Slashdot Mirror
Google Negotiating With Justice Department
mikesd81 writes "Cnet reports that to avoid being sued by the US Justice Department, Google is negotiating with them. The Justice Department and a multistate task force are still reviewing the proposal to decide whether to oppose the partnership. Under the non-exclusive partnership Google would supply Yahoo with some search ads, a move that could increase Yahoo search revenue, but that also gives Google even more power in the market. Yahoo expects the 10-year deal to raise revenue by $800 million in its first year and to provide an extra $250 million to $450 million in incremental operating cash flow. Google's share of the US search market reached 71 percent in August, compared with Yahoo's 18.26, according to Hitwise's most recent numbers."
to avoid being sued by the U.S. Justice Department, Google is negotiating with them
Okay, Google has 71% of the search engine market... Which itself makes up what, less than 5% of the total world of advertising?
Oh, boo-hoo, Google can actually tell you how much you have to pay to share their sandbox. Sorry advertisers, but we don't want your "product" in the first place. Go bitch to someone who carres.
And, advertisers-of-the-world (and other search engines), do you know why Google has 71% of the search engine market? Because Google doesn't piss us off with banners and flash ads and hiding sponsored links as results. Get the hint?
Why are Google's competitors opposing the deal?
If conventional wisdom about such big mergers - that they will 'corner' the market and increase prices - is correct, then shouldn't the competitors be happy that their competitor will raise prices and hence drive customers to them?
The obvious conclusion, supported by lots of data for those inclined to look, is that big mergers always increase efficiency and hence reduce prices for the consumer. It is precisely that outcome that terrifies competitors and forces them to rush to government and feign a concern for the well-being of the consumer.
But why should the new megacorp reduce prices if they have no competitors, you ask? This is only possible if you think that the only competitor to, for example an airline, is another airline. That is false. The airlines compete with cars, trains, USPS, the telephone and lately, in my case, with web-conferencing.
So it is with *all* other industries.
Is that really something that needs to be regulated?
It makes me sad for you every time I see this posted. You must have a terribly lonely life.
But they'll investigate Google after MS cries about fairness?
Cnet reports that to avoid being sued by the U.S. Justice Department, Google is negotiating with them. The Justice Department and a multistate task force are still reviewing the proposal to decide whether to oppose the partnership.
"The" proposal? "The" partnership? Don't make me RTFA to work out what you're talking about!
The Government has no business in trying to prevent a more efficient business, or even a less efficient business, from forming - that is the job of a free market - which of course our government has strangled already in other areas by forcing risky endeavors. While Google and Yahoo are prevented from doing business, Yahoo is diving deeper and deeper into the dumpster - way to go, "just here to help" government - you're killing the golden geese of the economy.
Instead, how about trying "lead, follow, or", (best of all), "get out of the way".
Don't worry guys, Cuil will soon dominate the market once everyone realizes how vastly superior it is.
I will bend like a reed in the wind.
The US Justice department is negotiating a deal with the company that owns the worlds largest information databases. What form do you think their "agreement" is going to take?
To paraphrase Churchill; This is not the end of Google as we know it. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
May the Maths Be with you!
Please inform us as to what part of competition law Google is breaching?
People who post ads on Google are free to post ads with other engines. People who host Google ads are totally free to host ads form other engines as well. Google does not and never has enforced any kind of non-compete clauses to participate in Adwords in any way.
*Chuckle* Thanks for repeating the same logical fallacy. I am not defending Microsoft. Simply put, this article is about Google. If you think what they are doing is fine, then defend on that front. Don't play politician and muddy up the waters with Microsoft. There are plenty of other stories on them... just wait a bit and you will get your chance to rant on topic.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
the DOJ doesn't investigate Microsoft after the flood of incidents involving MS hijacking two standards bodies, funding proxy attacks against other corporations, bribing bloggers and journalists with expensive laptops to write puff pieces about VISTA ... their misdeeds seem to never end. They've proven that ethics is foreign to them.
But, what can you expect? With all the Congressmen they've bribed on both sides of the isle, and a,fter Bush emasculated the DOJ and made it Microsoft's lapdog, Microsoft has been able to get away with acts that would have resulted in jail terms for management of poorer corporations.
The ONLY reason why Microsoft's lapdog is going after Google now is because Microsoft has been unable to FAIRLY compete with Google in the market place.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Well, there is a difference here. Microsoft quite clearly engaged in illegal monopolistic practices, forcing vendors into exclusive deals using their market dominance, while charging excessive prices for increasingly inferior products. So far at least, Google doesn't seem to engage in any anti-competitive behaviour, and its success is based on providing good services at reasonable prices.
That said, I think it's good that the government is paying attention - Google may not be doing anything wrong yet, but they have amassed enough power that they bear close watching.
It seems to me that this is the system working as intended.
Anyone else wonder, if not for a split second, why CNET needed to avoid being sued by the U.S. Justice Department?
Don't forget that this comes after last year's $3.1 billion purchase of doubleclick which was under scrutiny because of the power in the online advertising market it gave them and had to be approved by the anti-trust regulators in the US and in Europe.
I also see they bought a Russian online advertising company a few months ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Google
Sun's drop from the playing field had nothing to do with Microsoft's monopoly. Microsoft was accused of forcing companies like Dell to install only Windows on the machines they sold. Sun sold it's own servers and didn't realize that the market was shifting away from high prices for perceived high value to more of a commodity pricing model. They lost market share to Microsoft for sound economic reasons that had nothing to do with Microsoft's monopoly. It was just that Microsoft Windows on an Intel box would do the job for less than half the price of the equivalent Sun server.
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
DJI
Is now really a good time to quibble about regulating giant, economy-controlling companies? Yes, regulate those bitches. Small businesses need to advertise, if one company controls the only means to do so on the Internet, they can set the price and make life miserable for lots of people.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
The summary refers to stats collected by Hitwise. Where do they get those stats on web usage? From their how-we-do-it:
IOW, your ISP may be sending your clickstream to Hitwise without your knowledge. That should be flat illegal, I don't care if they "anonymize" it first -- AOL did that with search data they released publicly and got in trouble when reporters were able to identify individuals who made some very private searches. Who is to judge how anonymous it really is?
Even worse, Hitwise is "an Experian company" -- they are owned by one of the big credit reporting companies, which already amass lots of private info about you, making it easier for them to de-anonymize that clickstream.
Hitwise claims to cover 25 million people worldwide including 10 million in the US. Is your ISP is selling your private data without even informing you?
Don Luskin puts it well