETLY hired former Walt Disney lawyer Sanford Litvack for a possible antitrust suit against Google"

I thought the govt. was supposed to be good at keeping secrets...

Re:Secret? Not so much. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 07:23 · Score: 0

Nah, someone just googled him and found his twitter & myspace blog postings.
Re:Secret? Not so much. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 07:39 · Score: 0

SSSSHHHHHHHHH
Re:Secret? Not so much. by Nutria · 2008-09-09 07:57 · Score: 2

"The Justice department has SECRETLY hired former Walt Disney lawyer Sanford Litvack for a possible antitrust suit against Google"
The original article states that the gov't quietly hired Litvack. The idiot journalist at InfoWorld converted that into "secretly".

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Re:Secret? Not so much. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 09:14 · Score: 0

No. They are actually very poor at it. But they are good at obfuscating what info is given. Which is why so many others will speak of tin foil hats.
Re:Secret? Not so much. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 12:26 · Score: 0

"The Justice department has SECRETLY hired former Walt Disney lawyer Sanford Litvack for a possible antitrust suit against Google"
The original article states that the gov't quietly hired Litvack. The idiot journalist at InfoWorld converted that into "secretly".
anyway, not much of a secret anymore, is it...

Inevitable by EvilIntelligence · 2008-09-09 07:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

This was inevitable. Eventually, Google was going to take some steps forward in some area, and somebody was going to panic that it was a "monopolistic" move. Any sufficiently huge company has to deal with that (even Disney had that problem years ago). It will be interesting how it plays out, however. Antitrust suits usually hinge on making sure that the customer is not ripped off. In this case, the customer is not the end-user who surfs the web. The customer is actually the advertiser, since that is where these guys make their money. And the advertisers can still advertise on both Google and Yahoo equally and increase visitor coverage, so it will be hard to prove that the customer has suffered damages.

yeah, ok. by SCHecklerX · 2008-09-09 07:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

How about they fix the M$ problem first? How many companies were destroyed before Linux got a foothold back in the late 90's?

Re:yeah, ok. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 07:28 · Score: 0

WHen did linux get a foothold and why wasn't I informed? On desktops, Linux is still a fraction of the Windows marketshare, and you still cannot buy a PC without Windows installed because Microsoft STILL forces companies to pay for a copy of windows whether they use it or not.
Someone notify me when Google starts undermining their competitors by funding lawsuits and threatening patent litigation against people who use it.
It is NO co-incidence that Microsoft is one of hte top corporate donors to the Republican party. They scratch each others backs regularly.
Re:yeah, ok. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 07:37 · Score: 0

Hello! Please be advised that using that tired, infantile "M$" thing will likely result in being accused of being a twitter sockpuppet, not to mentino also branding you as a child who can't be trusted to talk in the company of adults without saying "poo-poo head". Please avoid.
Thanks, and enjoy your stay.
Re:yeah, ok. by bill_mcgonigle · 2008-09-09 08:30 · Score: 1

It is NO co-incidence that Microsoft is one of hte top corporate donors to the Republican party. They scratch each others backs regularly.
If Obama wins expect the DNC contributions to step up as well (I'm trusting you've already researched that they aren't). Bill Gates figured out the real reason Clinton went DOJ on his ass, and it wasn't because he was playing the Republican game, it was because he wasn't playing the game.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:yeah, ok. by collinstocks · 2008-09-09 08:50 · Score: 1

Actually, you can buy a PC without windows installed. From Dell, you can get a desktop or laptop with Ubuntu or FreeDOS installed, and from System76 the only option is Ubuntu. My next computer will probably be from System76, as Dell has given me enough problems. The only parts of my computer I haven't replaced for free under warranty are the body (not warrantied), memory, CPU, and CD/DVD drive. The keyboard has been replaced twice. Not acceptable standards for a company to have. I'd much rather go with an unknown.
Other than that, point taken. Microsoft has a monopoly and the vast majority of people don't care. It's unfortunate, but true. (Keep in mind that those involved in /. are not a majority.)
Re:yeah, ok. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 09:42 · Score: 0

Except that this government is owned by Microsoft. Why do you think this case is REALLY going forward? It's because Ballmer cannot tolerate ANY competition. That's the reason.
Re:yeah, ok. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 20:59 · Score: 0

How about they fix the M$ problem first? How many companies were destroyed before Linux got a foothold back in the late 90's?
It's a matter of perspective.
Google is a problem for M$.
The current DOJ is Microsoft friendly. I seem to remember some obscure court case that backs this up.
So, the DOJ is handling the M$ problem. They are going after google since M$ can't squash them.
Hey, they are even using a Disney connection. And Disney is more evil than M$ could ever be!

Who didn't Google pay off? by Nimey · 2008-09-09 07:13 · Score: 1

It's well-known that Microsoft got off being punished much for monopolistic practices after Bush took office -- the experienced DoJ lawyers were pulled off the case.

So who did MS pay off but Google not get to?

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem

Re:Who didn't Google pay off? by smclean · 2008-09-09 07:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

So who did MS pay off but Google not get to?
Ah, but the case is young!

--
"'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."
Re:Who didn't Google pay off? by zappepcs · 2008-09-09 07:44 · Score: 1

I think everyone is missing the real cloak and dagger. What would Bush&co's very own DoJ really really really want for christmas? Why, their very own search engine statistics and spying system.... did you hear that? Was that a shoe?
After the Google/Yahoo deal was approved, there is no need for the DoJ to be poking their noses into commercial issues unless there is some proof presented to them that harm is being done.... or, unless you can remember that the DoJ is involved with the Bush&co empire.
Call my tin foil hat type, but I suspect there is something afoot here that is worth impeaching a president over.
hmmm

--
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Re:Who didn't Google pay off? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 08:50 · Score: 0

The Republican party, who else? Microsoft gets nailed, then they help pay for Bush to get in and all penalties seem to evaporate. And now McCain is way behind in funding. I'm sure it's a coincidence, but sure is an interesting one.
Re:Who didn't Google pay off? by Nimey · 2008-09-09 08:57 · Score: 1

I suspect there is something afoot here that is worth impeaching a president over.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
{catches breath}
You really think /that/ would get him impeached, after all the worse stuff he's done hasn't? I want whatever you're smoking; it must be good!

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem

Google is not a monopoly. by TechnicalFool · 2008-09-09 07:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Google are virtually omnipresent because they are just that good. Nothing and nobody is stopping you or anyone else from trying to compete with them, as seemingly impossible a task as that may be. They don't own a patent on the search engine.

Unlike a certain large OS vendor whose business model revolves around finding new ways to lock customers in, turn open standards into proprietary, patented and licensed rip-offs, and threatening others with lawsuits whenever it feels the need. 235 patents, wasn't it?

--
09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0

Re:Google is not a monopoly. by Quantos · 2008-09-09 07:37 · Score: 1

They don't own a patent on the search engine.
They do own the patent on their search engine. Just try to re-engineer it and see how fast your butt winds up in court. They don't own a patent on other types of search engines. Which is what I will assume that you meant. The last time that I checked they don't prevent you from making or using a different search engine, or even prevent advertisers from entering agreements with others. This will be a tough case to prove.

