Slashdot Mirror
Russian Regulators Block Google Online Advertising Acquisition
An anonymous reader writes "Russian regulators will not let Google buy a local online advertising company, halting a $140 million deal agreed to in July. Google had planned to acquire Zao Begun, which has a search and contextual video and text advertising business. Begun is owned by Rambler Media, a Russian company that own various Web sites and runs a search engine. Google said it is reviewing the decision of Russia's Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) and hasn't decided how to react. Slashdot has previously covered some of the issues surrounding Google's muscle in the advertising market."
They forgot to bribe the Russian mafia.
...And I approve of this socialism.
Good night, Serge-Boy! Good night, Larry Ellen!
I imagine that Sergey Brin has already invested quite a bit of money into the Russian economy. Although if you control the advertising you control the propaganda.
http://luminosity.livejournal.com http://www.zazzle.com/unixarcade*
... yet again being smarter than the United States monopoly regulators in recent years.
Hey, American people: if you want to look for reasons why we are no longer on top, look straight to your government. You have looked to them solutions but they have been delivering the opposite.
Try thinking for yourselves for a change.
Ads block you!
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Please, translate correctly. It's "Begun Inc."
ZAO means "Zakrytoye Aktsionernoye Obschestvo" (Privatly Held Corporation) in Russian, it's not a part of the name.
Now, if after a while FAS reverses its decision, we will know that Google bribed the officials. Nearly any problem in Russia (or in the US, for that matter) can be resolved with a large enough bag of money.
The official name of the company is ZAO Begun. However, "ZAO" is simply the Russian abbreviation for "proprietary joint stock company"; in the West, an equivalent formal corporate name would probably be "Begun Pty Ltd."
In any case, the summary uses "Google" instead of "Google, Inc."; and "Rambler Media" instead of "Rambler Media, Ltd." Seems rather odd that of the 3 corporations mentioned, only Begun was listed with its full official (though miscapitalized) name.
Google has a fairly dominating position in the US, but other places it varies considerably. Most Japanese cell phones have a Yahoo! button on them (not a google button) and in China they use Baidu. I think the 4 different ways of writing in Japanese are probably not Google's strength.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Don't do business in Russia. As far as I can recall theres this even then the whole Sakhalin Island thing where foreign companies invested billions into the country then were kicked straight the fuck out. Is it really worth the risk? Even China seems more free at this point.
... and you can look it up. It is called "fascism". Yes, that's right. What drove the Nazis. Do look it up.
Then why aren't others doing it? Are you going to try to tell me that they haven't thought of it? Or that it's too new? Yeah right.
Sorry, dude. Hoist by your own petard. A monopoly (or near-monopoly) is still a monopoly, no matter how it got there. Once it does, it can choose to play by the capitalist rules, or remain a monopoly. Sadly, Google has some chinks in its "do no evil" armor. And they are pretty damned big.
It is good to see a country standing up for itself and preventing a globalising multinational company (even google.com) from taking a well earned portion of their economy. Given the current state of all major economies, it only makes sense that the Russian GOVT is not prepared to let a major national advertisement franchise be taken up by the leaders in WWW. technologies.
Kapai Russia
Mother Russia will make google sleep with the fishes
Russia is slowly falling back into what they feel comfortable with and what they know. They are cracking down on visa's and have reduced the amount of American's allowed into the country. Sure enough they will be back to their old communist ways. This is what the people know and I think they like it that way. Democracy for people that are not used to thinking for themselves is hard.
Actually I'd think the US and much of Europe is headed towards a hybrid of oligarchy and fascism. Very elite few grandfathered in not by a blood family line but by a CEO corporate grooming leading with an iron fist a totalitarian nationalist ideology.
Perhaps we should name it... fascigarchy?
Zao is a Greek word for "spiritually alive", which gives all sorts of false impressions if you didn't know that it was supposed to be ZAO as in Zakrytoye Aktsiohnernoye Obschestvo.
Got all that firepower. Let's put it to use and nuke 'em. Problem solved, so says the ostler and my favorite whorehouse.
Google just try to buy every webspace to make Satan rules the world. A simple search with "Google"'s keyword give you 666 results. The G of Google mean 6 in l33t-speaking.
Damn, I forgot my medics...
I'm sure they are after targeted advertising... as in Soviet Russia, Google searches you!
