Google Was 3 Hours Away From DOJ Antitrust Charges

turnkeylinux writes "Google Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. called off their joint advertising agreement just three hours before the Department of Justice planned to file antitrust charges to block the pact, according to the lawyer who would have been lead counsel for the government. 'We were going to file the complaint at a certain time during the day,' says Litvack, who rejoins Hogan & Hartson today. 'We told them we were going to file the complaint at that time of day. Three hours before, they told us they were abandoning the agreement.'"

Comments

Could be fun

[Xest]

I can't help but think you could make a game of this.

Announce something to get the government's back up, wait until they've done loads and loads of preparation then rip their opportunity from under them just before they get chance.

The only downside is it's a waste of tax payers cash, not that most public sector jobs aren't a waste of tax payers cash anyway though.

Re:Could be fun

[Roland Piquepaille]

The only downside is it's a waste of tax payers cash, not that most public sector jobs aren't a waste of tax payers cash anyway though.

On the contrary, breaking up formed monopolies is a lot more expensive than preventing monopolies from forming in the first place.

(on a side note: for those who thought Google was any less predatory than Microsoft, think again...)

Re:Could be fun

[Abstrackt]

We could call the game "Antitrust Frogger". You start a merger and jump out of the way just before you get hit by the DOJ. I'm not sure what your reward would be for making it to the other side of the road though...

Re:Could be fun

[Farmer Pete]

The reward is always the same in these matters...Profit!

Re:Could be fun

[rlp]

The only downside is it's a waste of tax payers cash

That does not appear to be a concern of anyone in Washington these days.

Re:Could be fun

[camperdave]

Announce something to get the government's back up, wait until they've done loads and loads of preparation then rip their opportunity from under them just before they get chance.

4. Access their research through Freedom of Information policies.
5. Devise ways of sidestepping their arguments.
6. Profit!!!

Re:Could be fun

[JanneM]

Quite the opposite. The authorities were on the ball, gathered info and told the parties they'd likely be filing a formal complaint. The result: the putative monopoly was broken up almost before it began, with no damage to the marketplace and no long, hugely expensive trial and appeals that would have sucked money and energy from the state and the corporate parties alike. And the way they did it, if Google and Yahoo really thought they would win such a process they were still free to go ahead and face the consequences.

Sounds like the state did a pretty good job in this case.

Re:Could be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

..wait until they've done loads and loads of preparation then rip their opportunity from under them just before they get chance.

It's the microsoft way.

Re:Could be fun

[thrillseeker]

with no damage to the marketplace

except for that piddly little matter of Yahoo's stock price ...

Re:Could be fun

[ari_j]

These days? Just how new are you to this?

Re:Could be fun

[qoncept]

The only downside is it's a waste of tax payers cash ...

That, and the fact that there is no up side. Doesn't sound like a very fun (or responsible) game to me.

Re:Could be fun

[homer_s]

Of course, that is assuming that there is some need to break up a 'monopoly' in the first place.

The other assumption is that there is a defined circle outside of which no competition takes place. Competition does not just exist within an industry; it exists across industries. The airlines have to compete with Webex. Google has to compete with NBC.

Re:Could be fun

[kontos]

Yeah, because all of that Due Process of the Law stuff is just a waste. It's better for the Gov't agents to just intimidate the private sector.

Re:Could be fun

[squiggleslash]

...by threatening to prosecute them every time they announce they're going to do something illegal?

Why is it that on Slashdot giving people a cheap "out" of being prosecuted for something they'll almost certainly lose is considered worse than prosecuting the same people to the full extent of the law?

Re:Could be fun

[FireIron]

So, let me see if I understand this...

Companies like GM and AIG were allowed to grow to the point where their possible failure threatens the entire national (world?) economy -- no questions from DOJ lawyers.

But Google and Yahoo want to pool their advertising resources, and suddenly the republic is threatened.

Mmm hmmm.

Re:Could be fun

[teslar]

Just how new are you to this?

For him to use "these days" in that way evidently indicates that he meant it as opposed to the "good old days when dinosaurs ruled the world". So I guess he's been around for a while :)

Re:Could be fun

[Xerolooper]

You are making the assumption that our Empire er... I mean Republic was actually ever threatened. Maybe you haven't noticed that after claiming the free world was at an end if we didn't borrow billions of dollars they decided that who we were supposed to bail out weren't the ones we needed to bail out.

Re:Could be fun

[ejtttje]

Oh come on, this isn't a black and white crime like assault or robbery. They were going to do something "questionable", the gov't said they're going to look into it, and companies decided it wasn't worth the controversy.

Besides, the partnership had just formed, you can't prosecute them for something they haven't done yet. This is basically the equivalent of asking a lawyer if something has legal risk before you do it, only on a corporate scale.

Re:Could be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

(on a side note: for those who thought Google was any less predatory than Microsoft, think again...)

Evidence please.

Re:Could be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

... with no damage to the marketplace ...

Then what do you call the government denying Google and Yahoo (and by extension, their shareholders) the right to free association?

Re:Could be fun

[MikeBabcock]

You think that Microsoft would've backed down?

This is not predatory behaviour; they wanted to something, were told they shouldn't, and then backed down.

That's how I expect a good corporate citizen to behave.

Re:Could be fun

[STrinity]

Yahoo isn't the marketplace, and the market isn't damaged when a company fails. In fact, failure is often good for the market, though you wouldn't know it listening to the Bush and Obama people.

Re:Could be fun

[dwarg]

Of course, that is assuming that there is some need to break up a 'monopoly' in the first place.

The sad thing is the proof of the need for antitrust laws has been staring us in the face for months now. Since the bailout of AIG how many times have we heard the phrase, "too big to fail." How many companies are now trying to convince us that they also are too big to fail? In effect these companies are telling us that they represent a single point of failure for the entire US economy.

The leftist view that we need to prop up these companies is completely wrong. The righties' hands-off approach to all things private inevitably leads to wild fluctuations as companies consolidate and dominate government and individual roles followed by epic collapses and rebuilding periods.

Those that worship at the alter of the free market either don't understand: 1. That competition is the heart of capitalism, or 2. Companies hate, and will suppress, competition because it cuts into profits.

The government should play a role in enforcing competition in a healthy market place. Too much government intervention leads to inefficiency and no government intervention leads to corruption. It is through the involvement of an INFORMED electorate that WE THE PEOPLE control how our government interacts with the private sector.

I say use the bailout money to break these companies up into more manageable and competitive pieces that, once established, will be made into private companies again.

Boiling your opinions down to oversimplifications like, "no government intervention ever!" is an excuse to remain uninformed and ignorant of what the problems actually are and will lead us away from any real solutions.

Both parties spend large sums of money on propaganda campaigns through right and left wing media outlets to convince us of the correctness of their oversimplified slogans and misrepresentations of the other side. If you believe them, know that you are being used.

Re:Could be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

(on a side note: for those who thought Google was any less predatory than Microsoft, think again...)

It's amazing the stupidity of the average slashdotter. That's why I love this place, I guess.

Just to remind you, Microsoft bundled IE with Windows when it had a monopoly on Windows. And, just to remind you in case you forgot, there's nothing illegal about having a monopoly. It just means you outcompeted everyone else. What is illegal is abusing that monopoly.

Let's look at TFA:

The never-filed government complaint would have charged that the agreement violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Litvack tells the Am Law Daily in one of his first interviews since the companies canned the venture. Section 1 bans agreements that restrain trade unreasonably. Section 2 makes it unlawful for a company to monopolize or attempt to monopolize trade.

So they were basing this on the idea that this would restrain and monopolize trade, so it sounds like all Google did was to make a bigger monopoly and there's a law against that. They didn't abuse any monopoly, which is what Microsoft did.

But let's look closer. Google's deal with Yahoo was actually proposed as a joint venture whereby Yahoo was supposed to profit as well, and furthermore, Yahoo had the option to back out of the deal and use Google only to the extent they wished.

So, if you want to compare Google to Microsoft, let's try to come up with an analogy that would, maybe, make your complaint not sound like the ramblings of a 4 year old. Perhaps if Microsoft and Apple penned a deal to put Windows on the Mac because Apple wasn't selling as many Macs as they wanted because the market preferred Windows.

Anyway, my point is simply this: There's a clear difference between what Google did and what Microsoft did. Google offered to sell its products to its competitors at a rate that was apparently fair enough that they considered it. Microsoft tried to destroy its competitors by abusing an existing monopoly in an unrelated space.

Personally, I think it might be a good thing that the DOJ stopped this (though maybe not if MS now buys Yahoo and guts them), but if you can't see there's a difference between getting a monopoly by being better than your competition and abusing a monopoly because you can't compete in a space, then maybe you should avoid posting things like the above that make you sound like an idiot.

Anyway, let me leave you with one final tidbit from the article:

Litvack acknowledges that Microsoft Corporation and other companies lobbied the department to block the agreement, both publicly and and in private meetings. Litvack insists, though, that Microsoft's lobbying had no bearing on his recommended course of action or on the division's ultimate decision. Microsoft was represented by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

Sure, I believe that.

Re:Could be fun

[casper75]

Yay for using apatosaurus, and not brontosaurus!

Re:Could be fun

[Shikaku]

Shit's going to hit the fan when Google releases their own OS with drivers compatible with Windows drivers.

I'm calling it. I have no proof but I'm calling it anyway.

Re:Could be fun

[geminidomino]

A good step towards undoing the idiotic precedent that corps are people and have the same rights?

(And the shareholders bit is a red herring. No one said they can't own stock in both yahoo and google)

Re:Could be fun

[muellerr1]

Very insightful post and I agree with just about everything you said, except this part:

The leftist view that we need to prop up these companies is completely wrong. The righties' hands-off approach to all things private inevitably leads to wild fluctuations as companies consolidate and dominate government and individual roles followed by epic collapses and rebuilding periods.

The government leaders of both left and right want to prop the companies up. It's everyone else who opposes this. As soon as the economy started tanking the 'free market' right turned immediately to corporate welfare, and the left went along with it because they're spineless.

The left has more to lose here as their base strongly disapproves of corporate welfare while the right's base is more interested in keeping their portfolios afloat than actual free market ideology.

Re:Could be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Get off my lawn!

Re:Could be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

-78357 newer than you.

Re:Could be fun

[Zeinfeld]

Just to remind you, Microsoft bundled IE with Windows when it had a monopoly on Windows. And, just to remind you in case you forgot, there's nothing illegal about having a monopoly. It just means you outcompeted everyone else. What is illegal is abusing that monopoly.

No, what Google and Yahoo were planning to do was to stop competing with each other and from a joint venture. That is specifically prohibited under the anti-trust laws. Obtaining a monopoly through fair competition is legal in the US. Obtaining a monopoly or dominant market position by forming a cartel with competitors is not.