--
Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
Re:Google is not a monopoly. by TechnicalFool · 2008-09-09 08:14 · Score: 1

That's precisely what I meant. You can make your own search engine and Google can't do jack about it. It'll be as usable as any search engine should be (presuming you code it well), and your users wouldn't have the rest of their Internet experience affected by their choice of search engine.

Now in a similar sense, Microsoft (oops, let the name slip there) don't own a patent on the operating system (though I'm sure they wished they did). However, just imagine Joe Public trying to use any operating system other than Windows. You might as well ask them to learn Welsh. As such, Microsoft perpetuate a monopoly because nobody else is allowed to make an operating system or supporting libraries capable of running the vast majority of all commercial software out there. Even if they did reverse-engineer Windows successfully, it'd last a short while and then you-know-who changes a few things and makes the competing product incompatible and obsolete overnight. All the while harping on about "interoperability" like a particularly demented parrot who knows the words but wouldn't have a clue what they mean.

That's the difference between a monopoly, and a service or product that 99.9% of people just happen to choose.

--
09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
Re:Google is not a monopoly. by ThatFunkyMunki · 2008-09-09 08:21 · Score: 1

There's a difference between search engines and their specific algorithms for searching. I'll give you a hint, google owns patents on one and not the other.

--
If patriotism is racist, is racism patriotic?
Re:Google is not a monopoly. by collinstocks · 2008-09-09 08:53 · Score: 1

Only 235 patents? I thought it was more...
PgUP/PgDN, seriously?
Re:Google is not a monopoly. by Quantos · 2008-09-09 09:03 · Score: 1

I guess anything can happen when you drink durin the daytime.

Joe Public trying to use any operating system other than Windows.
Joe Public does run other OS's(syntax?) that's why there are so many Linux forums and mailing lists. It works quite well.

supporting libraries capable of running the vast majority of all commercial software out there.
Does commercial really mean superior? I have seen many instances where Open Source or GPL is superior to commercial. Many users like myself would rather run something that works than something that is 'commercial'.

--
Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
Re:Google is not a monopoly. by TechnicalFool · 2008-09-09 09:48 · Score: 1

I guess anything can happen when you drink durin the daytime.

Joe Public trying to use any operating system other than Windows.
Joe Public does run other OS's(syntax?) that's why there are so many Linux forums and mailing lists. It works quite well.
I said Joe Public, not Gary Geek. I'm talking about the sort of person who thinks the box whirring away under the desk is "the hard drive" and the monitor is "the computer".

The only example I can think of, of a person using Linux who doesn't have a degree in technical bullshit, is a friend of mine who I carefully constructed and tailored a Linux virtual machine for, so his kids could use an MSN client that wouldn't virus-bomb everything like last time they had access to the PC. He still doesn't quite understand what this magical Virtualbox thing is, nor exactly what Mandriva is, but he does know he's had the thing for months now with his kids doing their worst, and his (Windows host) machine hasn't fallen over yet. It still took a geek like myself to set everything up and hide it behind a nice neat desktop icon though, and you still can't just go to a shop, buy a copy of Spore/Crysis/whatever, and expect it to run on anything other than Windows, which was kind of my point with regards vendor lock-in and Microsoft's monopoly versus Google's popularity.

supporting libraries capable of running the vast majority of all commercial software out there.
Does commercial really mean superior? I have seen many instances where Open Source or GPL is superior to commercial. Many users like myself would rather run something that works than something that is 'commercial'.
In some cases yes, commercial applications are superior (oh god I'm about to get mod-bombed for that). Particularly in computer games, which to be honest is what you want Linux to run a lot of if you want to stand a hope in hell of breaking the Microsoft monopoly. So far we have, uhm.. the Doom/Quake series, Unreal Tournament, EVE Online, and... well.. that's it. Fine games indeed, but not exactly a wide-ranging collection. Linux itself seems to work quite well through mutual self-interest and the terms of the GPL. There's a lot of companies out there who all know they need an OS to run things on, so work together to make Linux better, even if they may produce competing software, or even not particularly like each other. It proves that a FOSS operating system suite, effectively proof against monopolising behaviour, is not only possible but works extremely well.

The problem is, there's just not enough commercial backing. Not enough inertia. Everyone uses Windows, so developers make things for Windows. Developers make things for Windows, so everyone uses Windows. Wash, rinse, repeat and multiply by the fact that one company controls what you see on the desktop when you bring that machine home from the shop and power it up. What non-geek has even heard of ICQ these days? But everyone knows what MSN Messenger is.

So getting back to the original point, hopefully you can see how it would be very hard to pin a "monopoly" label on Google (exactly how do they lock you out from Lycos or Yahoo? Or even Live Search or whatever MS calls it these days?), whereas it's extremely easy to pin that label on Microsoft.

--
09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0

Re:I submitted this article hours earlier by Quantos · 2008-09-09 07:22 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Your article is still pending... Disney and Xenu need to confer...

--
Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.

How about the other 20%? by ilovesymbian · 2008-09-09 07:23 · Score: 1

I don't get it. So, Google and Yahoo! are grabbing 80% of the market. How about the remaining 20%? Someone's making money off that area as well. How is Google a monopoly? Sounds at most a duopoly or most likely a leader, but not a monopoly!

--
slashdot rocks

You don't know when this article was submitted. by Max+Threshold · 2008-09-09 07:24 · Score: 0, Offtopic

It could have been submitted days ago. If I were a Slashdot editor, I guarantee I wouldn't sit here in front of my computer browsing story submissions all day. I'd set it up so I could browse them once a day, and then schedule them to appear throughout the day, while I sit around sipping margaritas.

Not a surprise by Daetrin · 2008-09-09 07:26 · Score: 0, Offtopic

"I submitted this article hours earlier. Its a total mystery how slashdot editors choose favorites."

Have you considered the possibility that of the "several to write with the story," maybe, just maybe, you were not the first person to submit it? Perhaps Van Cutter Romney submitted it "hours" + 1 earlier.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank

Re:Not a surprise by Vectronic · 2008-09-09 07:41 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Also worth noting, is that if 'Van Cutter Romney' wrote the summary, its written better than Peter303's... if I was an editor I would have chosen Romney's as well, cause im lazy, just like the Slashdot editors...

Finally by JStegmaier · 2008-09-09 07:29 · Score: 1

Someone is finally doing something about this horrible monopoly! We can only hope Google is put in their place, just like Microsoft and AT&T.

Re:Finally by Attila+Dimedici · 2008-09-09 07:34 · Score: 1

Someone is finally doing something about this horrible monopoly! We can only hope Google is put in their place, just like Microsoft and AT&T.
Make up your mind, do you want to compare the Google case to the AT&T antitrust case or the Microsoft antitrust case? Microsoft is still around in essentially the same form as before the suit. AT&T was dismantled and the AT&T that exists today is one of the pieces broken off of the original that bought the name when the original AT&T went under(slight hyperbole on the last part).

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Finally by JStegmaier · 2008-09-09 07:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think you might be a little confused. The AT&T today is one of the pieces that broke off. However, it is also the piece that owns all the other pieces, except Verizon.

To summarize: DOJ breaks AT&T up, FTC let's them get back together.

In this case, the FTC let's Google and Yahoo get together, now the DOJ is considering breaking them up.
Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 11:40 · Score: 0

except Verizon

You forgot Qwest (originally USWest).

