Google Accused of "Cooking" Search Results and Charging MSFT Too Much

A reader writes "Google is being scrutinized by the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee for supposedly 'cooking' their search results. In an independent study comparing search results for products, Google Shopping consistently ranked 3rd. Eric Scmidt denied these accusations at a Senate hearing Wednesday." On top of all that, Microsoft is alleging that Google overcharges them as much as fifty-fold for advertising prices as compared to other buyers.

Comments

I'm not evil!

[xystren]

First Post!

Google bla bla bla

[countertrolling]

And senate hearings on sports...

So good to see their priorities are in order...

Meanwhile we're still at war... with ourselves, it seems

Re:Google bla bla bla

[mfh]

Meanwhile we're still at war... with ourselves, it seems

You know this certainly adds a new dimension to the phrase, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

The point is that when the USA is a continually devolving government that stands out by how often they trounce the rights and freedoms of the people they are corruptly guarding, well it certainly begs the question: when are they going to crumble from their own weight and stupidity?

Nobody shed a tear for the dinosaurs. Nobody will shed a tear for humanity.

Re:Google bla bla bla

[Anonymous Coward]

Speak for yourself. I've never forgotten about the dinosaurs. I'm welling up right now in fact!

*sob*

Re:Google bla bla bla

[That Guy From Mrktng]

Nobody shed a tear for the dinosaurs. Nobody will shed a tear for USA.

FTFY and I don't agree, theres too many people that profi^h^h^h^supports your own weight and stupidity and nobody (excluding desk communist that think China is actually communism) would like to see China taking your spot.

The "crumble" is certainly a thing that you can't blame on anyone else but you, and a thing that can only be fixed by You. I know textbooks conditioned you all to thing that USA == the whole world, but lets get serious, you economy flops would piss in the face of a lot of people but the world as a whole will keep going on. I don't really think the next economic meltdown will cause the extinction of the human race (© 2001 Discovery Networks ), or am I missing something?

Re:Google bla bla bla

[davester666]

Fortunately, the US is not the guardian of humanity.

Of course, given their nuclear arsenal, aliens arriving at Earth would assume they are in charge of wiping out humanity...

Re:Google bla bla bla

[Anonymous Coward]

'well it certainly begs the question:'

No, it doesn't.

Re:Google bla bla bla

[kdemetter]

Not all dinosaurs became extinct , some adapted . The Ostrich , for example.
So, it's possible we don't become extinct , but simply adapt.

Re:Google bla bla bla

[DarwinSurvivor]

Wow, the ostrich is actually a pretty good example. What other animal buries their head as deep in the sand during trouble than we do?

Re:Google bla bla bla

[hajus]

Actually, the ostrich does not bury it's head in the sand during times of trouble.

When threatened, Ostriches run away, but they can cause serious injury and death with kicks from their powerful legs. Their legs can only kick forward. Contrary to popular belief, Ostriches do not bury their heads in sand.

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

Re:Google bla bla bla

[Alex Belits]

It does. The accepted meaning of the phrase had changed in common usage, and this new meaning is not in any way inconsistent or erroneous. If anything, it is more literal and less an of an idiom, as a given line of reasoning indeed requires a certain question to be asked at some point. Take into account that the original meaning came from Latin, and was a very bad translation to begin with.

Re:Google bla bla bla

[thePuck77]

But...but...Raptor Jesus went extinct for your sins!

Re:Google bla bla bla

[Chrisq]

I don't really think the next economic meltdown will cause the extinction of the human race (© 2001 Discovery Networks ), or am I missing something?

No , its just wishful thinking that it will lead to the extinction of Fatus Amercanus Nausiosum

Re:Google bla bla bla

[MagusSlurpy]

Pffft. The bones of Raptor Jesus were placed by God to test our faith!

Re:Google bla bla bla

[paiute]

...it certainly begs the question: when are they going to crumble from their own weight and stupidity?

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

Re:Google bla bla bla

[paiute]

It does. The accepted meaning of the phrase had changed in common usage, and this new meaning is not in any way inconsistent or erroneous. If anything, it is more literal and less an of an idiom, as a given line of reasoning indeed requires a certain question to be asked at some point. Take into account that the original meaning came from Latin, and was a very bad translation to begin with.

http://begthequestion.info/

"To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question." (e.g. "It begs the question, why is he so dumb?") This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the phrase to refer to a literal question. Sadly, the error has grown more and more common with time, such that even journalists, advertisers, and major mass media entities have fallen prey to "BTQ Abuse."