It is very different from what Microsoft was accused of which in turn was rather different from the anti-competitive behavior that they engaged in. David Boies botched the Microsoft anti-trust case from the start. He brought it on the basis of complaints from Sun and Netscape that were really more about providing an alibi for their own incompetence than justified compaints. Netscape's treatment of Spyglass was vastly more aggressive than Microsoft's treatment of Netscape. Sun could have partnered with Microsoft to establish itself as a viable alternative to Intel. Instead they tried to challenge Intel and Microsoft at the same time.

Netscape was giving the browser away so that they could sell a server that exploited exploit the latest essentially proprietary features of their client. By essentially proprietary I mean their habit of releasing a product and submitting the 'standards proposal' to W3C on the same day with no prior discussion whatsoever. That is how cookies were deployed, that is how SSL was deployed and that is how Javascript was deployed. And in every case the Netscape version was initially broken in ways that have taken years to fix afterwards. If you tried to use Javascript in 1995 it was much more likely to crash your browser than do what was intended.

Now if the DoJ had concentrated on the pricing of Windows they had a real argument. The unit pricing scheme was certainly anti-competitive. But giving away the browser with the O/S was not anticompetitive, the browser was originally intended to be free software that shipped with the O/S. tim Berners-Lee proposed the deep integration into the O/S.

Re:Could be fun

[theaveng]

Please show me a monopoly that has lasted longer than one generation (25 years). In every case the monopoly was only a temporary one, and eventually was superceded by the growth of new technology, or the arrival of new companies to add competition. Take as example the CD. Sony/Philips held a monopoly on CDs as method of music distribution, eventually forcing phonographs/cassettes out of the marketplace. However the monopoly was short lived (about five years) as other companies quickly developed new method of distribution like MP3s and AACs.

The same is true for Standard Oil which was once claimed to be a monopoly. They did dominate for a short fifteen year period, but were eventually eclipsed by other oil suppliers in Texas, Alaska, and overseas.

There's simply no need for government to interfere, because the free market will eliminate monopolies all by itself, via the natural progress of competition.

Re:Could be fun

[theaveng]

On the other hand, the left has lots of union backing, and unions like the idea of preserving jobs even if that means giving companies a Taxpayer bailout.

Re:Could be fun

[theaveng]

IMHO Google and Yahoo should have gone through with the deal, and face the DOJ head-on. "From time to time the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants." - Democratic Party founder Thomas Jefferson. IMHO in this case it was the U.S.-DOJ that was being tyrannical and threatening a lawsuit without cause.

Re:Could be fun

[ShatteredArm]

True, to a point. Monopolies are only problematic when the barriers to entry are large. It would be silly, for example, to break up a trust that is limited to the greeting card industry--even if they did decide to ramp up their prices, someone else could easily come in and undercut them. It's a little different, on the other hand, if the startup costs and/or time is sufficiently large. I think we often overstate the power of monopolies to control the markets, though.

I would argue that the AIG support has nothing to do with a monopoly. They don't have a monopoly, and their competitors are at least as viable as they are, they've just been able to convince politicians that it'll hurt too many of their counterparties should they fail. This behavior can certainly encourage monopolies to form, though.

no government intervention leads to corruption

I'm not sure what would lead you to this conclusion. Government is a party in corruption, and in the absense of government there can't be corruption. If you look at a corporation as a quasi-government, then yes, that corporation can have corrupt people in power, but that will be in the interests of the shareholders to prevent (if the executives weren't given special legal protection from shareholders). Governments and corporations operate more or less the same way, except corporations actually have a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders.

More pragmatically, though, there are good reasons for regulation, but those regulations should be designed to provide (a) transparency and (b) accountability. Free markets require, in addition to competition, correct information in order to operate correctly, so you can't have corporations blatantly lying about their financial data.

Re:Could be fun

[hesaigo999ca]

It would probably start making them rethink their policies, the fact they started working on it before ti was finalized, makes me wonder if they don't also have their lawyers chasing ambulances too.

Re:Could be fun

[theaveng]

Oh my Deity. Did he just attack Obama?

Wow. I knew the Obama as President criticism would start eventually, but I didn't think it would happen before he was even sworn-into office.

Re:Could be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Sorry, I couldn't even type this with a straight face.

Re:Could be fun

[the_womble]

On the contrary, breaking up formed monopolies is a lot more expensive than preventing monopolies from forming in the first place.

Either is still less expensive than the cost of tolerating monopolies.

(on a side note: for those who thought Google was any less predatory than Microsoft, think again...)

Search does not have the network effects that OSes and Office software benefit from, so, regardless of their attitude, Google will not be as big a danger unless other services like Google Docs become equally successful.

Re:Could be fun

[ari_j]

I was in special education classes for accelerated cynicism.

Re:Could be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said it was illegal? It is not illegal to have a monopoly, only to abuse one. Should the government be able to threaten you with lawsuits or court costs if you try to buy a gun, because you might murder someone with it later?

Re:Could be fun

[Free the Cowards]

Speaking personally, I know I'd much rather have the police come up to me when I'm about to commit an illegal act and tell me that they plan to prosecute me if I go through with it, rather than wait for me to actually do it and then haul me off to jail. But maybe I'm just weird that way.

Re:Could be fun

[Captain Splendid]

Don't blame me, I voted for Brontosaurus.

Re:Could be fun

[minvaren]

The United States Postal Service.

Re:Could be fun

[Salem Willow]

been there and done that.... not me...the Italian government and Alitalia.... didn't quite get the t-shirt as the company seems to be consistently insolvent...and running up debts as we speak... ...or type as the case is... ...or click as the case will be very soon...

Re:Could be fun

[RobertM1968]

Please show me a monopoly that has lasted longer than one generation (25 years).

Microsoft's PC OS monopoly (ongoing since 1981)

IBM Server and related software monopoly (took government action to end, but lasted over 25 years.

Re:Could be fun

[electrictroy]

A Google-yahoo merger would be a monopoly??? A monopoly is defined as a "single source", but Google is hardly the only search engine in existence. Just off the top of my head there's MSN Search, Ask Jeeves, Ask.com, Altavista, AOLsearch, About, MIVA, LookSmart and more.

I think this is a case of people using a word contrary to its true meaning. i.e. Doublespeak and Redefinition. Google is not a monopoly.

Re:Could be fun

[Wescotte]

You just fixed the economy by creating a fun game that creates tons of jobs!

Re:Could be fun

[illumin8]

Sounds like the state did a pretty good job in this case.

I agree that this potential monopoly should probably be broken up, but why is it that the state only did this because Microsoft lobbyists bribed them to? It seems like justice in America only works if you have sufficient money and lobbyists to buy that justice.

Re:Could be fun

[electrictroy]

Microsoft doesn't hold a monopoly. Upto 1995 there were multiple OSes available for PCs:
- Atari OS
- Commodore OS
- Texas Instruments OS
- GE.OS
- Amiga OS
- Atari ST OS
- IBM OS/2
- MS DOS
- MS Windows

And even after 1995 we still have multiple options for personal computers:
- Macintosh OS
- Linux
- MS Windows

There's no monopoly here. Now if Mac OS and Linux died out, THEN and only then would we have a true monopoly for operating systems, but we haven't reached that stage yet.

Re:Could be fun

[Wescotte]

http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

It's closer than you think.

Re:Could be fun

[electrictroy]

I meant a NATURAL monopoly arising through market forces (and lasting more than a generation), not a monopoly by political fiat. To date no monopoly has arisen through natural forces and held its monopoly longer than 25 years. None.

The whole "antitrust" thing was just a way for Teddy Roosevelt to buy votes. It was completely unnecessary to break up monopolies, because they dissolve naturally... the same way that waves erode beaches every winter. You don't need government intervention in either case.

Re:Could be fun

[Tanktalus]

A healthy industry is one where two or three (or more!) participants share equal or near equal mind-share (and market-share). A dominated (but not monopolistic) industry is where the #1 supplier has nearly 2/3rds marketshare, the #2 supplier is nearly 1/3rd, and a bunch of niche players round up the rest. A monopolistic industry is where the #1 supplier has 80%+ (or 90%+) of the market, and there is no widely-recognised #2 player (which is why Microsoft was so insistent that Macs were real competition). That doesn't mean that you're alone in the industry (though when you are, it's more obviously a monopoly), just that practically speaking, you are.

Is there a widely-recognised #2 in the search market? If that's Yahoo! (and especially if there is no widely-recognised #3), the marketing campaign would treat the industry as a monopoly - using their combined power monopolistically, and, so alleges the Justice Department, illegally.

Google is not a monopoly (yet). But it is close. However, if you combine Google and Yahoo! into a single marketing campaign, their combined power probably is monopolistic. All the other search engines are niche players that probably don't generate noticable amounts of traffic (relative to Google and Yahoo! combined). The Justice Department merely is saying, it seems, that, no, you two can't gang up and demolish the niche players.

By keeping #1 and #2 at each others' throats, the niche players can be ignored by the big guys and thrive, albeit at a smaller scale. If #1 and #2 play nice with each other, they can turn on the niche players and destroy them. That changes from capitalism/competition to monopoly, and that's what the Justice Department was trying to prevent.

Re:Could be fun

[chrazyc]

In some circles this could be considered revenge... so sure!

Re:Could be fun

[retchdog]

Yes, we don't need it, but this doesn't mean that we can't get a little bit of a kick by doing it occasionally. Your argument isn't entirely satisfying in this respect.

I think what's best is a "radical" alternative: completely ban government from active interventions, but establish a reasonable system whereby (possibly after a nascent period of 5 or 10 years for new technology) an open definition has to be hashed out, generating competition on implementations instead of obfuscation.

I think the antitrust trial against Microsoft was ridiculous. I also think it's ridiculous that a private company literally gets to effectively define (and at the same time obfuscate) what a text document is. The public can agree that a text document is ODF, and Microsoft can compete like everyone else on the interface to that format. Don't tell me that "government shouldn't intervene" in this, as it already does in a grossly asymmetric way: Microsoft has over 5000 patents (read: state-enforced monopolies).

Likewise, let's not try to enforce net neutrality, but instead define the internet as what it is now. A company can then try to optimize by trimming-down and redistributing costs, but they wouldn't be allowed to call their product "internet service", because it isn't. (AOL effectively did this, and still does for a niche.)

Re:Could be fun

[dshadowwolf]

You seem to have a bad understanding of things. MS Operating Systems are on around 90% of all the PC's in the world. Apple is on about 8%, Linux and other free OS's on the remaining 2%. This means that there is, functionally, no choice - when 9 out of 10 people are using a certain operating system you can be assured that the rest of the computer industry - be it hardware or software manufacturers - are going to target that OS. This is a self-perpetuating system and while MS does not have a "monopoly" by your definition, it does have on in practice.

MS didn't gain this position by playing by the rules either. They may have started small, but once they gained a real market share (thanks, in no small part, to some idiocy in Santa Clara, California and IBM) they began their famous campaign of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Since then they have maintained their position through monopolistic and anti-competitive practices. Name another major company that has been at the root of lawsuits over such in at least 3 different countries...