Comment of the year. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 07:32 · Score: 0

I normally don't get in on these back slapping commentfests, but this one couldn't be more dead on than a Muslim suicide bomber. Well done.

Lost touch with user base? by EraserMouseMan · 2008-09-09 07:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yea, Google has a stranglehold on Internet search and therefore is in touch with their user base.

MS on the other hand has a stranglehold on the desktop OS and therefore is an evil monopoly.

Let's face it folks here's the only difference:
* Google's monopoly will hurt businesses wanting to buy web ads.
* Microsoft's monopoly will hurt individuals who use desktop products.

It just depends on whether you are a business or an individual as to which monopoly you'll feel stung by.

Re:Lost touch with user base? by EvilIntelligence · 2008-09-09 07:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Please do not confuse market share with monopoly. Microsoft has the majority of the market share of the desktop world. But that is not what makes them a monopoly. Where they can be deemed a monopoly is using their position of dominance to suffocate other competitors, such as forcing computer manufacturers to install only Microsoft Office products under the threat that if they don't comply that Microsoft will yank their Windows licenses. And of course any desktop manufacturer that can't include Windows can't sell desktops. The Google/Yahoo thing MAY be different. So far, Google has not shown that it is using its dominance from forcing an unfair anti-competitive edge against its rivals. That is a huge difference.
Re:Lost touch with user base? by j_l_larson · 2008-09-09 08:03 · Score: 1

Google is getting in everybody's space, which is ticking off most the industry. Google's products are not generally better, (often flakey or worse (consider google docs and gmail - so what? the only advantage they offer is that they are free (for now) ) ), they just have amazing brand name recognition. The buyers of these products are buying buzz, not quality. Google is becoming an octopus. Go out and try to set up a lemonade stand, Google will set up a competing stand down the street and give lemonade away for free! Just because they can. It doesn't mean they should. They have already destroyed the search market because only crazy people would start up a search company and go up against them. They are busily destroying most other markets too.
Re:Lost touch with user base? by Chyeld · 2008-09-09 08:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Monopolies are not evil. They are not illegal. They aren't even unethical.
Hershey's has a monopoly on Hershey's branded candy. Apple has a monopoly on iPods. There are plenty of companies out there that make the only one of whatever they make.
Anti-trust (actually more appropriately titled 'anti-competitive') legislation isn't designed to prevent monopolies; it's designed to prevent someone using their monopoly in an anti-competitive manner.
For instance, if you or a group of companies working together control the manufacture and sale of almost all the widgets in the world, use that to set prices (you'll sell our widgets for $20, period, or you won't sell them at all) or to prevent anyone else from getting into the business (buy from our competitor and we'll never sell you another widget again), that is a felony in the USA.
In general using your monopoly to restrict another's business is considered anti-competitive and in most places illegal.
I've yet to hear of anything Google has done that could be portrayed as this, on the other hand Microsoft's entire history has been littered with attempts to pull this off.
MS attempted to force retailers to sell Windows only if the customer also bought MS-DOS. When that failed and they were forced to sign an agreement to never bundle their products again, they released Win95 and lied about MS-DOS being integrated in. The integration was just a checksum against your installed DOS version which refused to let Window start if it wasn't the right version. Years later someone released a patch to remove that check and discovered Windows ran just fine with other people's versions of DOS.
MS stole the code to Stacker, and packaged it in Windows to prevent other companies from entering the disk compression market. And later they attempted to use the monopoly with Windows to force their competitors in the web browser and media player markets out of business.
MS attempted to maintain their monopoly by forcing PC makers to install Windows on all their computers (those that didn't were faced threatened with steeper prices or simply a refusal to sell).
Again, I've yet to see anything Google has done that follows those lines.
Re:Lost touch with user base? by ruin20 · 2008-09-09 08:42 · Score: 1

Google's monopoly will hurt businesses? how? Google doesn't set the price for their adds, the community does. You pay for your rankings and the result is relative to what others pay for their rankings. So yes, adding more users means more competition which means increased cost for the same rankings but it's not google raising the price, it's the market expansion
This is different from microsoft setting the price of their product at what the market can bear, but making sure it comes free bundled with every computer so that you never have to make a choice since it's right there for you when you buy hardware. And then leveraging that market share to keep every company running on you're platform since 100% of the worker base is familiar with it.

In other words, although Google has gained market share, it hasn't gained any more authority, since it was never the one setting the dollar value of it's product in the first place. As opposed to microsoft, who essentially charge what they want, because their pervasive market share prevents people from switching.

So if you're assuming you're "stung" by google, you're mistaken. you're stung by the market. The value of an add is the value of an add. Google's deal with yahoo doesn't change that. you can still buy yahoo adds, but with a smaller base, you'll have to own a large percentage of the total ad space to reach a significant population. Or you can buy adds from Google, but you'll have to pay for the higher ranks. Either way you pay, either way it's the market and not the company.

--
Oh honey look... How cute... an angry slashdotter!
Re:Lost touch with user base? by RulerOf · 2008-09-09 08:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's exactly like the monopoly banks have on electronic transactions through VISA and Mastercard.

10 years ago, you could do a debit transaction to pay for things with a card at a store... but that was bad, because it costs you money.
Now, you can do a credit transaction to pay for things with a card at a store... but that is okay, because it costs businesses money.

People would be all upset if they had to add $1 to the cost of every purchase they made because they used the debit system to pay for things... meanwhile, they utilize the VISA and Mastercard systems, which costs every business they visit an extra fixed rate or percentage... which gets passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

If only people could stop buying coffee with plastic.

--
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Re:Lost touch with user base? by markjhood2003 · 2008-09-09 09:22 · Score: 1

* Google's monopoly will hurt businesses wanting to buy web ads. * Microsoft's monopoly will hurt individuals who use desktop products.
Let's see, the MS monopoly hurts consumers, while the Goog monopoly hurts business. I'm betting that the concerns of business will override consumers' interests and we'll see a lot more action against Big G than we ever saw with MS.
Re:Lost touch with user base? by FSWKU · 2008-09-09 10:15 · Score: 1

Let's face it folks here's the only difference:
* Google's monopoly will hurt businesses wanting to buy web ads.
* Microsoft's monopoly will hurt individuals who use desktop products.
And THAT is the reason that the suit against Google will move far swifter and with more tenacity than the Microsoft suit could have ever garnered.

Microsoft Suit: Relax, we've got plenty of time. They're only hurting individual consumers.
Google Suit: My GOD! They could be hurting COMPANIES! Something has to be done RIGHT NOW!!!!