While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular, it cannot be denied that logic and philosophy stand to lose an important conceptual label should the meaning of BTQ become diluted to the point that we must constantly distinguish between the traditional usage and the erroneous "modern" usage. This is why we fight."

As has been said before, there are many ways to say "this is a question which needs to be asked". It is not necessary to take a definition of a logical fallacy and repurpose it so that its original useage is diluted.

I not surprised to see this on other sites, but on slashdot, where many people are coders who live by the knowledge of precise definition of terms, I am.

Re:Google bla bla bla

[gtall]

Relax, he was talking about Republican presidential candidates when confronted with Science (Perry, Bachmann) or Economics (Paul).

Re:Google bla bla bla

[Anonymous Coward]

The accepted meaning of the phrase had changed in common usage

Bullshit. Accepted by whom? Fuckwads like you, or intelligent, educated folks?

Re:Google bla bla bla

[mcneely.mike]

but could they take out Chuck Norris?

Re:Google bla bla bla

[v1]

FWIW, ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand. They do build nests in depressions they dig in the ground (using their head), and do spend time like any other bird does, shifting their eggs around many times a day (again with their head), which gives an observer the impression that they have their head in the sand.

How this came to be associated with being frightened I haven't a clue. Try to sneak up on a parent ostrich and scare them while they're tending their nest. I can guarantee you they won't keep their head down. (and considering their land top speed of 60mph, you better be within a few feet of your dirt bike or you're going to get a boot to the head)

Re:Google bla bla bla

[mfh]

"when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof"

It is assumed and unproven; suggested yet still not proven. The question was when, therefore the question posed was asserting proof without proof. I love you hair-splitters. I really do.

Re:Google bla bla bla

[Hatta]

Yep, and lemmings don't run off cliffs. Frogs don't sit passively in pots of slowly heating water. Yet these remain useful metaphors.

Re:Google bla bla bla

[somersault]

Did you even read the post you're replying to?

Re:Google bla bla bla

[mfh]

All these replies to my comment that refer to begging the question are trolls.

From a previous response I made:

It is assumed and unproven; suggested yet still not proven. The question was when, therefore the question posed was asserting proof without proof. I love you hair-splitters. I really do.

It is suggested the USA is on a collision course with destruction. No evidence was provided. None offered either because I feel as though there is enough available. However the assertion itself begs the question, but I'm asserting that it's allowed to.

Not happy with all the hairsplitting going on here. Stop it.

Re:Google bla bla bla

[mfh]

Bullshit. Accepted by whom? Fuckwads like you, or intelligent, educated folks?

Which group do you fall into, AC? Gonna guess the first but I could be begging the question.

Re:Google bla bla bla

[nschubach]

... or were they there to test our resolve?

Re:Google bla bla bla

[LrdDimwit]

Replying to undo incorrect moderation. Screw you, new mod system! I used to have to click "OK" to confirm, and I liked it that way. It wasn't broken, why'd they break it?

Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know or care if these accusations about Google are true.
I think the more important question is why should the government care about how Google is running their search results. They are the dominant search engine, but there are other competitors in this space and other alternatives.

Yet another example of government pushing its nose into something it doesn't understand in the name of the public good.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

I don't know or care if these accusations about Google are true.
I think the more important question is why should the government care about how Google is running their search results. They are the dominant search engine, but there are other competitors in this space and other alternatives.

Yet another example of government pushing its nose into something it doesn't understand in the name of the public good.

Several reasons.

If it results in false advertising, there can be a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act by a competitor or the FTC. unlikely in this kind of case, but Google has been investigated in the past for making money off of that kind of thing, and the same agency is doing the investigation here.

In addition, there's antitrust law. Merely having other competitors in the space doesn't mean that a company isn't violating antitrust law. The concern of antitrust law is protecting against anticompetitive use of a firm's market power in a way which reduces competition--in simple terms, doing this takes away from the total benefit that society obtains from the marketplace, because it results in the firm with market power artificially raising prices, meaning that the company demands more and produces less while people pay more for products the company would have been willing to produce for less had it not manipulated the marketplace--effectively, people lose the benefit that reflects the difference between the old price and the new price, and fewer people buy because it costs more, and the company doesn't gain as much as the consumers lose. So it's generally a net loss when a firm abuses market power.

Antitrust law doesn't always protect against monopolies, because it doesn't prevent people from using economies of scale or integrating their supply chain. It does, however, sometimes result in regulation even in markets that are or seem to be oligopolies.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[El Capitaine]

...because it results in the firm with market power artificially raising prices, meaning that the company demands more and produces less while people pay more for products the company would have been willing to produce for less had it not manipulated the marketplace--effectively, people lose the benefit that reflects the difference between the old price and the new price, and fewer people buy because it costs more, and the company doesn't gain as much as the consumers lose

...except for the fact that just about every Google service is free.