So while MS might not be a "Monopoly" by your constrained and somewhat myopic definition of the term, they are a monopoly in fact. Look at the lawsuit that was filed against them in the EU, In South Korea or even, <gasp> in the US... And the US one might have actually led to MS being split into multiple companies if not for George Bush interfering with the proceedings. (He did, in fact, interfere and tell the DOJ to remove the "break up the company" punishment from consideration)

Re:Could be fun

[MaskedSlacker]

Telephone and cable service.

Local monopolies still exist everywhere in the continental US. Had AT&T not been broken up, I'm willing to bet it would still be a national monopoly on phone service.

Re:Could be fun

[AuMatar]

No, it isn't. A monopoly has a specific definition in economics- it's when a source has market power. Market power means that a supplier can fix the price in the market. In a free market, the price and quantity supplied are set by the intersection of the supply and demand curves. In a monopolistic market, price is set by the supplier above the natural intersection and quantity supplied is equally reduced. Due to this, the monopolist makes a higher profit, but total consumer+producer surplus is reduced. This is called dead-weight loss. This is bad for the consumer and the economy as a whole.

If you're going to argue economics, get a basic education in it first. This is high school level material here.

Re:Could be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

You fail to understand to see the politicians' superb logic! You see, all these companies are "too big to fail."

That's why we have to give them bailout money with which, in the words of JP Morgan executives unaware a journalist entered their teleconference, to buy up small businesses not receiving bailout money and become even bigger.

Also, it's really helpful that nearly all the top level officials in the Department of the Treasury are former or future officials for Wachovia, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, and the rest of the gang. Great time to be a banksta.

Re:Could be fun

[UnknowingFool]

No! They real hero of this is Arnold Schwarzenegger when he barged into the board room armed to the teeth screaming, "You are all in danger of flyving chares!! GET OWWT!"

Re:Could be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what Google and Yahoo were planning to do was to stop competing with each other and from a joint venture. That is specifically prohibited under the anti-trust laws. Obtaining a monopoly through fair competition is legal in the US. Obtaining a monopoly or dominant market position by forming a cartel with competitors is not.

Not once did I say it was legal to become a monopoly by buying the competition or by similar means. That's why the DOJ blocks deals like this. I said it was legal to have a monopoly. Not all ways of acquiring one are legal and this one, as far as the DOJ was concerned, was not. Not being a legal expert, I'll trust them on it.

As for the rest of your post, what you're missing is that the rules are different for a monopoly. Microsoft used its domination of the OS market to become the dominant player in the browser market. You could argue that they should be one market, but what they did was definitely anticompetitive. Or have you forgotten the arguments about how the browser couldn't be removed because essential files not even related to the web were part of the browser?

Re:Could be fun

[RobertM1968]

You obviously do not know what the term "monopoly" means. If Google and Yahoo teamed up, there would be multiple other search engines people could still choose - and Google would still maintain the monopoly.

Besides the fact that MS was found to be a monopoly in those areas.

Also, though I did not specify it, I was talking about IBM compatible PCs. I thought that too was evident. Regardless, the market share of the rest was relatively negligible in comparison.

Microsoft doesn't hold a monopoly. Upto 1995 there were multiple OSes available for PCs: - Atari OS - Commodore OS - Texas Instruments OS

Non IBM PC based.

- GE.OS

No real market share

- Amiga OS - Atari ST OS

Non IBM PC based

- IBM OS/2

No real market share

- MS DOS - MS Windows

And even after 1995 we still have multiple options for personal computers:

Ummm... proves my point - with 85-95% of the market share on IBM PC compatible hardware.

- Macintosh OS

Non IBM PC based - until recently, where it still holds a negligible share - thus irrelevant.

- Linux

Negligible market share.

- MS Windows

There's no monopoly here. Now if Mac OS and Linux died out, THEN and only then would we have a true monopoly for operating systems, but we haven't reached that stage yet.

Again, to be a monopoly, one does not have to hold 100% of a market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

"In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it..."

Re:Could be fun

[worthawholebean]

Yeah, the anti-trust laws are named that for a reason. They were originally written in the late 1800s to fight the monopolies and collusion created by "trusts" - secretive organizations of all the largest corporations in an industry. Honestly, the Google-Yahoo deal struck me as similar to these criminal trusts.

Re:Could be fun

[geekoid]

I would advice you actually reaserch statements like:

"not that most public sector jobs aren't a waste of tax payers cash anyway though."
  before typing them.
If you could e bothered to look around, you will find out the public sector employees do the job cheaper, and more efficient then there private sector counter parts, and there is substantially less waste.

All this information is easily available.

But you go ahead and continue to spread that myth and make your self look like a great big fool.

Re:Could be fun

[Chris Burke]

All I got was a fscking fly. :(

Re:Could be fun

[RedAlert99]

Not only is the other poster correct that the definition of monopoly centers on having market power (not on being a "single source"), but also, many of the search engines you listed are not. Ask.com=Ask Jeeves. AOL uses Google under the hood.

The others you listed are basically BS, too. Example: searching miva.com for "michael jordan" yields one hit, an ad. You call that a search engine?

Re:Could be fun

[amohat]

Side note: google may be a predator, but its OUR predator. Big difference.

I have a side note of my own: what the hell did Microsoft ever do for anybody? (last i checked, anything that's gone right is in spite of the corporate leadership)

All you who keep comparing the two, does it make difference that google has shown again and again to be a good corporate citizen, in great contrast to damn near all of their peers? What if a corporation's default attitude was what is good for our species, not what's good for a small number of their shareholders in a given fiscal quarter?

Sure google may be very good at the corporate game...maybe one of the best...and this might lead you to assume that they are just as evil, as they compete with evil, in the same evil game.

I know, I know, no such thing as a good international corporation. But what if there were? What would it look like? How would it act? How would it be different? Are you able to recognize the difference?

Compare google to that, then compare MS. Due Friday.

Re:Could be fun

[ChrisMaple]

This may be a charitable action by Google. The DOJ has a finite budget, and by helping the DOJ to waste money, Google has weakened the ability of the DOJ to attack other innocent organizations.

Re:Could be fun

[lsatenstein]

Its also a waste of Google and Yahoo's cash. Who has the most cash though?

Re:Could be fun

[Meski]

The government doesn't have to break up a monopoly, you can wait for them to die naturally. But you could make the argument that intervening before natural death is better for the world economy.

Re:Could be fun

[electrictroy]

Telephone and cable is an example of "monopoly by government", not a natural monopoly. In fact prior to government interference, people living in 1920s-era cities had a choice between multiple phone companies... there were 3 or 4 wires hanging outside your window and you could choose if you wanted Company A, B, C, or D. We had true competition.

It was only AFTER the politicians stepped-in that our choice was narrowed to just one. Thanks mr. government.

Re:Could be fun

[electrictroy]

>>>MS Operating Systems are on around 89% of all the PC's in the world. Apple is on about 9%, Linux and other free OS's on the remaining 2%.

So, not a monopoly. Monopoly means 100% (or in practical terms: 99.9%) control. If MS only controls 89% then it's not a monopoly. Use words with their TRUE meanings, not distorted meanings.

Re:Could be fun

[electrictroy]

First you didn't say IBM PC. You said "PC" which means personal computer and can mean any brand.

Second, the others OSes were negligible? Hardly. The Apple II OS dominated from the years 1978 to 1982. The Commodore OS was the #1 OS from 1983 to 1989. That is not "neglibible" and should not be so casually ignored.

The fact is that a monopoly means 100% dominance (or in practical terms: 99.9%), but Microsoft did not dominate in either the 80s or 90s. Even today MS only controls 89%..... not a monopoly. If you want to say "almost a monopoly" that's fine, but don't redefine words like the book 1984. The word "monopoly" means a specific thing and Microsoft does not have one.

Likewise even if Google-Yahoo merged, you still do NOT have a monopoly. There are lots of other search engines out there.

Re:Could be fun

[electrictroy]

>>>monopoly (from Greek monos, alone or single + polein, to sell)

I find it ironic that you provide this definition, but don't understand it. Microsoft is not the "lone seller" according to the Greek origination of the word. They have 89% of the market which makes them "almost a monopoly" but not a monopoly.

Re:Could be fun

[electrictroy]

monopoly (from Greek monos, alone or single + polein, to sell)

"lone seller"

That's what the word means. I know people like to pretend the USA is "1984" incarnate and redefine words and use doublespeak, but monopoly had a specific meaning: "lone seller" or "single seller". i.e. A monopoly is a company that controls 100% (or in practical terms: 99.99%) of the market.

If you want to say Microsoft is "almost a monopoly" with its 89% market share, that's fine, but to say it's a "monopoly" aka "lone seller" is a clear indication you don't understand the meaning of the word.

Re:Could be fun

[RobertM1968]

First you didn't say IBM PC. You said "PC" which means personal computer and can mean any brand.

Ooops... sorry, but that is what I did mean. I grew up in a time when PC only meant IBM PC - before the term was "diluted" to mean other things. Heck, even in this day and age, when people say "I need to buy a new PC" they mean IBM compatible, running Windows, Linux or OS/2 machine - and say "I need to buy a Mac" when they mean a PC running MacOSX.

I'm sure you understood the distinction and are just being difficult though.

Second, the others OSes were negligible? Hardly. The Apple II OS dominated from the years 1978 to 1982. The Commodore OS was the #1 OS from 1983 to 1989.

Not quite accurate (or even close really)

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/5

And those are conservative estimates in comparison to other sites.

That is not "neglibible" and should not be so casually ignored.

The fact is that a monopoly means 100% dominance (or in practical terms: 99.9%), but Microsoft did not dominate in either the 80s or 90s. Even today MS only controls 89%..... not a monopoly. If you want to say "almost a monopoly" that's fine, but don't redefine words like the book 1984. The word "monopoly" means a specific thing and Microsoft does not have one.

Likewise even if Google-Yahoo merged, you still do NOT have a monopoly. There are lots of other search engines out there.

Define it as you like, but what matters is how the government defines it. They do not require a 100% dominance in a market to consider a company a monopoly - hence this whole Google thing - as well as their Antitrust actions against IBM in the past. Neither had 100% or 99.9% dominance in their markets.

You pointed out one definition (albeit an ancient one) - while I pointed out one that conforms to (a) the government's use of the term, and thus (b) how it applies to the situation we are discussing.

Or did you by some chance miss the whole issue this thread is discussing?

The term "monopoly" has evolved, both in it's accepted definitions, and in the way it is used by the government of the USA. The definition I found and selected is far more appropriate to this discussion than your myopic, limited, outdated, and inapplicable choice of definitions.

And here... just for you, let me rephrase part of my original post.

"In the IBM PC compatible marketplace, Microsoft has had a monopoly (based off the accepted definition in use by the government of the USA, as well as the newer accepted definitions in the English language) for over 25 years - just as IBM did in the past in various of their business ventures".

Happy? Refute that - instead of arguing over semantics that you fully understood my intent with.