--
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
Re:Lost touch with user base? by Sheik+Yerbouti · 2008-09-09 12:16 · Score: 1

But your assertion of a stranglehold simply does not hold up they have some %50 of the search market. And nothing is stopping anyone such as cuil from entering the market with a better algorithm.
Outside of being a media/geek darling there is nothing really stopping Google being replaced tomorrow by the next big thing. There is no real lock in as there is with application and format compatibility as is the case with Windows.
Go ahead try another search engine hell bookmark it make it your homepage there is nothing stopping you certainly not google. I actually suspect this will happen as googles coolness begins to fade with time. Investors should always be ready for the latest web 2.0 property to be replaced by the latest web 2.0 property.
Re:Lost touch with user base? by plasmacutter · 2008-09-09 17:32 · Score: 1

I think you need to go back to school and learn what real monopolies are.
You can also read my sigged article.. maybe you can cough up some of the kool-aid you swallowed.
hershey makes chocolate, a commodity. The branding does not a monopoly make.
All monopolies in fact are "evil". They all cause a dead weight loss to society.
In this case though, google is not a monopoly, it's merely popular.
There is still space in the market for competitors, and the barriers to entry are the cost of a few web ads and some scalable hosting.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Re:Lost touch with user base? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 17:58 · Score: 0

firstly you have so many errors in your comment I won't try fixing them all.
It was windows 3.11 that had the does check not windows 95, windows 95 had integrated dos version in it and did not need or check for an existing version of ms-dos. MS developed there own version of stacker, they did not steal the code, however they ended up having to pay licensing for the patented ideas used.
windows has ALWAYS included a media player, it wasn't suddenly packaged to exclude others, however its increased functionality made it anti competitive.
by google buying up the yahoo's search they create a monopoly on web advertising that both hurts business's and there competitors. A business that wants to advertise on the web must use google, if they have extra funds they may also use others. But as it stands now google IS internet advertising and to not use them hurts you business. THIS IS ANTI-COMPETITIVE, choice is being removed from the market, competitors even if they had better technology cannot compete and hence it stifles innovation as even the best tech cannot beat massive market penetration in advertising.
Re:Lost touch with user base? by SoulRider · 2008-09-10 02:25 · Score: 1

The keyword in your premise is and. Are Mastercard and Visa owned by the same company? No? fair competition. There may be some collusion going on, but definatley not monopoly.
Re:Lost touch with user base? by SoulRider · 2008-09-10 02:44 · Score: 1

Having market dominance does not automatically make a company a Monopoly. As is stated several times, google is not stopping anyone else from implementing their own version of ad sense, they just have the best game in town. I also dont see them leveraging their advertising business to promote their web tools and shut down their competition, hell do a search for search engines on google and it doesnt even show up in the list. My guess is someone at MS reported them, the DOJ investigation of today is similar to the IRS audit of a decade ago.
Re:Lost touch with user base? by RulerOf · 2008-09-10 03:32 · Score: 1

VISA and Mastercard are owned and operated by their member banks, which is pretty much every bank in existence. If all (or nearly all) banks have interest in both companies (as all banks will offer merchant services that accept both card types)... what would you call it?

--
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Re:Lost touch with user base? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-10 05:27 · Score: 0

And of course, there is nothing illegal about a monopoly. It is only the abuse (anti-competitive behavior) of a monopoly that is illegal. I don't see Google requiring that web sites only appear in their index, advertisers to only advertise with them, or any other behavior that would constitute abuse of their position.

just make it a googleocracy by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 07:34 · Score: 0

google's already major player in roles of storage and dissimenation of public information, news, traffic, maps, projects, images, shopping, financials, calendars.

just give em the government and it'll be entertaining how it turns out. i wonder how a GPL republic government would work...

Re:just make it a googleocracy by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 07:43 · Score: 0

Yeah, pity that most Google products are not open-source in the least, much less GPL. (Yes, there are exceptions. But by and large Google is just yet another proprietary vendor that happens to give away ad-supported software that's not obnoxious.)
Re:just make it a googleocracy by Quantos · 2008-09-09 07:43 · Score: 1

i wonder how a GPL republic government would work...
If they run it like a business it would probably turn out great. Just imagine the government running in the black instead of the red... 'Hmm, tax breaks...'

--
Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.

Ridiculous by Orig_Club_Soda · 2008-09-09 07:34 · Score: 0

Google's popularity is 100%consumer driven - IN SPITE of the shady deals Microsoft has be found to engage in to dominate the internet.

The same Bush-admin DOJ that wouldn't go after MS? by PRR · 2008-09-09 07:38 · Score: 1

Is this right? The DOJ under Clinton-Reno pretty much had the MS antitrust thing sewn up years ago, but as soon as the Bush admin came to power, they changed the top brass at the DOJ and the suit was essentially dropped.

But here it is years later, and the same DOJ under the essentially the same Bush admin wants to go after Google?

Ok, what's up?

Re:Ridiculous part 2 by Orig_Club_Soda · 2008-09-09 07:41 · Score: 0

and, in spite of over coming MS's user installed base, and Yahoo's popularity when Google started out, and dozens of other search companies.

A monopoly on the internet... by Butisol · 2008-09-09 07:42 · Score: 1

I don't see why Google's monopolistic position in internet advertising is a bad thing. It's just the internet after all. I don't see how it's the government's business what people do with their money on the internet, and it's especially not the government's business to make the internet "fair." Don't like how it works on the internet? Log the fuck off and do something else worthwhile.

Re:A monopoly on the internet... by Butisol · 2008-09-09 07:43 · Score: 1

The internet is serious business, especially when the internet is serious business.

Litvack is a former head of DoJ anti-trust section by Kringle · 2008-09-09 07:51 · Score: 2, Informative

Note that Sanford ("Sandy") Litvack, now 72 years old, was an Assistant Attorney General for the Carter administration, where he headed the DoJ Antitrust Division. His first job after law school was as a trial attorney for the DoJ Antitrust Division in the Eisenhower administration. This will be his second return from private practice to assist the DoJ.

Let me get this straight... by plazman30 · 2008-09-09 07:53 · Score: 1

Bill Clinton's administration sues Microsoft for antitrust and wins. George Bush gets into office and pretty much slaps Microsoft on the wrist, calling the law suit a travesty of justice.

Microsoft gets all upset with Google for being #1 in the Internet search business and making all this money. So much so that they try a hostile takeover of Yahoo and lose.

So, now, all of the sudden, federal trust busters are snooping around trying to crush Microsoft's biggest competition.

Stay tuned next week when trust busters start looking at the iPod monopoly to see if Apple needs a swift kick in the crotch.

The Bush Administration; bought, sold and paid for by Redmond, Washington.

You think it's any coincidence that Bill Gates got to waltz through secret service and shake George Bush's hand during the Olympics....

Re:Let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 12:23 · Score: 0

You think it's any coincidence that Bill Gates got to waltz through secret service and shake George Bush's hand during the Olympics....

I don't like or dislike the man. As such, this is not a defense in the least. But if I were as rich as bill gates you can bet your tookus I would be on first name basis with the 'secret service' of most important/vacationable countries.

Re:Inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 07:56 · Score: 0

Any sufficiently huge company has to deal with that

Try this one on...

Any sufficiently huge company that isn't actively lobbying the corridors of power in DC has to deal with that.

It is very well documented that it's how Microsoft got hammered by the DOJ in the first place. Now, there is practically no enforcement of their conviction and Microsoft is very active in D.C. Coincidence? I think not.

They just can't take the madness by Aphoxema · 2008-09-09 08:00 · Score: 1

They're totally just jealous of Google actually being less than evil and still being successful.

--
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"

And what do the DOJ think they're going to do? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 08:00 · Score: 0

Drop the case like they did with Microsoft? Ohh, I bet Google are real scared.