(Be kind, this is my first usage of a Slashdot meme =) )
Under related stories:
"Firehose:Google online advertising acquisition blocked by Anonymous Coward"
Wow, either Google has suffered in the economic crash or we have super cowards!
In Soviet Russia, suck Soviet Russia jokes.
Why do you have to think whatever is done in Russia is wrong? I do like Google and all that, but I want them to avoid becoming a monopolist. You can't be a no-evil-guy anymore, once you've gained total control over the industry. Just think for a sec of a possibility that there might have been some good reason for blocking the deal. Like promoting competition in the market instead of creating a monopolist, eh? As of now, Google doesn't have a major share in Russia, it's about a half or less, I guess. And its main competitor is a local search engine called Yandex. Of course, they suck (compared to Google), but they are trying hard to get better, believe me:) So, basically what the regulators did was 1) eliminate potential for monopoly & 2) support a homegrown business. Now, what's so dreary about it?
the entire country is a monopoly. russian government is nothing different than a mafia, complete with goons murdering outspoken reporters and opposition voices, even overseas dissidents. russian democracy is dead. that the russian government should have any apparatus called a "Federal Antimonopoly Service" is a pretty good definition of sarcasm
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Once you have a monopoly (or oligopoly, near-monopoly), YOU NO LONGER HAVE A FREE MARKET. It doesn't matter how it got that way. Monopoly is monopoly, and by definition is NOT a free market. Therefore you cannot rely on "free market forces", like Adam Smith's "invisible hand", to bring things back into alignment.
Marx may have been an idiot, but if so he was a well-paid idiot. Never forget that.
The reason MS is no longer on top is that people created a brand-new market in which Microsoft could not / did not know how to compete. "Regular" market forces did not defeat Microsoft... the Open Source "market" is a completely different ballgame than the corporate/commercial market that Microsoft dominates. It operates on a completely different economic model. So you are comparing apples and oranges.
You cannot say that "the market" brought MS into line, because they are two different markets today. And "the other" market plays by completely different rules. Most markets other than software do not currently have the option of going "open source". It is a contrary economic model... a DIFFERENT market. Not just the same market with new players. The corporate/commercial software market still has huge barriers to entry, and you can be sure Microsoft will work to keep it that way.
LOOK IT UP!!! "Corporatism" is simply a "politically-correct" way to say Fascism.
Look in the goddamned dictionary. Look at several dictionaries. Fascism has been called (pardon me for a slight misquote): "An unholy alliance between government, money, and corporations". And that was during THE SECOND WORLD WAR, over half a century ago!!
Putting a different name on it does NOT make it a different thing.
Here is another quote for you, the source of which is equally uncertain because so many have said it: "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."
Good luck with that.
If you think this "bailout" was due to a failure of the Capitalist free market, then you simply do not know what has been going on.
Capitalism did not fail you. Nor did the free market. What failed was a market that was no longer "free" in any real sense of the term. Just for example, the government did not enforce antitrust laws that would prevent mergers leading to oligopoly (the control of the market by a few). There are other reasons, but it is sufficient to point out that oligopoly is NOT a free market. That is rudimentary macroeconomics theory that most freshmen learn in college. Or did when I was there, anyway.
Even free markets have rules. In order to prevent abuse, for example, history has shown that it is necessary to prevent financial institutions from over-leveraging their money. (I.e., as they have done recently, loaning out $30 for every $1 they actually possess.) That is predatory and irresponsible lending, and THEY KNEW THIS. There were good reasons for the regulations that used to be in place, but of course those regulations, again, have been ignored in recent years, in favor of a bunch of cronies grabbing as much money as they could while the getting was good. (Which is really what the "bailout" is about too, of course... they soaked up and spent the investment money, then took a huge handout from the taxpayers on top of everything else. COME ON! Where do you think that money is really going?)
Having said that, is a "regulated" economy a free market? Arguably, if a responsible set of antitrust laws are in place and enforced, but other regulations are kept to a minimum, the answer is yes. Antitrust laws keep everybody working within a competitive market, which is the only kind that can be called "free". Then within that free market, regulations are kept down to what is necessary to protect the environment and so on.
