DOJ Confirms Google Antitrust Investigation

Finally, some hope by QuantumG · 2009-07-02 10:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

The move is the strongest sign yet that the DOJ may block the settlement, which critics claim would grant Google (GOOG) a monopoly on orphaned works-copyrighted texts without an identifiable copyright holder.

Heh, really? Maybe if there was some copyright reform no deal would be necessary. Maybe if copyright was an opt-in system, publishers could publish out of print books without having to worry about being sued by an absentee copyright holder.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.

Re:Finally, some hope by Darkness404 · 2009-07-02 11:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
Re:Finally, some hope by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-02 14:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, the "monopoly" in question is called "copyright". If companies are worried about the monopoly of orphan works, the answer is easy. Orphan works should fall into the public domain.
Re:Finally, some hope by cdrguru · 2009-07-02 15:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
Re:Finally, some hope by Quothz · 2009-07-02 17:41 · Score: 3, Informative

The way it currently is, I can get a better experience downloading a less-than-DVD quality movie then going to the movie theater.
Why would you download it first, if you're going to the theater regardless? Wouldn't it make more sense to download it while you're at the theater?
Okay, okay, sorry, but that sentence is a textbook example of why you should care about the difference between "then" and "than". I beg your forgiveness of my little compulsions.

I'm ok with this, as long as..... by phantomfive · 2009-07-02 10:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm ok with this, as long as they investigate the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers as well.

--
Qxe4

Serves you right! by pablo_max · 2009-07-02 10:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Stupid companies.. Stop getting too big! Stop making so much money! Stop being so much better than your competition that everyone only uses your product. Being competitive means allowing the other guys to catch up! It also means you can't branch out too much..so keep your focus narrow.

Anyone else think this is a little over zealous?

Re:Serves you right! by royallthefourth · 2009-07-02 11:05 · Score: 4, Informative

Slow down a bit. They're being investigated, not prosecuted. Even if they get brought to court and convicted of some antitrust charge, history has shown us the the punishments directed at corporations are inconsequential.
Re:Serves you right! by Brian+Gordon · 2009-07-02 11:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

We can get mad about investigations too because they cost millions.
Re:Serves you right! by Rycross · 2009-07-02 11:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'll stop worrying about companies getting too big when I stop hearing about how companies are "Too big to fail." Or when they aren't big enough to put serious economic pressure on other people/businesses. Or when they aren't big enough to be able to legally harass people despite having a flimsy case. Or when common people are able to routinely exact damages from them.
Until then, I'm perfectly happy with society telling companies that they are too big and need to limit their scope. Large businesses have disproportionate power over me. Even more so if there are only a few options. I don't like being coerced, whether its by private companies or governments.
Re:Serves you right! by Darkness404 · 2009-07-02 11:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Theres a big difference between MS and Google. What part of Google locks you in? Lets see... I can have my Gmail on a third party computer. My Google Docs can be exported to a non-proprietary format without losing formatting unlike MS Office. Etc. There is not a single thing that keeps me tied in to using only Google products except that Google products are better. On the other hand MS (still does or at least used to) prevent other OEMs from selling or at least adverting products without Windows or with a different OS or else they suffer financially. Use DOC or DOCX to keep Word documents locked in a proprietary standard and proprietary implementation (and no MS's implementation of OOXML does not follow the specs). IE broke many standards forcing web developers to code for IE only and because it didn't match the standards other browsers either had to emulate these bugs or suffer incorrectly rendered pages. Etc.

Google is simply good at what it does so people keep coming back. MS simply forces people to use them.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:Serves you right! by The_Quinn · 2009-07-02 11:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

The government is behind all of those problems: "Too big to fail", laws favoring business over individuals, and persecution of successful businesses.
You are taking a "I'm fine with it until it changes" stance - but how does that attitude help anything? You are not even identifying the source of the problem, which is the power that the government wields over individuals and businesses.
Once you have named this source, you can fight against it, explicitly, instead of taking an "I'm fine with it until it (magically) changes" approach.

--
Mine is Good
Re:Serves you right! by Darkness404 · 2009-07-02 12:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Let's see, I could use any browser or search engine or media player or OS I wanted.
No, for a long time if you used something other than IE, you would get an incorrectly rendered page because of IE having a huge chunk of the marketshare of browsers and thats what people used to only code for. Sure, you could use any search engine you wanted because of two main things A) The learning curve for a search engine is nearly non existent, if you can use MSN you can use Google, Yahoo, Ask, Bing, Live Search, etc. and B) it takes less than 2 minutes to change the homepage on nearly every modern browser. But lets say you wanted to use any media player, too bad you won't be playing any WMAs unless you want to fork out for a patent license or break the DMCA by reverse engineering your own codecs. As for your own OS, how are you going to return the Windows license you unwillingly paid for? Sure, there are ways, but its not as simple as going into your local Best Buy and coming out with a $50 in your hand.