If the DOJ want to start taking on anti-trust cases, they have to treat all companies equally and that means splitting up Microsoft. Google isn't abusing its market position to expand into other markets, expanding into other markets feeds back directly into its core business. This is exactly the opposite of Microsofts past and ongoing abuses (eg: how the Windows desktop monopoly and DirectX was used as a base for sideways move into the console market).

It's no secret that Microsoft are behind Google's antitrust rumblings; the outright audacity of these slimy fuckers is astounding...

What I really don't like by eclectro · 2008-09-09 08:02 · Score: 1

is how I can't get on the google party plane

--
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"

What the hell? by Anachragnome · 2008-09-09 08:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

Since when does "providing customer with a good product" equate with a monopoly?

Does that mean that if I am TOO successful in the creation and marketing of my product, I have opened myself up to reprimand/repercussions from the government? Someone help me out here. I simply don't get it.

If I make something far superior to my nearest competitor, and the entire customer base switches to my product, I've done something wrong?

Can someone please explain why this is even an issue for Google?

Re:What the hell? by SpaceLifeForm · 2008-09-09 08:40 · Score: 1

It is an issue for Google because they are being attacked by the fascist darkside that can't stand any competition.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:What the hell? by oGMo · 2008-09-09 08:45 · Score: 1

Additionally, having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing a monopoly is illegal. The only thing I can see here is that Google holds a monopoly on online advertising (i.e., >81% of the market or whatever the standard is), and someone's been whining about their practices. It's unlikely to be about anything people normally use, unless they're accused of product dumping (by not charging for services) and stifling competition in the area, but this seems unlikely because really, like TV, users are the product they're selling to advertisers.
I'm not a lawyer, of course, and I'm just speculating. Of all the companies to go after (*coughmicrosoftcough*), Google seems like the least evil.

--
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Re:What the hell? by codemachine · 2008-09-09 09:09 · Score: 1

MS apologists used the same argument to defend Microsoft Windows' position in the market.
Having a monopoly in and of itself is not a crime. Microsoft wasn't guilt of anything by virtue of making a product that most people wanted (or at least purchased anyhow).
What is a crime is obtaining or maintaining that monopoly with underhanded means. MS did this through their dealings with OEMs, among other ways.
It is also a crime to use that monopoly to hurt competition in other sectors. The big part of the MS case was their use of Windows to take over the browser market, though it applies to many products.
For a trail to proceed against Google, it would have to be shown they actually have a monopoly to begin with, and then that they abused it somehow. Given the number of products and services has, it was inevitable that they'd draw scrutiny.
Re:What the hell? by SixAndFiftyThree · 2008-09-09 09:13 · Score: 1

IANAL either but I once worked for Netscape :-(
Using monopoly power to jack up the price is bad, but Microsoft didn't jack up the price of Web browsers. Quite the opposite! What they did was scare away potential competitors who might (cough) have provided a better browser, by saying, in effect, "It doesn't matter how good your product is. You won't make any money. So forget it."
Re:What the hell? by Anachragnome · 2008-09-09 09:17 · Score: 1

So, in essence, it is simply a backdoor/insider means of using the DOJ as a tool to stifle free-market forces, in favor of Googles competition.
Sheesh.
I assumed there was more to it then that, but I have not seen any replies to my post stating otherwise.
So, who investigates impropriety/corruption within the DOJ? Maybe that is who everyone needs to be emailing.
Re:What the hell? by plazman30 · 2008-09-09 10:35 · Score: 1

You're only allowed to do this, if you're Microsoft.
Then again saying Microsoft is providing customer with a good product is stretching it.... :-)
I used Vista for 3 months. I happily upgraded to XP, and here I'll stay. Work laptop... no Linux allowed. Home has a Fedora and an Ubuntu box...
Re:What the hell? by tknd · 2008-09-09 10:50 · Score: 1

Since when does "providing customer with a good product" equate with a monopoly?
Google pretty much holds a monopoly in the web marketing segment for pay-per-click advertising. Most web marketing firms will only use Google because their market share is too large it would be stupid not to. The gains from moving on to #2 and #3 players are so small that Yahoo and Microsoft are only thought of if the client has deep pockets for marketing. If Google successfully can maintain the Yahoo deal, they will grab and even large chunk of market share. They are already in snowball mode, it is only a matter of time before the competitors drop out. This deal just accelerates it.

Does that mean that if I am TOO successful in the creation and marketing of my product, I have opened myself up to reprimand/repercussions from the government? Someone help me out here. I simply don't get it.
Yes. The idea is to make it possible for new players to enter the existing markets and competition from the players will benefit consumers through a variety of products and prices. Suppose you held a monopoly on a certain product or service like tires. There is nothing wrong with that. But now suppose anyone that came in and wanted to make tires to compete with you, you suddenly did something to prevent that business from operating because you know it will hurt your business. The new company inevitably fails not because they did something wrong but that you purposely changed the pieces to force them to fail. If you are able to keep this up, nobody will be able to challenge your product/service and you can basically halt all innovation and product quality and charge any price you want.
Now in practice, the legal system may not be enforcing the rules well enough that some monopolies continue to get away with abuses. But the intention is to keep the door open and enough rules in place that it is possible for a new business to compete with a monopoly.

If I make something far superior to my nearest competitor, and the entire customer base switches to my product, I've done something wrong?
No, there is nothing wrong with that. That is what all businesses aspire to attain. But once you achieve that status, a new set of rules apply which may restrict strategies you can utilize to crush your smaller competitors. Think of it as a race. Nobody has anything against the guy in front, but if we want any kind of race, we need to either make it harder for the person in front by giving him new rules so that the other players can catch up or we need to give the other players more support. You might say "that's not fair" and I say the system isn't interested in fairness for the players, but for benefits and protection for the consumers of what the players produce. If no competitor comes into the game to challenge the #1 player, then the consumers lose out because the player can just sit down and do nothing and the consumers will have no choice but to deal with it.

Can someone please explain why this is even an issue for Google?
See my first paragraph. The facade Google has put up for the general public is a good one because everyone automatically associates Google with that free [search|mail|news|etc] service. These people are not Google customers, but rather Google "viewers". Google sets up a service, gives it away for free to attract "viewers". Google then uses the "viewers" as giant advertising board for advertisers. This is the same model as any newspaper, magazine, tv show, radio station, and so on. The real question will be does Google have enough "viewer" market share to be a monopoly to on-line advertisers (probably yes) and have they used that position to prevent competitors from competing (I don't know).
As a Google shareholder, I hope the answer is no, but any lawsuit is usually a losing business proposition (unless you're a patent firm) for a company or individual because the lawyers always get paid win or lose.
Re:What the hell? by Lord+Flipper · 2008-09-09 18:36 · Score: 1