It has been done... right here in the US. It works. But in recent years we have been seeing anything BUT free markets. So it is not even remotely rational for people to say (as I have heard) that "capitalism has failed us". Nonsense. Capitalism is demonstrably the ONLY system other than feudalism that has worked continuously for any length of historical time. What has failed has been the distortion and abuse of our capitalist system, by people with money and power. And that is not the same thing at all.
but if you are implying that I, myself, have been making post hoc then you are incorrect. Perhaps I misunderstood you, and you were just making an amusing observation about the market.
about cartels. But again, that is beside the point. Once a monopoly exists, the ONLY thing that matters is how they act. And you CANNOT rely on them to be "benevolent", NO MATTER THEIR ORIGIN.
Your first statement is simply incorrect. Monopoly and free market are clearly-defined economic concepts, which you can learn from any macroeconomics textbook. And they ARE, in fact, mutually exclusive. Any college-freshman-level macroeconomic text will explain this to you. Monopoly is NOT a free market. By definition. When you have a monopoly, no matter how "benign", it is STILL not a "free market". If you are trying to describe a "benign monopoly", fine, but that is STILL a monopoly, and not a free market. By its very nature it is not subject to free market forces, and you may not rely on free market forces to influence it.
I do appreciate your description of how a "cartel" has taken control of a market. But a monopoly is still a monopoly. How it got there DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is what happens after it is there. And if you are counting on "the market" to control even a "benign" monopoly, you are going to be very disappointed. Hey, man. Society has been there, done that, many times in history, and it DOES NOT WORK for any length of time. If you count on it happening now, when it never has so many times before, then basically you are praying for a miracle from above. And I do not count on those. I have faith, but not that kind.
You CANNOT "forget" Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, because in fact that describes how free markets work. If you are talking about something where the Invisible Hand does not work, then what you are describing is not a free market! You have a crisis of definition here... apparently you do not even know what a free market is. You seem to feel free to define it as you please... but that does not change the reality. Actually, macroeconomics is a fairly well-defined field of study. You cannot just come in as a newbie and call things whatever you want. You will be laughed at.
No, that is NOT my argument, and frankly I do not know where your own assertions came from. I simply stated that Russian regulators had been smarter than United States regulators lately. The rest is ALL assumption on your part. You have been putting words in my mouth, and I will tell you straight: I do not appreciate that even a little bit.
If you have a refutation of WHAT I WROTE, then state it. But you are arguing against things I did not even say, and assuming that I meant those things. You are very wrong. If you want to try to read minds, go try to read someone else's.
First, you assume that you can rely on them for anything. (News: they have already violated their stated principles, on many occasions.) Second, where do you get the idea that their market position presents "no barriers to entry"??? Are you really that naive? And you accuse me of not knowing anything about economics? Just how the hell old are you anyway? Enough to know any history further back than the Bush administration?
Why do you assert that this is a contestable market??? Please, present evidence. Your statement alone is not sufficient. There have been incidences which constitute evidence against this assertion. Understand further, that the theory of contestable versus incontestable markets is one that has been untried by history, while the basic economic principles I have relied upon have been tested, repeatedly and thoroughly. Therefore, the preponderance of evidence is clearly on my side.
I am not even going to write anything more here. I could, but it would be redundant. I am not going to waste my time.
*I* am "pompous"??? That is pretty damned funny. You have made statements, true. But wait a moment before you claim "refutation".
You have made statements, some of which refuted things I did not even write, and other statements which did NOT refute things I did state. You have actually "refuted" just about nothing, at least until you present evidence to back up the points that really did argue against my own, which points you have not quite seemed to figure out yet.
(Not to put too fine a point on it: when you finally figure out just what other people are claiming, and what they are not, THEN may you make cogent arguments to refute them. So far you have been batting near zero. Here is a hint: it is a waste of your time to argue with someone about something they never even said or wrote. And, frankly, I am feeling that it is a waste of my time, too, to explain this to you. If you disagree, prove me wrong. But you have not even come close so far. The ball is in your court... do you want to serve better than you have been, or pass?)
Pompousness is something that is unjustified. So far you have not even come close to showing that it is unjustified. So if you really mean what you say, get off your ass and show that it is so. And if you do, don't expect an easy ride. But if you don't, then just shut up, because you have actually been adding nothing to this discussion.
"... because firms will move to join the market if the monopoly becomes decadent and raises price or lowers quality."
This presupposes that there are no barriers to entry. But you have not shown that, and in fact the evidence is strongly against you. Firms will join the market if the price point is too high AND there are no barriers to entry. Which is something that you have claimed but there is no evidence to show that this is true. So this is a PRETTY DAMNED BIG ASSUMPTION. Unless you can demonstrate no barriers to entry. And I challenge you to demonstrate that the latter is so, with something better than the claimed "benevolence" of some corporate managers.