But then again, I dont seem to be the only one who has posted similar responses to you (about your poor, inapplicable choice of definitions and such)... so I guess you are just really enjoying this for the sake of arguing nonsense.

Re:Could be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

i've been saying this for years ... not that anyone here cares :P

come on, this is obvious anyways, they pretty much HAVE to release an online OS. look at all the services they already offer, and the loyal user base (i'm willing to base that most are mindless automatons anyways) ... this is just the next step.

Article Text

[Smelly Jeffrey]

The Talent

December 2, 2008 1:00 PM

Hogan's Litvack Discusses Google/Yahoo

Posted by Nate Raymond

Litvack Google Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. called off their joint advertising agreement just three hours before the Department of Justice planned to file antitrust charges to block the pact, according to the lawyer who would have been lead counsel for the government.

Sanford "Sandy" Litvack (right) left Hogan & Hartson in September to consult for the department's antitrust division on a possible court challenge to the Web giants' agreement. The companies abandoned the deal in November after the Justice Department informed them it would seek to block the deal.

"We were going to file the complaint at a certain time during the day," says Litvack, who rejoins Hogan & Hartson today. "We told them we were going to file the complaint at that time of day. Three hours before, they told us they were abandoning the agreement."

The agreement, announced in April, would have given Yahoo the ability to use Google to sell advertising along the side of Yahoo pages. (Google's ads would have replaced ads previously sold by Yahoo's own platform.) The proposal came amid Microsoft Corporation's $44.6 billion hostile takeover bid for Yahoo. Microsoft abandoned that deal a month after the proposed Google-Yahoo deal became public, and as the Department of Justice and state regulators began looking into the Google pact for possible antitrust violations.

The never-filed government complaint would have charged that the agreement violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Litvack tells the Am Law Daily in one of his first interviews since the companies canned the venture. Section 1 bans agreements that restrain trade unreasonably. Section 2 makes it unlawful for a company to monopolize or attempt to monopolize trade.

"It would have ended up also alleging that Google had a monopoly and that [the advertising pact] would have furthered their monopoly," Litvack says.

The complaint would have sought a preliminary injunction to stop the agreement from going forward. "The fact that we filed a lawsuit would not by itself have stopped them," he says. "We would have had to get an injunction from the court, and we would have sought that."

Five firms were involved in the negotiations, Litvack says. Google was represented in the negotiations by Clearly Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Yahoo turned to Latham & Watkins, Hunton & Williams, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

Litvack acknowledges that Microsoft Corporation and other companies lobbied the department to block the agreement, both publicly and and in private meetings. Litvack insists, though, that Microsoft's lobbying had no bearing on his recommended course of action or on the division's ultimate decision. Microsoft was represented by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

The Department of Justice said in a November 5 press release that its investigation showed Google was "by far the largest provider" of Internet search and advertising, as well as Internet search syndication. The agreement with Yahoo, had it gone forward, would have accounted for 90 percent of those markets, the release said. Litvack says by publicizing Google's current market share in the press release the department "may or may not be" trying to put the company on notice for possible future antitrust actions.

"[The department is] making it clear to the parties and to the world that this is how the division viewed these particular aspects of Google's business," Litvack says. That said, Litvack says the change in administration may mean a shift in how the division handles future antitrust matters.

When the case closed November 5, Litvack says "there was some talk about my staying to do some other stuff, but I decided to come back" to Hogan & Hartson. He's happy to be back, he says, but does regret that he won't get to go to court in what would have been the highest-profile antitrust case in years.

"Of course I was looking forward to it," he says. "We felt pretty good about it, we felt pretty confident. Yeah, I would have liked to have done it."

Why doesn't...

[cosm]

The DOJ attempt to work with the companies to prevent monopolizing convergence, instead of litigating with them after the fact, causing the companies to lose money and overall hurting the corporate structure, employee salaries, wasting taxpayer dollars, ect...ect...

Free Market + Government Intervention & Punishment + Taxpayers Dollers = LOLFAILWHALE ECONOMY

Free Market + Government Suggestion & Aid + Taxpayer Dollers = Working Economy

Re:Why doesn't...

[carbon 68k]

Free Market + Government Intervention & Punishment + Taxpayers Dollers = LOLFAILWHALE ECONOMY

Free Market + Government Suggestion & Aid + Taxpayer Dollers = Working Economy

A "hey, we're probably going to have to sue you if you do this" seems equally like "suggestion" to me. This is part of how the contours of what's permissible and what's not get drawn, and companies in the future will look at this and say "Google and Yahoo went this far, but got warned off. To what extent is our deal like that one?"

Re:Why doesn't...

[Talderas]

Isn't aid a form of intervention?

Re:Why doesn't...

[db32]

I assume you mean how Bush implemented voluntary pollution control measures in his state and none of the big polluters actually did anything and then continued to benefit from government dollars. Yup...totally a Working Economy there.

However, ending slavery, ending Company Towns, worker protection and safety laws are all government intervention and punishment that actually made things better.

I'm not sure if you live in free market fantasy land or are a shill for Bush policies, but either way the government intervention & punishment is the only thing that really works. The problem is we have allowed the corporations to buy off enough of the government to manipulate the game and rules far too much and the government gets involved in WAY too much bullshit that it has no business meddling with.

Re:Why doesn't...

[Anonymous Coward]

Intervention is intervention no matter what form it takes. We'd all be better off if the government would just stay the hell out of it.

The DOJ won't help

[Thelasko]

The way I see it, two things could happen:
1. Google and Yahoo could partner, leading to a monopoly.
2. Yahoo will go out of business, leading to a monopoly.
There is no way to prevent a monopoly.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[krou]

The third option is if Yahoo and Microsoft team up, in which case there is a slim chance that it could counter Google's search monopoly.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[N1AK]

I appreciate the point you are trying to get at, but your arguement is flawed.

If Google got hold of Yahoo a company with market dominance to form a Monopoly WILL be formed.

If they don't merge, and IF Yahoo go under, and IF Yahoo isn't bought out by Microsoft or a less obvious Internet competitor (News Corp? Facebook? etc) who continue it and finally IF all Yahoo users choose to migrate to Google, then you would have a Monopoly.

I accept it could be argued both situations may well lead to the same situation, but the odds would be quite different.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[webreaper]

Erm, it's already a monopoly. Does anyone actually use Yahoo? :)

Re:The DOJ won't help

[GMonkeyLouie]

I wouldn't really call a Google + Yahoo collaboration a monopoly. There are still plenty of search engines out there, and nothing about using Google or Yahoo (or any of their numerous holdings) prevents people from easily switching to other sites' services, or dividing their time between multiple sites. It's not like either Google or Yahoo provide a unique, patented service that others can't imitate - it seems to me to be a matter of time before someone perfects a suite of online utilities/applications that work together well enough to steal giant portions of Google's market share. Google may have an advantage from the outset, but I don't think its insurmountable even assuming no market-altering technological advances.

I'm sure antitrust has more purpose than just "prevent monopoly" but Google does not seem like an appropriate target for antitrust suits, even if they do acquire Yahoo.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[Anonymous Coward]

There might be an exit to this:
Somebody could accidentally create a computer program that becomes self-aware, infects every other computer and replaces Google.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[nschubach]

Also, Google doesn't provide a proprietary service by any means. You don't NEED www.google.com to do your job, open your documents, or run your applications. At least, not right now.

At any point in time, someone else could create a better search algorithm and steal users away from Google's search, ads, and possibly email. (Though I kind of wish some free services like Bigfoot.com would have stayed around as a mail redirector so you could change mail providers on a whim. [Disclaimer: I haven't checked in a while.])

Re:The DOJ won't help

[TorKlingberg]

Why do you think Yahoo would go out of business? It may not be Slashdotters first choice, but a lot of people use Yahoo and are happy with it.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[staryc]

The way I see it, two things could happen: 1. Google and Yahoo could partner, leading to a monopoly. 2. Yahoo will go out of business, leading to a monopoly. There is no way to prevent a monopoly.

The New York Times recently reported Jonathan Miller, the former chief executive of AOL, attempting to raise $30 billion to buy Yahoo. It seems that there are a few places this could go; albeit, very unlikely.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[MindlessAutomata]

There is. Come out with something better than Google. Not gonna happen? Tough. Suck it up, it's not like we even pay for the services Google provides (well, most of them).

The average consumer is a spoiled brat. Yeah, I just took a swing at the Middle Class, tar and feather me. In my world, you have no right to Google's servers or services, and if they are too good at providing it, then it's your own damn fault for letting it happen and for letting it continue to happen. Nobody wants responsibility.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[Kelbear]

It's more popular in Asia than the US.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[TheLink]

I use Yahoo search sometimes when google's search doesn't give me what I want (sometimes it doesn't). Microsoft's search isn't that bad either.

I use Yahoo mail and Yahoo messenger too every now and then.

I have a gmail account but I rarely use it.

As long as Yahoo and MS's search engines are around, Google search isn't a monopoly at all.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[MasterOfMagic]

GMail lets you forward all mail received to another account, with options to keep copies in your GMail account, archive copies in your GMail account (so they don't appear as new if you sign in to the web interface), or delete copies in your GMail account. They also don't forward spam messages.

It's a great way to have a consistent email account that gets forwarded to a more personal account. Of course, you can also get your GMail with POP or IMAP if that's your desire.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[Fallingcow]

I use Yahoo Yellow Pages sometimes.

It's the only time I ever visit Yahoo, though, and that's maybe once a month or less.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[MosesJones]

So the third option is

3. Have Yahoo team up with an already convicted monopoly (MS) to help stop Google becoming an monopoly

Making MS stronger doesn't exactly help the consumer or do anything to weaken MS' already existing monopoly on the desktop (as found by the previous DoJ investigation).

Rock, Hard place, Alaska in February

Re:The DOJ won't help

[Toll_Free]

Yup, that's pretty much Capitalism.

Eventually, you end up with a monopoly, when one company provides a product an order of magnitudes better than another.

I was an ardent Yahoo user until about 2003, and then switched to Google. Pretty much when I got a :beta: email account on GMail. Yahoo = megabytes of storage and Google gave me a gig. Then, once I started using them, I found their search to be SO much better.

Yahoo had it in the early to late 90s. Now it's Googles game. And ANY Corp. entity MUST act like a Corp. entity (make them shareholders some cash), so it should come as ZERO surprise when Google starts to act like a company..... ie, out for profit.

But, if Yahoo would have offered something similiar (to GMail at the time), I never would have experienced Google's superior search engine. Had Yahoo had a better search engine, I might have stuck with them and then played out with them.

Google just gave us something better, for a better price. Goodbuy (pun intended) Yahoo.

--Toll_Free

Re:The DOJ won't help

[Geirzinho]

Governor Palin in Alaska.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[rhsanborn]

Microsoft has a desktop monopoly, and the government says that Microsoft has certain responsibilities not to abuse that monopoly. They don't have any goal to take actions to actively weaken the monopoly, and they don't have any goals to stop Microsoft from growing in other sectors (like advertising) in which they do not have a monopoly.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[Your.Master]

WHY do people continue to get it backwards?