So, who investigates impropriety/corruption within the DOJ?
The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary.That committee's Hearing on Oversight of the Department of Justice went a long way towards Gonzalez's resignation.
Some of us old-timers believe that typed letters, on paper, in envelopes, are far preferable to email (this is debatable, though, always include your real name and address, either way). Many believe a neat, well-written printed letter has more impact. That's a judgment call, but it can make sense, given that email can be made to look pretty crisp, also.
And, avoid polemics, be courteous, to the point, and include specific supporting examples, etc.
The best tactic, with these bigger committees, is to write your own Congressperson or Senator, and ask them to intervene, or raise an issue, with their same-party rep on the Committee, specifically, the Majority member, or Minority member (whom you have also named, in full). It doesn't hurt to write the same Majority or Minority member, yourself, and, of course, if your Congressional/Senator rep is on the Committee, well there you go.
Re:What the hell? by Lord+Flipper · 2008-09-09 18:54 · Score: 1

ask them to intervene, or raise an issue, with their same-party rep on the Committee, specifically, the Majority member, or Minority member
Pardon me, one, I have never felt obliged to comment on my own letter before (and it is rather unpleasant, to be avoided, obviously, in the future). But when I said Majority and Minority 'member,' I should have written, "Majority 'leader' on the committee (known as the Chair), OR, the Minority party 'leader' on that committee, the second most powerful voice on the committee.
Depending on the issue and the Committee's Minority party leader's negotiating skills, the Minority leaders have been known to negotiate outcomes that were not the majority party's first goal.
Note to self: Try to refrain from writing any instructionally-oriented material when this close to 2 am. Check.
Re:What the hell? by Anachragnome · 2008-09-10 04:42 · Score: 1

Thanks.
My first thought was to simply write my representative, and I'll stick with my gut on this one.

Big deal by PingXao · 2008-09-09 08:20 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I'm going to block ads no matter where they come from, as can any "consumer". All of a sudden the DoJ is concerned about anti-trust violations. This is bad because it means, within the halls of Justice, they see online advertising as "a big deal" while most online denizens detest all forms of online advertising. OK, some of us allow Google's unobtrusive text-only ads through because they're not too annoying, but if that should change then they're blocked too.

So the "big business" of online ads - that everyone hates - is important to the Justice department. Meanwhile, the MIAA and RIAA are allowed to continue bribing the Congress and being given the right to author their own laws, which are then backed up with the full weight of the US Government behind them.

Both major parties are fucked up, if you ask me. Really, really fucked up. No matter who wins the Presidency nothing much is going to change.

Re:Big deal by Lord+Flipper · 2008-09-09 19:13 · Score: 1
within the halls of Justice, they see online advertising as "a big deal" while most online denizens detest all forms of online advertising. OK, some of us allow Google's unobtrusive text-only ads through because they're not too annoying, but if that should change then they're blocked too.

realizing, of course, that we are better than everyone else, I nevertheless feel compelled to point out a couple things here:
- 99.9% of the Internet audience does not block their ads
- And guess what that means? ... It is a big deal.

Some really wierd things are going to happen... by harrie_o · 2008-09-09 08:21 · Score: 0

Some really wierd things are going to happen...

... in the USA when the money runs dry for big government will have to turn on those who have it (corporations) for a change.

The original Microsoft anti-trust was brought by a Democratic President who got distracted by Monica-Gate and eager to please all in the aftermath ... the EU went on to actually pursue and reform Microsoft.

Should our government pursue cases on behalf of other corporations envious of other corporations?

Well, the lawyers are just following the money.

Re:Some really wierd things are going to happen... by DragonWriter · 2008-09-09 10:54 · Score: 1

The original Microsoft anti-trust was brought by a Democratic President who got distracted by Monica-Gate and eager to please all in the aftermath ...

It would be more accurate to say that the original Microsoft antitrust case was brought under a Democratic administration whose second term ended while the case was in progress; Microsoft was left off the hook by the Bush Administration, not as a "please everyone" move by the Clinton Administration.

More Precisely by bill_mcgonigle · 2008-09-09 08:22 · Score: 1

If you want to start a business today, you have to have some idea why Google won't just Beta you into the ground.

Nope, that's only if you want other peoples' money.

Google thus prevents innovation through the *possibility* of actions it might not ever take, or might take with only good intentions.

I'll grant you that there's a risk there, but there's also a reward. Google tends to buy products that mesh well with theirs when they want to enter a market. None of it is for the risk-adverse.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Did your intarweb by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 08:34 · Score: 0

come to you with Chrome preinstalled?

Google's ahead because they're better by billstewart · 2008-09-09 08:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Google became the dominant search engine for a couple of reasons - not only is it really fast and uncluttered, compared to some of its early competitors (remember Hotbot?), but PageRank did a good job of guessing what pages would be the most relevant and most interesting and displaying them first, and nobody's really caught up with them. On the other hand, they've still only got a bit more than 50% of the market - their two main competitors are staying in business.

In advertising, which is how Google makes most of their money, Google ads are uncluttered and fast, so they're not as annoying as other ads, making web site authors more willing to carry them, and apparently advertisers think Google does a good enough job of targeting ads to readers that they're more effective than their competitors or have a better price per result or something.

And unlike Microsoft, where the tight integration between the OS, device drivers, the mail system, the calendar, and Office makes it difficult to leave once you're addicted, it's easy for anybody to use another search engine instead of Google, or for an advertiser to use a different ad agency, and the reason Google stays on top is because they invest enough development money to keep their quality high.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Re:Google's ahead because they're better by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 15:20 · Score: 0

The anti-competitive angle applies to *advertisers*, not so much to users.
The commercially significant websites are effectively locked in to Google ads. They've already done the engineering to serve ads from Google, and the money's too good for them to consider serving ads from anyone else. Why would they? The screen real estate devoted to ads earns more $/pixel via Google than anyone else. And their users don't want them to clutter their pages with *more* ads...
So if I want to advertise my product effectively, I must go talk to (an agency who talks to) Google. But what if Google doesn't want to serve my ad? What if my product/service is deemed to compete with Google or one of its partners? I'll never know whether they served the ad via fair auction on my keywords. So it's the advertisers who face restricted choice and could easily be victimized by anti-competitive practices.
As Microsoft found out much to their disbelief, once some judge decides you are the dominant player in s/he decides is a "market", previously acceptable business practices become illegal. Retroactively.

Re:Wierd theory here... Just be BLUNT: by davidsyes · 2008-09-09 08:43 · Score: 1

Call it like it is: the other companies (ESPECIALLY microsoft, if they are behind instigating the DOJ investigation AFTER Google/Yahoo! have pretty much signed their deal at ms' loss) are whining piss-ant performers. They cannot compete effectively at the insane (too low or too high, or improperly-thought-out) profit margins, so they kvetch to the DOJ to try to dismantle Google. If Google is to dismantled by regulatory agencies, then msoft should be first in line.

As for Google "just loads", however, it's not always so: I have enough firewall and blocking going on the effectively make Google take 5 seconds or longer to load. Gmail processes sometimes fail and hang up chatting and other features. But at least i can live with that because it's of my own doing.

Search engine companies trying to make a living off of ads probably will fail. I suspect (not that this is not the case, and not that this has been discussed) that Google is simply making reams of money by selling off the ad information impressions under a very profitable model/scheme that others have difficulty emulating. As for microsoft, if they weren't so damned busy trying to appropriate/misappropriate the business dreams of others, and if they weren't so jealous of and vengeful about others' novel approaches to things and end up making ms look stupid or underperforming then ms might sober up (yet again, like a lumbering, staggering, slurring drunkard of the software industry) more often (instead of being punch-drunk on their own "achievements") then they might actually garner more respect rather than command/hijacking it.

