Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Confirms Google Antitrust Investigation
An anonymous reader points to Digital Daily, writing "Looks like the fireworks have begun early in Mountain View. On Thursday afternoon, the Department of Justice officially notified Google that it is investigating its book deal for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act."
Yup. I also think the shit they pulled against MS was overzealous.
Would a crack addicted cop bust their crack dealer? I don't think so. The US government is "addicted" to using MS products even when there are free alternatives available (and something tells me that they can hire 30 guys cheaper to patch OOo to make it work like they want it to than buying MS office licenses). Europe is much less addicted to MS and their anti-trust suits seem to have little basis (just look at Intel which got hit with suits even though there are many alternatives such as AMD and VIA for x86 compatible and entire markets of other architectures such as PPC, ARM, etc.) and seem to think that no company should have more than 50% marketshare for any reason.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Exactly, if we would go to a 20 year copyright (10 years with mandatory registration with a 10 year renewal) along with clauses allowing for non-commercial use and distribution of any book, movie, program, etc. which is not being sold to the general public or is not available in the USA. And allowing the breaking of DRM for non-commercial use. Such things would eliminate this so called "Google monopoly" and improve our economy/country.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Microsoft was already brought to court over antitrust matters, lost, and was fined. Then the Bush administration basically gave them a pass. I don't think we can drag them to court again, unless they do something significantly new.
Another thought: I'm not sure if the ISO/DOCX/ODF fiasco counts. I wish that it was looked into by the correct anti-trust officials, but I don't really know if that sort of thing breaks any laws.
On the other hand, I'm not sure if I'd agree that Google has been the shining corporate citizen that you paint them to be. They have done some questionable things (privacy issues with StreetView, China dealings, etc).
It is, is it? You don't really offer any proof to that effect. Companies are perfectly able to grow very large without government assistance, and once they have disproportionate resources (economy, manpower, social influence), its a simple matter to utilize those resources to coerce people. Government is certainly part of the problem, and is certainly corruptible. But government is, in theory, the people working together to certain ends, and is, paradoxically, the best way for us to deal with entities that are trying to infringe upon our rights.
I won't simply accept, "Government is bad, mmkay. Government is the source of all our problems, mmkay," as a valid argument. Government causes many problems, but it is also a tool that we use to fight many others. Balance is important.
Google was the last search engine to move into China. They don't even maintain logs of China originating transactions. They keep nothing of significance in that country. They don't deploy any of their latest 2 or 3 generations of technology into that country. They are prepared to cut it off from the rest of Google and shut it down in a heartbeat.
They haven't coughed up any data on Chinese users to the Chinese government. The fact that they have to filter data (*and* indicate to the user that it *is* being filtered) is up to their government. If the Chinese people want to change it, they can.
Given that the computer you're using to access the internet, your monitor, and probably all the switches and almost certainly all the chips in those devices, your keyboard, mouse, clothes and such are likely all made in China, I fail to see how you can single Google out for "China dealings". China firewall is run on what? Google computers? Google OS?
Privacy issues with Streetview? They drive down public streets taking photos. Like people have done since cameras have been around. The fact that they take a lot of photos (something you could always legally do), stitch them together (again, legal), and post them online (legal) is what's new about it. They apply appropriate solutions when people (or governments) ask them. Generally without going through a court case. They try to do "the right thing". Try asking MS for something.
As corporations go, they are "shining". Way above average.
Everything they do is questionable. So question it. They generally answer. And change. And improve. You cannot rationally expect everything they do to meet 1) your ethic or 2) everyone's ethic.
And...
Never mind, I just realized I'm on slashdot. no point...
That sort of non-copyright system would mean that anyone could block the revenue from any sort of creative work by simply making it available non-commercially. In other words, posting it on a P2P network would be legal, downloading it would be legal and nothing could be done to stop it.
That would mean I would never have to pay for a movie ever again, and there would be no legal recourse. It would mean that nobody would ever have to pay for software ever again, because it would all be free.
Oh, except for stupid people that would not know how to use P2P for downloading. They would have to pay. Too bad for them.
I agree, it would be nice, except for anyone that is paid for software today. Or movies. Or music. Or books. I guess it would be great if you work in a WalMart, because you could now afford all that stuff. My employees would have to join you at WalMart.
I'm ok with this, as long as they investigate the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers as well.
Nah ... all those old-line organizations seem to keep getting a free pass from any investigation. My guess is that they've been greasing the palms of numerous public officials for so long that to investigate them would air way too much dirty laundry. So the Feds pay them no attention, even though they're as dirty as the RIAA in their own way and just as deserving of investigation.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.