It's about Google leveraging its monopoly on search and so forth, no matter how legitimately gained and maintained, in other markets -- in this case, advertising (where Google really is squeezing people, in many ways).

In a similar way, Microsoft was never actually legally found to have done anything wrong to gain its Windows monopoly. They were found to be illegally leveraging that monopoly in favour of Internet Explorer. And then that finding was overturned in appeals.

Later, the EU filed a similar suit about the bundling of Windows Media Player, which MS lost, so it sells versions without media player in Europe.

It is not illegal to be a monopoly. It is illegal to LEVERAGE a monopoly.

The legal question is, "Is Google leveraging an effective monopoly?". Not, "Is Google's monopoly maintained ethically?"

Re:The DOJ won't help

[electrictroy]

Google has a monopoly???

A monopoly is defined as a "single source", but Google is hardly the only search engine in existence. Just off the top of my head there's MSN Search, Ask Jeeves, Ask.com, Altavista, AOLsearch, About, MIVA, LookSmart and more. I think this is a case of people using a word contrary to its true meaning. i.e. Doublespeak.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[Onan]

The very top of the list of things that constitute abusing a monopoly is leveraging it to force artificial success in a different market. This is in fact the specific thing the DoJ slapped them on the wrist for doing: leveraging their desktop OS monopoly into artificial success in the browser market.

The concern here is that Microsoft could leverage that resultant artificial success in the browser market into further artificial success in the online advertising market. Again, precisely the type of thing that antitrust laws are designed to prevent.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about Google leveraging its monopoly on search and so forth

It doesn't quite have a monopoly though so no matter what comes after this is irrelevant.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[Anonymous Coward]

A monopoly is defined as a "single source",

No it is not. (And just off the top of my head there's OS-X, and x number of Linux distributions.)

Re:The DOJ won't help

[nschubach]

Yes, that's currently how I do it... but you still have to give out the Gmail address. If you ever wanted to get away from Google for some reason, you'd have to send out a new email to all your friends. I was talking about a non-postbox redirector like bigfoot used to be. You could hand out your@bigfoot email and their servers would simply redirect your mail to the provider you specify. It was great for when I went to college since I could just hand out my bigfoot address and go on their website and change my real address to the email provider of the week without having to alert everyone I knew of my new address.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[rhsanborn]

Agreed, but the buying of an advertising group isn't an abuse by itself. If they were to buy the advertising and then use their position to leverage their position, then indeed, there are significant anti-trust issues. But there should be prohibition based on a twice removed potential.

Re:The DOJ won't help

[MasterOfMagic]

You can still do this with GMail. GMail replaces Bigfoot:

1) Sign up for a GMail account
2) Set the GMail account to automatically forward to whatever email address you want it to go to and to either archive or delete the email after it forwards
3) Email gets forwarded, sans spam, to the provider you're currently using
4) When you decide to change providers, change the email address you're forwarding to. One of the benefits of GMail over Bigfoot is that you can "buffer" email in your GMail account by not having it forwarded. Good if you're testing something in your mail setup or if you're currently between providers.

I understand that Bigfoot just forwarded the email without storing it and that you gave out the @bigfoot.com address. In this case, give out the @gmail.com address and any incoming email will be bounced to your "provider of the week". You are no more tied to Google and GMail than you were to Bigfoot.

Where did it go?

[i_ate_god]

The free market that is...

Re:Where did it go?

[bigmouth_strikes]

The free market relies on companies not becoming monopolies.

Re:Where did it go?

[miffo.swe]

Except if thy name is Microsoft, then its just ok.

Re:Where did it go?

[Anonymous Coward]

It got broken up and sold in pieces, didn't you get the memo?

Re:Where did it go?

[i_ate_god]

Monopolies happen if no one else can compete and is part of the free market system. Yahoo can't compete.

So if Yahoo goes, what happens then? Google's market share will only increase as a result. I don't see the difference here.

Re:Where did it go?

[Abcd1234]

The free market relies on companies not becoming monopolies.

Not quite. The free market relies on companies not *leveraging* their monopolies.

Re:Where did it go?

[MindlessAutomata]

This is

Since when did "monopoly" in any given field or industry mean "getting an even larger market share?"

Google is *already* a monopoly if you use this twisted, perverted definition. I can't wait until the left starts arguing that Google is too big, that we need search engine competition, and demands they be broken up for being too good at what they do.

The same people that say a free market needs an X amount of competition (where X is whatever appeals to their gut on that time of the day) betray a free market by limiting success or otherwise interfering with it. What the hell is a "free market" supposed to be if you're just going to knock down the king of the hill eventually? That's *not* a free market, whether you like free markets or not. A free market is a market without government interference, not some mystical "my perfect li'l market" fantasy.

Re:Where did it go?

[digitig]

The free market that is...

It has never existed, and hopefully never will. Its only advantage is doctrinal purity for some economists who don't like dealing with the messiness of the real world. There would be no advantages for any society that implemented it, and significant disadvantages because it has no effective way of managing the many cases where the cost of an action is not borne by those who benefit from the action. Mixed economies are the only pragmatic economies; the real debate is just over what the precise mix should be.

Re:Where did it go?

[LandDolphin]

Isn't that prrof that the Free Market System does not work without Government regualtion?

Re:Where did it go?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a truly free market would never create a monopoly. With no government barriers to entry in the market, people would be chomping at the bit to go into business themselves.

Re:Where did it go?

[johneee]

No, the "Free Market" doesn't care one way or another, by its very definition, about monopolies, or fairness, or the rights of consumers, or anything else like that.

Which is why I, and many other people, think that some intervention on the free market is a good thing so that the consumers don't get boned. The discussion then just becomes how much, when and where that intervention happens

Re:Where did it go?

[Abcd1234]

I couldn't agree more. :) I'm just saying that monopolies, in and of themselves, aren't evil (hence why, in this case, I think the DoJ was being overzealous... without evidence that Google was planning to leverage that monopoly, there was nothing actually wrong going on (yet)).

Re:Where did it go?

[deraj123]

It's proof that Government intervention is required in order to maintain a free market. The free market also relies on a voluntary exchange of goods or services - which requires government "regulation" to prevent theft and other involuntary exchange. Government is also needed to provide things such as tort resolution and contract enforcement.

Re:Where did it go?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft could always buy up Yahoo, thus saving us from the massive monolithic search/ad/web services monster known as Google.

Please save us, Bill!

Re:Where did it go?

[Kelbear]

Something that is often forgotten is that the free market is NOT a natural phenomenon. When left to their own devices, the businesses will try to fuck the consumer, and the consumer who has virtually no individual power, will seek consumer rights via collective bargaining, eventually forming large concerted organizations that will act against the interests of the business. In other words, there are checks and balances in play, and the government's part in regulating the economy was created as a check against businesses seeking to overpower the public.

There are few if any free markets in the world for a good reason. They don't work. If you want to find a free market, you can look towards Somalia, no government interference there.

Re:Where did it go?

[Cowmonaut]

The American idea of "Free Market" is kind of like "Free Software". Basically the goal is to have everyone play nice and have an equal chance to contribute and so on. Nothing about that precludes government regulations. SOME people insist you should have an "anarchic market" and then go around calling it "free".

Fact is, people need rules. They're a fundamental part of society once you go beyond a certain population size. Without them you get anarchy, which is only bad when there are bad people. If everyone just loved everyone else then we'd be peachy. But then you get stupid things like wars based on race, religion, ideals, or just flat out greed. That's reality. That's life.

Some think you can change it, but they're delusional. Unless you are willing to trample over someone's rights and reprogram them (which to me the idea is worse than rape, though not by much) you are going to have people that will just see that as weakness and, like a predator, act accordingly.

The real trick in my opinion is to have AS FEW laws/regulations as possible. The US started out pretty damn well like that but has been slowly corrupted over the years. I'm fairly certain the Founding Fathers would be among those that speculate a revolution or civil war in the US within the next 100 years. Considering the level of military might the US has, that is a pretty damn scary thought.

Re:Where did it go?

[knails]

But the point of the Free Market economics is that if the consumer is getting boned, it's his responsibility to do something about it if he wants change.

If you want something done right, do it yourself.

Re:Where did it go?

[brian0918]

The free market relies on companies not *leveraging* their monopolies.

Not quite. The free market relies on governments not propping up monopolies. Until politicians decide to stop heeding special interests, destructive monopolies (e.g. telecom) will continue to thrive. The free market does not guarantee that monopolies won't exist at any given time, but it does guarantee that if the monopoly's services are poor enough, the demand for better service will be so great that better service will be provided, by another company if necessary. Only when a force-backed entity comes in and prevents another company from providing competing service, or implements selective restrictions on competition (e.g. taxes / tax breaks), does an unjust monopoly exist. To my knowledge the only force-backed entity in the US is the government.

Re:Where did it go?

[Fallingcow]

Yes, I'm sure government barriers are the reason monopolies form in a market system with limited resources.

*eye roll*

Re:Where did it go?

[brian0918]

When left to their own devices, the businesses will try to fuck the consumer

That would be dumb of them. Don't those employees have any interest in keeping their jobs and putting food on the table? How can they stay in business if they screw over their customers. What stops a customer from switching to another service provider?

and the consumer who has virtually no individual power

Their wallets are all the power they need. Don't like a company? Pick another? If another doesn't exist, persuade everyone you know to demand better service and another company will come along to provide that service (if the demand is high enough, of course).

Re:Where did it go?

[Anonymous Coward]

which is right. see, it's not that someone has a gun to your head. it's only an issue if they pull the trigger by applying the proper leverage.

Re:Where did it go?

[brian0918]

The free market also relies on a voluntary exchange of goods or services - which requires government "regulation" to prevent theft and other involuntary exchange. Government is also needed to provide things such as tort resolution and contract enforcement.

Of course. A force-backed entity is always necessary in order to punish theft and other violations of individual rights. That is quite different from the discussion at hand however. These people imagine they have a right to Google's search engine, and if Google starts to voluntarily buy up other search engines (who ALSO voluntarily sell to Google), and then decides they want to flood their site with huge flash ads, and sell out the top 10 search results to the highest bidder, these people would demand the government intervene to destroy this monopoly. Such an action by the government could only mean one thing: violating the rights of each and every Google employee to do with their property and product as they decide. There is no right to a search engine. If a monopoly's services are bad enough, a second service provider will naturally emerge to provide better service. The only thing that could prevent such an emergence is force, and the only force-backed entity in the US is the government.

Re:Where did it go?

[MikeBabcock]

You might think it would be dumb, but if you're providing something like an Operating System for computers everyone buys, who cares if you provide what the consumer wants or not when you can essentially force them to purchase it anyway?

People who believe in truly free markets often ignore the barrier to entry for competition. Competition is not a given, and competition may be essentially impossible under some circumstances (the local telco's owning all the copper and poles and rights thereto and new competition not having the right to erect new poles).

