USDOJ Sniffing Google Antitrust Suit, Hires Ex-Disney Lawyer

Van Cutter Romney was one of several to write with the story that "The Justice department has secretly hired former Walt Disney lawyer Sanford Litvack for a possible antitrust suit against Google. As reported earlier, the Justice Department is investigating the deal between Google and Yahoo which accounts for 80% of online search advertising. The Wall Street Journal writes today that Justice Department lawyers have been deposing witnesses and issuing document subpoenas for weeks — but that doesn't necessarily mean a case will be brought."

Comments

I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

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 thought Google is competing with Microsoft

[Quasar1999]

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.

Secret? Not so much.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft

[Fishbulb]

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 don't understand antitrust suits

[bobetov]

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.

Re:Big difference

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

What the hell?

[Anachragnome]

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?

Well, here's how

[Moraelin]

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?