Google succeeds because they are Google. They have a different attitude. That ms succeeds is because they, relative to Google and, lets' not forget others who were DESTROYED by msoft, have little compunction about their acts. They use their money to clobber, out-market, and out-litigate, not innovate. Google (having lots of cash), and survivors and smaller companies (with less cash), meanwhile, innovate or adapt at the very least, out of fear of not being here tomorrow. But, ms seems to operate as if they have universal appeal and a right to exist without question. They need to re-think that attitude.

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"

Re:Weirder theory here by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 08:43 · Score: 0

What if the DOJ is seeking to harm Google because it wouldn't fully comply with handing over search results to the U.S. Gov't?

Monopolies are not illegal by NathanE · 2008-09-09 08:48 · Score: 2, Informative

... just the ABUSE of them. Think of all the niche markets where somebody has a monopoly on it. If there is evidence of Google abusing their "monopoly" in search and advertising to get a stranglehold on other markets, then having the DOJ look into it is a good thing. So they've got 80% of the online advertising market with the deal with Yahoo; good for them. Are they abusing it somehow? Artificially inflating advertising prices? Any examples?

Yep, another WTF?? by tuxgeek · 2008-09-09 08:59 · Score: 0, Troll

You know this suit just stinks of another Microsoft backed ploy.

When you think of anti-competitive and monopoly, only one name comes to mind: Microsoft.

I'm sure this deal between Google and Yahoo puts M$'s hostile take over of Yahoo even further out of reach.

--
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain

Free software is not dumping by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 09:02 · Score: 0

If you want to profit from the code, you must pay back in kind.

It's why so many companies and their shills say we should be using the "more free" BSD.

Re:I submitted this article hours earlier by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 09:15 · Score: 0

Is the reply really off topic, or do the moderators just disagree with the inference?

Abuse of the law by theverylastperson · 2008-09-09 09:19 · Score: 1

If there is any truth to this then it is a sad sad day. This is not the kind of situation those laws were enacted for. Didn't the Government learn anything from breaking up AT&T?

I suggest we file an Anti-Trust suit against the Federal Government and insist on breaking it up into 50 different Sovereign States with their own Gover.....

--
ed duval the very last person

Breaking up not all bad by ianare · 2008-09-09 09:20 · Score: 1

I agree with most here that Google has not really done anything to make them not trustworthy, especially when compared to MS. And I appreciate the fact that Google re-invests what they make from advertising into some of the best free services online, and that some of these are even open-source.
However, one area that does concern me greatly is the concentration of all the user and advertiser data in one company. Maybe a break up wouldn't be a bad idea from that point of view. Also, having Google control 80% of the market is a little worrisome, with size and power comes corruption.

For example, you could have an advertising company and a services company. The services (search, gmail, maps, etc) could get paid by the advertising company - but would accept ads from other companies as well.

Hmmmm. by WindBourne · 2008-09-09 09:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

It is NO co-incidence that Microsoft is one of hte top corporate donors to the Republican party. They scratch each others backs regularly.
I am absolutely not a fan of MS, but you must know something that others do not.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Hmmmm. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 11:47 · Score: 0

I think you'll find that you are doing it wrong. Try searching for "Microsoft" over ALL cycles on that page (click "Start New Search") - you'll find about $5 million over both RNC and DNC.
Re:Hmmmm. by 5of0 · 2008-09-09 12:31 · Score: 1

Sibling could have at least provide a link. You would find (with a casual search for "R" and "D" which seems pretty effective) that the Republicans got 1.53 million, and the Democrats got 1.27 million. Hardly a glaring difference.

--
You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
Re:Hmmmm. by 5of0 · 2008-09-09 12:33 · Score: 1

Ehh, it would seem the captchas are screwing things up. Regardless, check "All Cycles", enter the captcha, and you'll be good.

--
You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
Re:Hmmmm. by plasmacutter · 2008-09-09 17:36 · Score: 1

democrats recieved a mere 83% of what the republicans did.. that's a pretty high margin.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!

Secret? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 09:22 · Score: 0

From the summary:

The Justice department has secretly hired

For all of our sakes let's hope the Justice Department doesn't know Slashdot is posting their secrets.

Me too, I wannabe Google by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-09 09:22 · Score: 0

This sounds like a gang bang orchestrated by wannabe competitors who've rested on their laurels for too long. Much like the RIAA/MPAA intent on controlling the tubes.

In Billg and Festers wet dreams perhaps. by miffo.swe · 2008-09-09 09:27 · Score: 1

I cant help but think this is a job done for hire by Microsoft. Why on earth would the DOJ want to attack Google for their deal with Yahoo? It was a helping hand to let them survive without Microsoft gobbling them up and spitting the rotten corpse to the wayside. If any company should be under DOJ scrutiny it would be Microsoft for using their ill gotten monopoly to break into the search market.

This really reeks of backroom deals. I thought capitalism was about free markets and stuff but obviously its just about who knows who and whos palms you greese.

--
HTTP/1.1 400

"less than evil"? by ClosedSource · 2008-09-09 09:30 · Score: 1

Is that like an evil wannabe? Are you talking about Google or Dr Horrible?

Re:"less than evil"? by Aphoxema · 2008-09-09 18:11 · Score: 1

No, nonsense, I mean
Successful = (Google [Less Than] Evil)

--
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"

Actually by WindBourne · 2008-09-09 09:52 · Score: 1

When Google started 10 years ago, it was yahoo and alta vista. The first was known for their classification, while alta vista was known for speed as well as handling more pages.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Follow the money by IGnatius+T+Foobar · 2008-09-09 09:57 · Score: 1

Follow the money trail, and you will eventually find out who is behind all this. I'm willing to bet that no more than 48 hours will go by before something is posted to Groklaw revealing how Microsoft is somehow bankrolling this little expedition.

--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!

Just a thankyou notice by TechnicalFool · 2008-09-09 09:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

For being someone else in this thread to spot the difference between popularity and monopoly.

Ta muchly.

--
09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0

The government... by nate+nice · 2008-09-09 10:04 · Score: 1

They are parasites whose only mission is to freeload and steal form the brilliant and ambitious. They are parasites, providing for the mobs that empower them, leeches they are. Death to them all.

--
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."

Looney Toons by suck_burners_rice · 2008-09-09 10:54 · Score: 1

A Disney lawyer? Why didn't they hire Mickey Mouse?

--
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!

Well, here's how by Moraelin · 2008-09-09 11:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, last time I read an analysis of the surrealistic attempt by MS to buy Yahoo, it apparently involved a patent actually. Some small company had come up with a ludicrious blanket patent on, basically, AdWords. If you automatically match keywords to serve an ad, congrats you infringe on it. Yahoo bought them. Yahoo apparently licensed it to Google, but refuses to license it to MS for any sum. So basically it's in a position to block anyone it wants to from entering the context-matched ads segment, and does just that.

So before we all go orgasmic about "OMG google is soo smart that they monopolized the context-matched ad space, and MS is so dumb that it can't even do that except in a few asian countries"... well, it's because basically MS is kept from entering that maket at all.

Anyway, that shitload of money offered for buying Yahoo, were apparently all about that patent. And Yang & Co would rather lose money for its shareholders, _and_ hand in the goose that lays golden eggs to Google, than let MS compete there. They practically offered to bow down and give Google their share of that market space, then let MS in at all.