Re:Where did it go?

[theelectron]

You forget entirely about price collusion. When everyone is screwing the customer, what business can customers turn to?

Re:Where did it go?

[brian0918]

You might think it would be dumb, but if you're providing something like an Operating System for computers everyone buys, who cares if you provide what the consumer wants or not

Computers that everyone buys, but nobody wants???

when you can essentially force them to purchase it anyway?

How do you force (or "essentially force") someone to buy something, exactly? Does the computer manufacturer/dealer have no interest in maintaining its userbase, by providing what its customer wants? Does the OS maker have no interest in maintaining its relationship with the computer dealer, by providing what the dealer wants, in order to maintain their userbase?

People who believe in truly free markets often ignore the barrier to entry for competition.

Correction: people who oppose the free market often tout a barrier to entry for competition. However the largest restrictions (e.g. the local telco's you mention) are created and maintained by the government.

Re:Where did it go?

[Abcd1234]

Correction: people who oppose the free market often tout a barrier to entry for competition. However the largest restrictions (e.g. the local telco's you mention) are created and maintained by the government.

Bah, that's a bullshit libertarian fantasy. The largest barriers to entry are cost-related. Let's pretend that governments didn't get involved in providing easements for laying copper. Now, you go start an ISP. Okay, first, you gotta get rights to lay copper from all the property owners. Then you have to outlay millions upon millions of dollars to dig up the ground and lay said infrastructure. And then you've gotta actually deploy the service.

Yeah, I'm sure a little ol' startup can handle all that. *snicker* Hell, large telcos can barely afford it (Verizon has blown enormous dollars to roll out fiber, and they've only been able to afford it because they were sitting on a truly enormous pile of cash).

Of course, there are many *many* other types of barriers to entry (for example, monopolies leveraging their position to cut out competitors), and some of them are government-induced (eg, health and safety regulations), but resource limitations are some of the most profound.

Re:Where did it go?

[brian0918]

You forget entirely about price collusion. When everyone is screwing the customer, what business can customers turn to?

The newly-created one that has the huge incentive of customer demand for cheaper products.

The problem with this whole debate is the pragmatic, unprincipled approach taken by everyone opposing the free market. According to this approach, nobody has a right to any of their products, services, or property - the customer instead has all those rights. Unfortunately for that argument, individuals have rights, regardless of how popular it has become to violate those rights. By promoting the violation of Google's employee's rights through government intervention, you promote the violation of your own rights.

Re:Where did it go?

[brian0918]

Okay, first, you gotta get rights to lay copper from all the property owners. Then you have to outlay millions upon millions of dollars to dig up the ground and lay said infrastructure. And then you've gotta actually deploy the service.

That is chump change to existing large companies that provide similar services in other areas. The biggest hindrance now is not cost, but getting every local government to permit them to use their public property in the same way it is used by existing providers.

Yeah, I'm sure a little ol' startup can handle all that.

A "little ol' startup" would obviously supply to fewer customers. There goes your whole "millions upon millions" shock and awe argument. Please try to stay in context next time.

Verizon has blown enormous dollars to roll out fiber

That's because the huge demand for fiber is not a huge demand. Corn ethanol suddenly comes to mind.

You still have not, and could never, justify the individual rights violations that would occur if the government forced a company to break up or change its practices, against its own intentions.

Re:Where did it go?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, the gov. decided to screw up the only industry that doesn't go to DC begging for taxpayer bailouts. That's brilliant.
No really, it is, how else are they supposed to justify taking over the tech sector too: first you interfere and put up red tape until a few companies go bankrupt, then you bail them out in exchange for favors. Good luck resisting censorship on the Internet after that.

Re:Where did it go?

[Belial6]

I'm not arguing for 'Free Market', but it is government regulation that prevents other phone/cable/internet companies from putting up poles and running new cable. It is the regulation that prevents competition in the data transmission space.

Re:Where did it go?

[jvkjvk]

Yeah, there is no history of any company trying to fuck their customers. Because "it would be dum of them". Right.

Oh, and that vote with your wallet gig really has worked out quite well too - that *always* keeps those companies in line.

Perhaps you should take off your IBM coloured glasses?

Re:Where did it go?

[brian0918]

Yeah, there is no history of any company trying to fuck their customers.

What does that have to do with anything? How is that a sound argument? There is a history of people killing other people. Does that mean every person should be considered a criminal? Please try to stay in context.

Because "it would be dum of them".

Actually, I spelled dumb correctly. The reason it would be dumb of them is because they would lose business.

Oh, and that vote with your wallet gig really has worked out quite well too - that *always* keeps those companies in line.

What are you talking about? You've constructed a sentence, but conveyed no information. Please provide some argument or evidence next time.

Perhaps you should take off your IBM coloured glasses?

I have perfect vision thank you very much. And I hate sunglasses.

Re:Where did it go?

[jvkjvk]

Well, perhaps you should pay attention to what you post, then.

My statements are a rebuttal of the assertions you made.

Since you are being either an asshat or a pendant, let me reiterate the whole convo I replied to below:

When left to their own devices, the businesses will try to fuck the consumer

That would be dumb of them. Don't those employees have any interest in keeping their jobs and putting food on the table? How can they stay in business if they screw over their customers. What stops a customer from switching to another service provider?

and the consumer who has virtually no individual power

Their wallets are all the power they need. Don't like a company? Pick another? If another doesn't exist, persuade everyone you know to demand better service and another company will come along to provide that service (if the demand is high enough, of course).

Now that we have that out of the way, perhaps you can tell me where you went wrong yourself? No?

Then let me.

The OP was stating that businesses will try to fuck the consumer.

You go and say Nyah, they won't!

I then joined in and said(colloquially); given the preponderance of evidence of past actions of businesses, it is relatively certain that, left to their own devices, the businesses will try to fuck the consumer.

Is that clear enough for you? You are wrong and refuse to acknowledge it. Well, that's ok, I speak truth to idiocy, too.

Second point.

You stated that all the protection from businesses consumers need comes from their wallets("Their wallets are all the power they need.")

I replied, in effect, that historically, this *is not* all the consumers need. The thinking persons follow on observation may be seen as - perhaps that's true today, too!

If my post conveyed a lack of information to you, the reason is you refuse to see the information contained therein.

Cheers.

Re:Where did it go?

[brian0918]

Thank you for posting some actual content this time.

The OP was stating that businesses will try to fuck the consumer.

Agreed.

You go and say Nyah, they won't!

No, I did not.

I then joined in and said(colloquially); given the preponderance of evidence of past actions of businesses, it is relatively certain that, left to their own devices, the businesses will try to fuck the consumer.

You're arguing against the free market, but your evidence of bad behavior is not from a free market system. A free market is a market free of forced intervention. It should be obvious that, so long as politicians are willing to hold up signs reading, "Will manipulate the economy for money" , as soon as one person or company starts buying favorable laws, competitors will respond in the same way. The end result is a system in which government manipulation of the economy is so common and integrated as to make it difficult to untangle. With each manipulation, individual rights are violated. No matter how common these violations become, though, they will never be justifiable.

You stated that all the protection from businesses consumers need comes from their wallets("Their wallets are all the power they need.")

Agreed. I did say that.

I replied, in effect, that historically, this *is not* all the consumers need.

Again, please provide some specific examples, and then for each of those examples, show why you believe the system at that time was a free market.

If my post conveyed a lack of information to you, the reason is you refuse to see the information contained therein.

Another possibility is that there was no information to begin with.

Re:Where did it go?

[geekoid]

"The newly-created one that has the huge incentive of customer demand for cheaper products. "

wow..simply..wow.

completly ignorant of reality to say that.

OK, your create said company. Now you need to crack the monopoly. What's that, you look like you have a shot? ok, now the coluding companies drop there price below your, you go away, and they jack up there prices.

You should really study up an large company behavior during the beginning of the 20th century to see where this leads.

Ther was a time when there was no regulation, regulation came about becasue of monumental abuse.

Re:Where did it go?

[Chris Burke]

The newly-created one that has the huge incentive of customer demand for cheaper products.

Oh yes, I forget that in Free Market Theory, a new company will spontaneously spring into existence regardless of any barriers to entry either inherent in the industry or set up by the trust in question. And, despite the fact that in this universe the SEC doesn't exist, this new company isn't immediately purchased, or simply bribed into colluding with the others.

Reality doesn't work that way. Maybe, eventually, that will happen, but in the mean time a great deal of damage has been done. Damage that could have been prevented just by eliminating the broken corner case.

The problem with this whole debate is the pragmatic, unprincipled approach taken by everyone opposing the free market

Principles without pragmatism are worse than useless, not only do they as a matter of course fail to achieve the principled objective, they frequently result in the opposite outcome. For example, the principle behind anarcho-capitalism is maximal freedom for all with minimal restrictions, but it's a system that essentially turns into feudalism very quickly. When contract law is the only law, creating a serfdom is as easy as finding people who don't have the option to leave and negotiate with someone else for the necessities you provide.

By promoting the violation of Google's employee's rights through government intervention, you promote the violation of your own rights.

But I don't think I have the "right" to form an abusive trust any more than I think I have the "right" to own slaves, so I'm not worried if violating that "right" of the people Google means I will lose that "right" too.

Or is this a slippery slope argument? If anti-trust laws are enforced, if banks and securities are regulated, then naturally this means I'll lose my freedom of religion? What is the basis for that? Is it not more likely that this would only encourage the violation of some related rights, which many of us may not consider to be rights at all?

Re:Where did it go?

[brian0918]

ok, now the coluding companies drop there price below your, you go away, and they jack up there prices.

Assuming the customers were dumb enough to fall for that, would you want those customers' business anyway? You cannot argue moral principles based on contrived situations. The underlying reason for arguing for the free market is it is the only system in which individual rights are not violated.

You should really study up an large company behavior during the beginning of the 20th century to see where this leads.

Would you care to give any specifics, or are you assuming you know what you're talking about. I'd suggest checking out Murray Rothbard's America's Great Depression, or the book by the chief architect of the New Deal, Raymond Moley, titled After Seven Years, if you want to "see where [government manipulation of the economy] leads."

Ther was a time when there was no regulation, regulation came about becasue of monumental abuse.

Abuse of whom? What time was this? You need to give some specifics if you want to be taken seriously. If people were killing other people, polluting their land, forcing them to use their services, obviously the government should step in to prevent those rights violations from occurring, and to punish the guilty. That is the purpose of the government. If you are not talking about rights violations when you say, "abuse", then what are you talking about?

Re:Where did it go?

[brian0918]

Oh yes, I forget that in Free Market Theory, a new company will spontaneously spring into existence regardless of any barriers to entry either inherent in the industry

> Why would a new company have to spring up when an existing similar company with enough equity can see the huge demand and desire to fulfill it?

or set up by the trust in question.

How does this trust set up barriers that prevent a company from doing with its property what it wishes... without government intervention?