I admit that I misunderstood one of your statements, and therefore your position. I think that basically we agree. I had mistaken you for one of those who have been crying "Capitalism is a failure!"
Which has been a rallying cry in the past, as you know, for both Socialists and Fascists. And I have heard people saying this recently so I have been quick to jump on that and correct their mistake, because it is a very LARGE mistake. In fact it was almost invariably the Socialist or Fascist elements of government policy that actually failed, not capitalism per se.
(I leave "Communists" out of this because there has so far never been a real Communist society anywhere in the historical record.)
Just so you know, I am basically "Libertarian". But just like Democrats and Republicans, Libs can sometimes be extreme and it is the extremists by whom one is often judged.
The only place I disagree with you is in the area of regulation, and that only narrowly. Antitrust regulation has historically proven to be necessary, because that is what keeps large companies or corporations from becoming monopolies or oligopolies, which are the antithesis of a free market. (It is BY DEFINITION, that oligopoly or monopoly is NOT a free market.) From a mathematical or computer language point of view, if you can appreciate that, antitrust laws are the "meta-rules" that keep everybody working withing the normal "free market" rules. So there really is a place for them.
One can argue that monopolies are not possible without government collusion, but if there is a reasonable and enforced body of basic antitrust regulation, one need not worry about how it came to be, only what is.
We may disagree here, though: you are claiming that the government has "extorted" Bill Gates??? Really? Because we agree on so much else, I must ask you to explain this to me more thoroughly, before I start laughing too hard. If I am convinced that you have a real point, I will listen.
One basic problem with monopoly that I have seen lately is that many people have accepted the "Microsoft argument", that they never intended to be a monopoly, they just got there by "being the best". (Yeah right.) Come on. Not so. They were corporate bullies, patent raiders, and otherwise tended toward ripping the underbelly out of "normal small business".
Which you can argue -- to a certain point -- is "corporate evolution". But there are still rules to follow (often called laws), and Microsoft is one of the companies that is quite famous for not actually following those laws. (Please don't try to argue with me on that point. I could cite all the court decisions but there really are a shitload of them and I just don't want to bother. But if you REALLY doubt, then ask.)
But the point is that IT DOES NOT MATTER how a monopoly or near-monopoly has come to be. What matters is what happens THEN. This is what so many people do not seem to get.
If anybody thinks that a major corporation that dominates a market by 90% or more, just "is not interested in profit" and will "give people choices" over any length of time, then they do not know history. People have ethics, corporations do not.
First, you say that you did not assume that you can rely on them for anything, then in the next sentence you say that you can rely on them to be profit-maximizing. Then, you present an economic model (maintaining a "fair" pricing scheme while holding a near-monopoly market position) that has never existed in a free market. Third, you say that the antitrust regulators will keep them in line, despite clear evidence that the Government has dropped the ball on antitrust regulation in recent years.
Then, you state that the internet ad business "has low barriers to entry"... when you have already described the company as having a near-monopoly position. Excuse me, but the two situations are mutually exclusive. (You even subsequently say they have an "iron fist" on email client advertising.) Sorry, but the left side of your mouth does not seem to understand what the right side has been saying.
Oh... and "email client advertising" is hardly a new idea. That was the first model that drove "free" email services. It is one of the OLDEST revenue generation ideas on the internet.
I ask you to present evidence to back up your claims because your claims are quite extraordinary! Monopolies with fair prices. Monopolies that do not constitute barriers to entry. Antitrust regulation making a difference in an era that is notable for its glaring lack of enforcement.
Wow. Quite a circus you are describing here. But the actual animals seem to be missing.
I DID NOT RELATE THE TWO!!! Somehow, you ASSUMED that I was doing that, but I never made such a statement! I simply stated that I felt they were being smarter than the US was under those particular circumstances! But nowhere did I say that anything the Russians did and that the Americans did were otherwise related in any way! There was no analysis in my original post at all, just an opinion. And frankly I don't care to explain the source of my opinion to the likes of you.
Jesus! I have run into some doozies on slashdot but I don't think I have EVER run into anyone else who has made such an outrageous FALSE ASSUMPTION about what I meant, then demanded -- at least TWICE now -- that I explain something that I never stated!
Go away. You are looney tunes.