Now I don't have any particular love for MS, nor any particular hatred for Google, but, seriously, isn't this exactly what the anti-trust laws were supposed to prevent? What I see there is a case of #1 and #2 in a market, colluding to keep #3 out of it. And everyone else, for that matter.

_If_ we decided that it's the ultimate evil to artificially raise trade barriers just to keep competitors out, if you're MS... shouldn't the same apply when Yahoo and Google do it? I mean, seriously, what's the difference?

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.

Re:Well, here's how by Korgan · 2008-09-09 14:18 · Score: 1

Nothing stopping Microsoft signing up for Google Adsense like everyone else ;-) They could join the party too.
Come on... you know you want to see "Ads by Goooooooogle" next time you visit the MSDN site. :-)
Re:Well, here's how by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2008-09-09 15:58 · Score: 1

Come on... you know you want to see "Ads by Goooooooogle" next time you visit the MSDN site. :-)
What are "ads" and why would I see them on a website?

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!

Aaaaarrrghhhhh by 5of0 · 2008-09-09 12:06 · Score: 1

.............changed the world?

(Must have died while he was writing it...)

--
You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.

Re:Weirder theory here by ScrewMaster · 2008-09-09 12:16 · Score: 1

Not so weird. The Feds regularly (and I would assume illegally) punish uncoooperative corporations. Remember what happened to Qwest when it refused to be a party to illegal wiretapping.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Monopolies are legal, abusing monopoly power ain't by plehmuffin · 2008-09-09 15:07 · Score: 1

My understanding of antitrust law is that they are to prevent companies with monopolies from using their monopoly power to hurt competition in other lines. That is, to use their monopoly dominance in one field to bludgeon their competitors in another field. For example, using one's dominance in the operating system market to take over the web browser market.

I'm not sure I see how google can do that based on this yahoo deal. I can see how it gives them a huge, dominating presence in the advertising market, but I don't see how they are abusing that dominance to hurt competition. They're simply offering the best deal in town to advertisers, and advertisers are generally taking it. Who's being harmed?

wow.. what a crock.. by plasmacutter · 2008-09-09 17:35 · Score: 1

That site doesn't count the "soft money", the individual candidates, the "favors", etc.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!

Ayn Rand by falconwolf · 2008-09-09 20:19 · Score: 1

Rand was wrong about a lot of things

I hear people saying that a lot, but I've never seen an actual point or list of things wrong with her theory. Care to list them.. I'm genuinely interested in anything that is wrong with her philosophy.

Yea, I don't understand it myself. Whenever Ayn Rand is mentioned someone has to say she was wrong, but they won't say why. Maybe it comes from the movie "Dirty Dancing", a waiter there is carrying a copy of "The Fountainhead" I think and he says something along the lines that some people count more than others. However neither that book nor any other's of Rand says that. I love the movie but hate that scene.

Then again maybe it's because of Objectivism. My sister loved Rand until she found out about Objectivism. Then as a Christian she changed her mind about Rand.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Please do not confuse market share with monopoly. by falconwolf · 2008-09-09 21:39 · Score: 1

It seems that's what you are doing yourself. A monopoly is a lack of competition.

Microsoft has the majority of the market share of the desktop world. But that is not what makes them a monopoly.

It does make them a monopoly. However being a monopoly is not illegal.

using their position of dominance to suffocate other competitors, such as forcing computer manufacturers to install only Microsoft Office products under the threat that if they don't comply that Microsoft will yank their Windows licenses.

Now that is what is illegal. Simply being a monopoly is not illegal but using the monopoly to squeeze out competition in another area is illegal. The original lawsuit again Microsoft wasn't because they were a monopoly, it was because they used the fact they were a monopoly to force computer manufacturers to install other Microsoft products on PCs instead of competitors' products, IE instead of Netscape.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Google by falconwolf · 2008-09-09 22:02 · Score: 1

Google is getting in everybody's space

While Google's there when I want it, they aren't in my space.

Google's products are not generally better, (often flakey or worse (consider google docs and gmail - so what? the only advantage they offer is that they are free

Unless your employer, or you for that matter, demand you use Google's apps you don't have to. Even if you want free software, a lot of the software on my computer is open source, I have none of Google's software on it. I don't even use gmail.

They have already destroyed the search market because only crazy people would start up a search company and go up against them.

Google has gained dominance in searches because it offers better searches than most other search engines. However the new SE Cuil looks pretty good too. I haven't really used it yet but I also use About.com, Alta Vista, Teoma, oops Ask.com, and Open Directory Project for searches.

They are busily destroying most other markets too.

And what markets are these?

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

competition by falconwolf · 2008-09-09 22:42 · Score: 1

If no competitor comes into the game to challenge the #1 player, then the consumers lose out because the player can just sit down and do nothing and the consumers will have no choice but to deal with it.

And when Google returns bad results, people can switch to other providers. Whether that's in searches or in advertizing. Google got big by providing a better service and they shouldn't be punished for that. They should only be punished if they use their strengths to try to dominate another business sector. And I haven't heard about any cases where they were. Besides Google I use other search engines as well. And if I ran a business, I hope to start one in photography, I could use other ad agencies. If I wanted to place ads on Facebook I'd have to buy ads from Microsoft. Yahoo! bought the ad agency Overture, which before Google came along was a big online ad business.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Re:Please do not confuse market share with monopol by EvilIntelligence · 2008-09-10 01:14 · Score: 1

Well, I guess if you want to get that picky about the semantics, sure. But I was focusing mainly on the fact that Google does not appear to be employing anti-competitive practices, and that I don't see how the Google/Yahoo deal would either, and I don't see what the DOJ can do about it. My other point was that the DOJ's reaction is not surprising, considering how big and influential Google is (and influential does not mean anti-competitive).

This was inevitable. by Bigmilt8 · 2008-09-10 02:12 · Score: 1

Everyone had to see this coming. If you didn't keep writing code and stay out of the business part. The Yahoo deal (or more like the deal to keep Microsoft out of Yahoo) gives Google even more control over the online advertising arena. The people who stand to lose the most from Google's monopoly is advertising agencies. Not M$. How can I as an advertising agency compete with an entity on the web that has such control over the segment? The interesting thing here is going to be how Google handles the suit. If they are found guilty, they will face record fines. M$ was (and still is) sitting on a tremendous amount of cash. Google isn't. They just have stock value. The DOF doesn't take that for payment.

Another bonanza for the EvilEsq's by Inch-oh · 2008-09-10 04:57 · Score: 1

This is asinine. The DOJ should be going after the real problem... the f*^k!ng lawyers the 'parasites' at the top of the food chain... but they won't b/c they don't like the taste of their own blood. see http://evilesq.blogspot.com/

Re:Please do not confuse market share with monopol by falconwolf · 2008-09-10 09:28 · Score: 1

Well, I guess if you want to get that picky about the semantics, sure.

It's not a matter of pickiness, if people don't use the same definition then there's confusion.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

its because of the corruption in DOJ by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-11 01:58 · Score: 0

Bush government's people admitted to screening FIFTY candidates for top positions in DOJ for their political viewpoints, and choosing the ones they found closer to their own.

basically doj is corrupted to the point of being a pile of shit by republican neocons. hence, being microsoft's bitch.

Slashdot Mirror

USDOJ Sniffing Google Antitrust Suit, Hires Ex-Disney Lawyer

241 comments