And, despite the fact that in this universe the SEC doesn't exist, this new company isn't immediately purchased, or simply bribed into colluding with the others.

And that would be another irrational move on their part. Your point?

Maybe, eventually, that will happen

Where did I say it would happen overnight?

but in the mean time a great deal of damage has been done.

What damage? Be more specific.

For example, the principle behind anarcho-capitalism is maximal freedom for all with minimal restrictions, but it's a system that essentially turns into feudalism very quickly.

Who's promoting anarchy? The government has its purpose. Economic manipulation is not one of those purposes. Anyone can label a belief a "principle", it doesn't mean that it's a coherent belief and does not lead to a contradiction.

But I don't think I have the "right" to form an abusive trust

Again, what is this "abuse" that you would be performing? Are you hitting someone with a bat? Then you're violating their rights and should be punished. If that's not what you mean by "abuse", be clearer next time.

Re:Where did it go?

[MikeBabcock]

Without government interference, property rights would be a bigger problem. Someone owns the land where those poles go after all.

Re:Where did it go?

[Belial6]

Don't misunderstand. I get what the problems of total non-regulation are. I'm just saying that in data transmission, the government has mandated that it be monopolized. After all, you can't run new lines down public streets either.

Re:Where did it go?

[theelectron]

A "little ol' startup" would obviously supply to fewer customers. There goes your whole "millions upon millions" shock and awe argument. Please try to stay in context next time.

Ok, so you start a small ISP, sign up 100 customers, now you need to get them internet access... oh crap, to do that you need to set up a peering/connection agreement with the company who has a monopoly you are endangering... I wonder how much he will charge me for a connection? (most people would call that a barrier to entry)

Please try to stay in context next time.

Indeed.

Re:Where did it go?

[theelectron]

Assuming the customers were dumb enough to fall for that, would you want those customers' business anyway?

Yes. If I'm a business, I want customers. Very few customers are 'smart' anyway, so you take what you can get. Besides there are very few customers who will buy a product on ethical principle; there is a HUGE contingent who will buy on price point though. So when the colluding companies/monopolies drop their prices, the customers will jump ship back and the new company will lose. To keep operating, you will need enough customers or charge enough to keep your business going. Through your 'competition' you eliminate the possibility to charge enough, and you won't be able to get enough customers through the aforementioned mechanisms.

Re:Where did it go?

[brian0918]

Assuming the customers were dumb enough to fall for that, would you want those customers' business anyway?

Yes. If I'm a business, I want customers.

I didn't ask that.

Very few customers are 'smart' anyway

Is it necessarily the case that it would always be that way? Or would people be more likely to read contracts, understand what they're buying, and research their purchases, if they didn't have the inevitable government "safety net" to dumb them down?

So when the colluding companies/monopolies drop their prices, the customers will jump ship back and the new company will lose.

And if the new company tells those customers that the colluding companies are just going to raise prices again, you don't think the customers will listen? And again, for the people who don't listen, would you have wanted their business anyway? They'll soon realize their mistake.

Through your 'competition' you eliminate the possibility to charge enough, and you won't be able to get enough customers through the aforementioned mechanisms.

You haven't shown that your example is realistic. You assume that the only possible competitor starts out with little to no money, and that every customer he gets will jump ship once the price fluctuates a little. If that were the case the stock market would crash every day, wouldn't it?

And most importantly, you haven't shown how you can justify the rights violations that must occur if the government steps in to manipulate the economy itself.

Re:Where did it go?

[brian0918]

oh crap, to do that you need to set up a peering/connection agreement with the company who has a monopoly you are endangering...

Your fallacy is in treating the existing system as if it is representative of capitalism. Such a monopoly as you mention could not be maintained under a capitalist system. There would be no governmental force, or any other force, preventing the small startup from laying competing lines. Read up on how Edison got his start. He had to go through the exact same thing. Only when local governments started labeling such services "public utilities" were these monopolies created and enforced.

Re:Where did it go?

[theelectron]

Do you know what a peering agreement is? As an ISP you will need it to transfer data to the other companies network unless you only plan to have the neighbors networked to each other and not the world wide web. These agreements are not mandated by the government in any way, the network companies devise the agreements between themselves. Edison had a very different problem, as he only needed right of way which is easy enough to get in my example so I omitted it. Edison could generate power pretty much on location and didn't have to connect to the entire world's electrical network for his system to work. So you see, pure unregulated capitalism would fail here.

Re:Where did it go?

[brian0918]

Again, you've contrived a situation in which a small-time provider is completely surrounded by a large provider who, contrary to their desire for increased profits, decides to disregard the connection request of the smaller provider. You have not shown that such a scenario could persist under a capitalist system. You have also not justified the rights violations that come with forcing people to do with their property other than they please.

So you see, pure unregulated capitalism would fail here.

Fail at what? The purpose of capitalism is to permit people to voluntarily trade between eachother, to mutual benefit, without any use of force. If a larger provider rejects the connection request of a smaller provider, it is not a failing of capitalism. No force was applied, and no rights were violated. The failings, if any, are restricted to the larger provider - for acting against their rational self-interest - or the smaller provider - for investing their money in an unprofitable endeavor.

They'll have problems from now on.

[Samschnooks]

Any business transaction that Google may try to do will be under scrutiny. They are the: Coke, Kleenex, Jell-O, Sheetrock, Skillsaw, etc... of the internet. A brand name that is also a name for a type of product - a marketer's wet dream.

Re:They'll have problems from now on.

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't work out so well for Hoover, though.

Re:They'll have problems from now on.

[molotovjester]

Yes and no -

Marketing a product that has so much brand recognition that you can spend/focus less on brand awareness and more on getting customers in the door is wonderful (and much more quantifiable).

But when your brand name or product becomes synonymous with the type of product itself, then, in the case of a Q-Tip, your product name no longer sells itself, but instead sells every cotton swab in the industry.

so much for the free market

[Anonymous Coward]

Remeber all this government interference when someone again acuses free markets.

Shouldn't of done it anyways...

[amclay]

There's really two sides to the issue. Jerry Yang was being an idiot by not realizing that Yahoo needed to team up with someone else (MS) if they were to continue being competitive. Secondly, Google failed to realize early that teaming up with the second largest PPC advertiser wouldn't draw HUGE notices from anti-monopoly watchers. I personally think that it was a stupid idea of Google to even suggest it. Even though it never went through and they didn't get charges, as a consumer of their products (both as a webmaster and a searcher) I don't want them to become what they have stated they wouldn't - "evil." Thats my two cents.

Re:Shouldn't of done it anyways...

[Diss Champ]

While the deal had merit for Google on its own merits, giving Yahoo an alternative to MS was an excellent move.

Funny thing here is that its MS buying Yahoo that as a regulator I'd be more inclined to block, given MS's history (and convictions) for poor behavior, but given MS's pull in the current govt I expect instead MS will get Yahoo cheap after pretending they don't want them any more for a while.

And then MS will screw up the useful parts of Yahoo and wind up without a benefit.

Why would Google acquire that dinosaur?

[GMonkeyLouie]

Honestly, if I were Google, I would only be trying to buy Yahoo for Flickr, which seems extremely synergistic with Google's current offerings.

Yahoo's search tech is archaic and inferior, Yahoo's e-mail is not up to par with GMail, and most Yahoo site features are irrelevant and poorly executed on their site.

Both sites have a daily reach of about 30%, maybe they just want to make Yahoo.com redirect straight to Google. That would be good for a laugh and some ad revenue.

Re:Why would Google acquire that dinosaur?

[Enderandrew]

Google was never going to purchase Yahoo. Google was going to infuse Yahoo with money for a partnered search deal to protect Yahoo from Microsoft, but the DoJ thought that was practically a monopoly, while the DoJ thought it would be great if Microsoft BOUGHT Yahoo, and that wouldn't be a monopoly.

Re:Why would Google acquire that dinosaur?

[jeffbruce]

You should be assessed a -5 for using synergistic. This is Slashdot, not office bingo.

Re:Why would Google acquire that dinosaur?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the search market share to see why.

a combined Yahoo-google alliance would have control around 80% of the market. (google holds around 60-80%, yahoo around 10-15% depending on the source)

A Yahoo-Microsoft deal would only control around 20-30% of the market share, still short of what google already has and thus the DOJ would view MS in this area as making itself more competitive.

A very diverse company like MS is treated as though it was sepperate companies, their monopoly in one area does not impact or affect their status in another. Their desktop monopoly does not give them any leverage here so it doesn't apply or affect their decision.

re: why would Google acquire that dinosaur?

[rs232]

Because that dinosaur has apparently patented advert placement in search results .. http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/3387211

Re:Why would Google acquire that dinosaur?

[Enderandrew]

Normally I never respond to ACs, but you bring up a point worth responding to.

Google's share is around 70% given September's reports. Microsoft and Yahoo make up basically 30%.

A partnership is not the same as one company controlling both. Yahoo wouldn't control Google's search market, and Google wouldn't fully control Yahoo's search market. It is a partnership.

Regardless, 90% market share, while appearing dominant is far less of a monopoly as Microsoft's monopoly for 20 plus years in a variety of markets. Had Microsoft bought Yahoo, they'd be removing competition in several markets, and they have repeatedly demonstrated anti-competitive practices. They abuse market share in any market they enter.

Google has not abused market share. Wake me up when Google goes out of their way to stop Google products and services from working properly on a Microsoft platform to force some sort of proprietary-Google-vendor-lock-in.

My guess is that Microsoft is bribing someone at the DoJ to ignore Microsoft's actions while focusing heavily on stopping Google.

I understand concern over Google partnering with Yahoo. It is a valid concern, but not in the context that Microsoft should get carte-blanche in a similar situation.

Re:Why would Google acquire that dinosaur?

[MikeBabcock]

You should be assessed -5 pedantic for ignoring that the poster used the word correctly and that good usage overrides common parlance.

Re:Why would Google acquire that dinosaur?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, if I were Google, I would only be trying to buy Yahoo for Flickr, which seems extremely synergistic with Google's current offerings.

Yahoo's search tech is archaic and inferior,

[Stuff Deleted]

My wife disagrees with you, she thinks that Yahoo's Spanish language query results are (in most cases) better than Google's (although I'm not a great judge here, since my Spanish is not nearly as good as hers, from some things she has shown me, I think she might be on to something). I suspect that may be true in other languages too.

Re:Why would Google acquire that dinosaur?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Picasa is better.

Re:Why would Google acquire that dinosaur?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoo! emIl might not have the 'tech', but it is just fine, plus it's interface is fantastic, and fast. In the ten years I've had a Yahoo! email address, the server has been down only three times, in every case for a day or less

Re:Why would Google acquire that dinosaur?

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is that Microsoft is bribing someone at the DoJ to ignore Microsoft's actions while focusing heavily on stopping Google.

There is a lot of question as to whether the Microsoft/Yahoo agreement would have passed the DOJ as well. We just didn't hear as much about possible problems because the agreement never reached that point. Keep in mind how long the the Google/DoubleClick agreement took, and the fact that outrage and objections seemed to come in waves as the agreement went through the different stages of review.