If the USA had A) No software patents, B) No DMCA and C) mandates that all government files/programs must use an open standard with an open implementation we would have no MS monopoly. However we do have software patents to the point where they can sue a GPS manufacturer for using perhaps the most basic filesystem in order to maintain compatibility with MS's own OS (want to use something patent free? Too bad the Ext drivers won't work in Vista due to changes by MS). We have the DMCA which won't let you hardly reverse engineer anything even for non-commercial use, and we have a government that still could require you to use proprietary technologies to do things like file tax returns.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:Serves you right! by The_Quinn · 2009-07-02 12:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Theres a big difference between MS and Google.
No - there really isn't - not in a fundamental sense.
Both companies make voluntary deals with everyone involved, to mutual advantage. Both companies make products that people like and want, and people are willing and glad to pay for them. Both companies provide technologies that help their customers make a lot of money, using them.
As long as companies are dealing with everyone voluntarily, the government should not be involved. Only when a business violates an invidual's rights through force or fraud should the government get involved.
Anti-trust is based on the altruist idea that the more successful you are - (aka "selfish") - the more evil you are, and the evil successful need to be brought down to favor the less successful, or failures. This also happens to be the moral underpinning for bailouts, welfare, "soak the rich", government healthcare, and many more.
Oh yeah, it's also a Christian ideal.

--
Mine is Good

Anti-trust punishes success by duncan+bayne · 2009-07-02 11:02 · Score: 5, Informative

Yet another case of punishing business for success. Alan Greenspan had it right back in 1966 when he wrote this memo on anti-trust legislation:

...
The world of antitrust is reminiscent of Alice's Wonderland: everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn't, simultaneously. It is a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet "too much" competition is condemned as "cutthroat." It is a world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as "enlightened" when initiated by the government. It is a world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge's verdict -- after the fact.
...

Re:Anti-trust punishes success by Hatta · 2009-07-02 11:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why should we listen to anything Alan Greenspan has to say?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Anti-trust punishes success by Rycross · 2009-07-02 11:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't know why you're modded flame-bait. Greenspan was completely wrong on the banking industry and the economy, even admitting so himself. Is there any evidence that his opinion is worthwhile, or that following his suggestions would be prudent? Because it sure as hell isn't working out so well for us right now.

Re:So much for "do no evil" by Hatta · 2009-07-02 11:19 · Score: 3, Funny

Maybe the DOJ is investigating because Google has a monopoly on not doing evil.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:Why didnt they investigate microsoft properly by Darkness404 · 2009-07-02 11:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

The DOJ is after the wrong company! by TropicalCoder · 2009-07-02 11:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Over the years, Microsoft has proven to be particulary inept at getting any traction with their search business. In January 2008, Microsoft made an unsolicited bid to purchase Yahoo. Their efforts were frustrated when Google came to Yahoo's rescue. To get their revenge Microsoft mobilized their army of lobbyists in a Plot to Kill Google. Microsoft persuaded other companies and trade groups to lend support to their FUD campaign against their arch enemy. You will recall that the powerful American Corn Growers Association was among them - this same organization who's members get billions in subsidies to produce environmentally unfriendly ethanol from corn.

An article in the New York Times details Google's public-relations offensive to counteract the Microsoft generated FUD.

The Times articles states about Google: "regulators are intensely scrutinizing its every move, as they once did with ... Microsoft. (My bold)

Why is it - "as they once did with Microsoft"? Microsoft never changed the behaviour that lead to civil actions filed against Microsoft in May of 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states.

They have made a big mistake. The DOJ is after the wrong company! With a new administartion in place, their first priority should be to get Microsoft under control. The EU has really shown the world the the US DOJ has been asleep on its watch. If the DOJ woke up and stepped up to its long neglected responsibilities, it would be the USA raking in the billions in fines it will take to get Microsoft to behave itself, instead of the EU. Why in the world are they going after Google at this time?

Google has been a shining example of how a good corporate citizen should behave, and Microsoft should be encouraged to emulate Google's example. Google doesn't lock people into its software or services. Any time you want you can use another search engine or pick up your Google docs and walk away. If there are some justifiable concerns about Google, I suggest that the DOJ first take care of elephant in the room - Microsoft - before turning to Google. It is just so disheartening to see the good guys getting DOJ's attention while the bad guy slips away. Microsoft, you hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from Google's eye.

PS: I couldn't have written this short essay without Google there by my side the whole time as a friend to help me with the research.

Re:The DOJ is after the wrong company! by Rycross · 2009-07-02 11:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

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).

why not comcast and AT&T? by DragonTHC · 2009-07-02 12:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

they're monopolies also.

--
They're using their grammar skills there.

Slashdot Mirror

DOJ Confirms Google Antitrust Investigation

22 of 186 comments (clear)