Google, Yahoo!, Apple Targeted In DoJ Antitrust Probe

suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post: "The Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether some of the nation's largest technology companies violated antitrust laws by negotiating the recruiting and hiring of one another's employees, according to two sources with knowledge of the review. The review, which is said to be in its preliminary stages, is focused on Google; its competitor Yahoo; Apple; and the biotech firm Genentech, among others, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. The sources said the review includes other tech companies and is 'industry-wide.' By agreeing not to hire away top talent, the companies could be stifling competition and trying to maintain their market power unfairly, antitrust experts said. ... Obama's antitrust chief at the Justice Department, Christine Varney, has said she plans to look at the network effects of high-tech companies and how their grasp on markets has cut out competitors and hurt consumers."

Comments

antitrust, et al.

[megrims]

Why do we trust google, again?

Re:antitrust, et al.

[MyLongNickName]

Because they are not Microsoft. And because they are competing successfully against Microsoft. Nothing more.

Power corrupts. Doesn't matter if the person with power has shit that doesn't stink. By nature, the stronger person will eventually abuse his power. It may not even seem that way to the person with the power, but it will happen. Same is even more true with organizations. They are more complex, less personal. As Google collects more data, as its reach becomes bigger and as time goes on, the abuse will surface. Not that Google is any better or worse than anyone else, it is their success that will do it. And when Google's "Do No Evil" becomes "Well, maybe a little evil", they will make Microsoft look like an amateur.

(And thank you Slashdot for making me wait five minutes between posts. Excellent Karma, get mod points yet have to wait. And when I use the email link to report the problem, my email gets ignored. Brilliant)

Re:antitrust, et al.

[harryandthehenderson]

Except that Google and Yahoo! will still attempt to recruit away people from other companies they don't have a pact with and as such this appears to be shady collusive behavior.

No-hire pact?

[DoofusOfDeath]

It seems to me like there's another angle on this, from the perspective of the affected employees, not the customers/competitors.

By forming a pact that keeps an employee at company A from getting a job at any other company in the cartel, doesn't that run afoul of federal fair labor laws?

Re:No-hire pact?

[rev_sanchez]

Non-compete restrictions in employment contracts are common in software development work and are another flavor of this issue. What these companies have done is more insidious because they aren't asking employees to agree to being locked out of major portions of the job market for their skills.

The result of this is that you often can't work in the industry for years after leaving your job. To insist that employees have experience when they are hired and then prevent them from using it when they leave seems wrong.

Re:Good

[MyLongNickName]

And generally non-competes are ignored in other states as well I applaud California for legislatively declaring them illegal. Companies already operate at an advantage compared to individuals. They should not be able to take away my livelihood when we decide to part ways. If I am employed "at will" by them, then the business arrangement should be symmetrical. If they are willing to offer me a generous severance package, then I imagine they can have a say on where I end up. But even that should be limited.

Beware the red herring

[R2.0]

"Obama's antitrust chief at the Justice Department, Christine Varney, has said she plans to look at the network effects of high-tech companies and how their grasp on markets has cut out competitors and hurt consumers."

They are investigating collusion in the labor market - in this case, the companies themselves are the consumer, and job seekers provide the service. But this has nothing to do with cutting out competitors and hurting consumers. What they are doing is collusion in a market which, though probably illegal, keeps costs down, not up.

"look at the network effects of high-tech companies and ... grasp on markets ..." is shorthand for increased government regulation, whether warranted or not. What will happen when they decide to investigate the companies that supply toilets, and find out that "only" 10 companies "dominate" the market? They may not be colluding, but OBVIOUSLY such a small number of companies id bad for the market, and hence requires regulation of their pricing to protect the consumer.