Of course Microsoft would attempt to derail the deal, the main competitor always will and the DOJ is used to that.

By the way, the DOJ could summarily say no to the proposed Microsoft/Yahoo agreement, but they could only express displeasure with the Google/Yahoo agreement through a Lawsuit. This is because we are looking at very different types of agreements.

--MagusSartori

Microsoft

[MindlessAutomata]

Why did the DOJ call off the attack on Microsoft, yet decide to go after Google and Yahoo on this...? Microsoft is a much bigger "monopoly" than either of the two and effects a much more crucial market.

I guess someone didn't donate enough to the Bush administration...?

Re:Microsoft

[Enderandrew]

And it isn't like Microsoft doesn't have a dog in the search business.

Re:Microsoft

[MindlessAutomata]

Very good point.

Re:Microsoft

[starfishsystems]

Might be to advance the perception of fairness, nobody is immune, let the courts decide, stuff like that.

And actually, in the long run, that may bring out the best. The difference may be subtle, but I see a difference in how Google and Yahoo responded here in comparison to how Microsoft has historically responded to such moves. Google and Yahoo respectfully withdrew once it became certain that they were on a collision course with public authority. I believe the record is abundantly clear that in cases of conflict with public interest, Microsoft, historically, has pushed ahead with its agenda to the fullest extent possible, sometimes (as in the EU antitrust case for example) past the point where legal avenues have been exhausted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and watch for changes in this distinction, but I'd like to think that in the long run a pattern will become evident in which corporations that play fair are rewarded and those which don't lose the advantage.

Re:Microsoft

[brian0918]

Why did the DOJ call off the attack on Microsoft, yet decide to go after Google and Yahoo on this...?

For the same reason the government does anything. Whim. Political pull. Don't try to make sense of it.

Re:Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft doesn't hold a monopoly in search and can not leverage their existing monopoly here so the fact they have a monopoly doesn't apply at all.

This would be like having a monopoly on selling Fords and then doing something with swimming pools. just because you control one thing doesn't mean it has any pertinance on the other.

You could argue it gives them access to more money but its no different than a VC funding.

Re:Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you so sure that the DOJ wouldn't have called off this one as well a few years into the suit? You can't say they're treated differently if there exists a likely scenario in which things would be the same.

Re:Microsoft

[MikeBabcock]

Because of who pays off the most federal employees of course.

Re:Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

They already are rewarded: they don't get sued for a couple billion. (At least if they stop soon enough.)

What's his name

[Enderandrew]

Who was the douche that threw his company under the bus, calling out Yang and saying Yahoo was stupid for not immediately selling out to Microsoft? He didn't care about the future of Yahoo as a company. He wanted a quick payout of his stock. He threw a fit, started a huge fight with the board, made Yahoo look bad, and not only is the future of Yahoo in question, but his own stock has plummeted. Now a Microsoft deal may happen, but for far less. The bitching caused the stockholders to lose their ass, and their company. I say that is a job well done.

Re:What's his name

[snspdaarf]

I believe the douche you are looking for is Carl Icahn.

Re:What's his name

[Enderandrew]

Yep, that would be him. Thanks.

Re:What's his name

[Anonymous Coward]

Who also recently increased his stock holding in Yahoo...

What does he know that we dont?

Horribly misleading units

[Anonymous Coward]

Come up with the most obscure thing you can think of, the beginning date of the ancient egyptian calendar, say. Search for it. Note that google generated HALF A MILLION hits in ONE FIFTH OF ONE SECOND. And that's an obscure slow query. Divide that 3 hours into .2 second chunks (54,000 in all) and you'll realize that at google speed this wasn't exactly a close call.

There is a third option

[elrous0]

I prefer a third option. Here goes:

Yahoo, in a desperate bid to get MS's attention, hires actress Natalie Portman to seduce me to enlist my help in the matter. After hours of outrageous sex, including several acts involving grits, she convinces me to help. I go over to Bill Gates' house to resell him on the idea of a Yahoo/MS merger. Gates, grateful for my help and insight in the matter, agrees to call Ballmer up and talk to him about it, gives me a $2 million tip, and lets me take hom the biggest TV in his house. The next day, after another night of crazy mad oily sex with Natalie Portman, I meet up with Ballmer and Yang at Yahoo HQ. I make them apologize to one another, secure the deal to create a new search engine giant to compete with Google (called "MiYahoo"), get a nice portfolio of stock in the new company, then leave to go rent a goat and a midget for another night of insane smelly filthy sex with Natalie Portman.

Problem solved.

Re:There is a third option

[Toll_Free]

I read this as

After hours of pointless masturbation, I ate my body weight in grits

Then I reread it, and my mind babelfished it the same way.

Anyone else have that problem? :)

--Toll_Free

Re:There is a third option

[elrous0]

pointless masturbation

That, sir, is an oxymoron.

Re:There is a third option

[Hillgiant]

All I got was:

fnord fnord fnord desperate fnord fnord fnord help fnord fnord fnord grits frnord fnord fnord grateful fnord fnord fnord TV fnord fnord fnord oily fnord fnord fnord giant fnord fnord fnord nice fnord fnord fnord goat fnord fnord fnord.

Problem solved.

Yours makes a little more sense... I guess.

Re:There is a third option

[Pastis]

I had to image-google for "Nathalie Portman"....

Am I getting too old ?

Re:There is a third option

[twakar]

What could possibly go wrong?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Correction

[brian0918]

DOJ Was 3 Hours Away From Violating Google's Rights

There, fixed that for ya.

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when does a corporation, which is a CONTRACT between individual investors and laborers, have legal rights?

Oh, wait...

Re:Correction

[brian0918]

A corporation does not. Its constituents do. I shortened it to "Google's Rights" so that it would actually fit in the length limit for headers. :)

Re:Correction

[bill_mcgonigle]

Since when does a corporation, which is a CONTRACT between individual investors and laborers, have legal rights?

Since Santa Clara. Worst. Footnote. Evar.

antitrust ..

[rs232]

So when Microsoft eventually mops up Yahoos' 361 patent, that won't be an antitrust violation ?

Re: confusion

[rs232]

You're confusing Serge with billg .. :>

Threats

[Arthur B.]

To people who think antitrust law are not really harmful because they are used rarely, this should be a reminder.

(those who think they are helpful, I'm not even talking to you)

Re:Threats

[Anonymous Coward]

To people who think antitrust law are not really harmful because they are used rarely, this should be a reminder.

(those who think they are helpful, I'm not even talking to you)

This is some impeccable logic you have used in your statement, sir. The world is now smarter from your wisdom.

You can rent Midgets?

[DarthVain]

...and here I went out and bought one, damn! He just hangs around all day now, staring at me, judging me.

Re:You can rent Midgets?

[elrous0]

These days you can rent anything: midgets, goats, donkeys, a surprising number of cast members from "The Facts of Life", anything you can imagine.

Re:You can rent Midgets?

[Chris Burke]

The rented midgets are judgmental too. Little pricks.

Google PREDATORY?

[mi]

for those who thought Google was any less predatory than Microsoft, think again...

Thought again... And again... Nothing... What predation are you talking about? Microsoft's is well known:

• deliberately crashing non-Microsoft's software on Microsoft's operating system
• deliberate withdrawal of specifications required for compatibility
• deliberate changes of standards/formats to cripple competing software
• se of one monopoly (Operating System) to build another (web-browser, office software) — this one is, actually, not only predatory, but also illegal.

What has Google done to justify being called equally predatory?

Warning: Known sockpuppet/troll

[Anonymous Coward]

User operates more than a dozen accounts.

Also, Nothing Wrong With Loaded Guns

[EgoWumpus]

By that logic, if you load a gun and point it at someone's head, it's totally fine just so long as you have no plans to threaten, extort or shoot that person. Which means, of course, that if accidentally happens, can you be held responsible?

I'm not a super big fan of slippery slope arguments, but you have to pretty much assume that if you give someone an option, and based on their value system it will beat out any other option, you have to assume they'll take it.

OMFG

[hesaigo999ca]

Seriously, like M$ does not count as a search engine on its own?
That would count as the competition.....no?
So this would have gone to courts, made stocks drop even more, and left lawyers with alot of money,
google with another case of jealousy for not buying their stocks while they were small time, and
M$ hurt for being considered competition to google's search engine.

I am sure M$ had something to do with it though, it smells too fishy....Balmer fishy!

I'd agree, except for Yahoo Maps

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoo Maps has far surpassed Google Maps in terms of reliability (routing, finding addresses) as well as searching (in terms of map scope based on your current view, or success at finding locations, to success at having the right address for the place). It's the only one of Yahoo's services that I regularly use before Google's (excluding flickr)

Lobbying at work

[shentino]

TFA says microsoft may have had a hand in this.

Why am I not surprised?

Foreign markets.

[MMInterface]

I think one thing you are overlooking is foreign markets. Yahoo has a larger market share for some of its services in some nations outside the US: for example, Yahoo Search in Japan. When you look at that market it almost seems like the consumer prefers some of these "inferior" services. The most popular sites there don't usually resemble the clean minimalist design that Google services tend to have. That is until you consider that they are usually viewing the mobile site on their cellphone, and services like web mail are often used quite differently. Even really closed services that run contrary to Google's philosophy continue to do quite well there: iMode.

overhyped headline (and body)

[jxxx]

A mere three hours! Imagine had it been just 30 seconds! Or two weeks after!

Does it matter? No deal means no antitrust case. The numbers are just noise. Once recognized, they just get in the way, and dissuade me from bothering with the rest of the article.

Thanks, Mr. Blogger, for trying to make this exciting. Better luck next time.

Maybe ...

[SlashDev]

... they were in different time zones and didn't realize it was still ok to do so?

Blackmail? Really?

[plasmacutter]

Why is this tagged "blackmail"?

Enforcement of anti-trust law should happen, as monopolies are bad whether its the public or other businesses who get screwed, because it all comes back to bite everyone otherwise. (case and point: apple and other CE manufacturers compelled to cave on "screen-blanking" because of monopoly power)

And don't say "only monopoly abuse is bad". Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and any monopoly will result in a dead weight loss, heavily weighted toward niche market participants who are no longer serviced.

It is inconsistently and hypocritically enforced, but you should attack the government for instances where it has NOT enforced it rather than when it has.

No one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoogle?

Goohoo!

Yahoo finance

[ChrisMaple]

Yahoo finance is quite a lot better than any other stock market site I've seen.

Yahoo Finance is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoo Finance is very good. It's better than either Microsoft or Google.

Then you also forget about Yahoo Stores.

Antitrust?

[JumpSocial]

Antitrust? The government is a monopoly. :)

Google predatory?

[jotaeleemeese]

Proof please.

Being big does not equal being predatory.

Where will it all end?

[Tomsk70]

Next they'll be blocking MS from including their own Browser and Media Player in their OS - after all, that would be a monopoly......oh