I can still see the possibility of antitrust violations here...but honestly it sounds more to me like jealousy on the part of these other companies. Feels like the Senate is just procrastinating on the bigger issues by having fun with Google.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[znerk]

This isn't antitrust. If you are using Google's services, then you have a choice immediately and obviously accessible; direct your browser to a different website. The Microsoft antitrust suits were more about them bundling IE with their OS, which forces the user to use it, even if it's only to download another browser. This activity, combined with the fact that it was incredibly difficult (some would say impossible) to purchase a PC at the time without a Windows(tm) license attached to it meant that they were leveraging their OS dominance to push their other software, which is how they got in trouble. If Google wants to link to Google services at the top of their search results, so be it. If Google wants to charge Microsoft one hundred million dollars for a single-line advertisement... hell, if Google wants to tell MSFT to go fly a kite, then so be it.

Last I checked, businesses were still able to define their own prices (in most cases), and to sell (or not sell) their products and services to whomever they want to.

Why should Google let MSFT advertise in the first place? This would be akin to a television station selling advertising space to a different television station.

Microsoft got slapped on the wrist for being a bully, and is now trying to be a tattletale and get the other kids in trouble.

--
"Sit them in the corner, mommy, they won't let me break their toys!"

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[JazzHarper]

If there are alleged violations of the law, then it should be investigated by the appropriate enforcement agency. That is never the US Senate. The members of Congressional committees are neither qualified nor competent to perform investigations. Congressional hearings almost invariably interfere with proper investigation and enforcement. I am convinced that that is intentional.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[veganboyjosh]

Friendly reminder:

Google's services aren't free. Gmail, Google Docs, Picasa, all the other "services" you're referring to aren't their services. Google sells advertising.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[ortholattice]

...except for the fact that just about every Google service is free.

You are confusing their product with their customers. You, who use their free services, are not Google's customer. You are their product. They use their free search engine and other services to entice you into viewing pages. Otherwise, they could care less about you. Their customers are the ones who buy ad space on those pages that you view. Check out their prices; they are far from free.

They collect information about you (the product) and your actual or inferred buying habits to attempt to make their ad placements more relevant, so they can charge their customers even higher prices for them.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[hedwards]

Well, for one thing, Google violated Clayton when it bought out it's next closest rival in its advertising business. And the competition was severely hurt as a result. I'm a bit shocked that nobody had the wherewithal to do something about it at the time.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[hedwards]

You do realize that you often times see advertisements for cable on satellite and advertisements for satellite on cable. Not to mention advertisements for shows on a different channel.

The reason why they should be forced to sell the ads at a fair rate is because advertising is heavily dependent upon audience, if you control 60% of the advertising space, then you have a significant advantage over the competition as you can place ads in places where others can't place them, and you have a much bigger pool of places to put ads where they're more likely to be seen by somebody interested in the service.

If the allegations prove to be true, this would pretty much necessitate Google be broken up or in some way be required to reduce it's influence on the market. Considering that Google still gets nearly all of its revenue from the ad business, I think it's something they should be very worried about.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[hedwards]

Depends what they're planning to do. Congressional hearings are precisely the ones you want if the most likely fix involves changes to the laws. You can't really do that with the courts or regulatory agencies. And it may turn out that Google's behavior is technically legal, but nonetheless unacceptable.

Or at least you're not supposed to be able to, but SCOTUS tends to forget that it's supposed to declare things as constitutional or not, and in some cases weigh in on the interpretation of the law.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Anthony Mouse]

Your nonsense argument is ridiculous. Services don't stop being services because they're ad supported. The viewer is paying with his attention rather than his dollars, which attention is then either used by Google for its own purposes or resold to willing buyers. The fact that it is a non-cash transaction does not make it any less of a service -- if Google was not being "compensated" by its users then why would it continue to offer the service?

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, just shut the fuck up.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Anthony Mouse]

Apparently you missed this. The FTC approved it, so you can stop trolling.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[hairyfeet]

Exactly and IF it turns out to be true I really don't see the difference between this and the moves that got MSFT busted in the 90s. in both cases you have dominance in one arena (desktops and search respectively) being used to power their way into another market (browsers and shopping) which I believe would be a big no no under antitrust.

I have been wondering though about how google shopping does seem to always be towards the top and it smells funny to me. I mean be honest folks, how many of you have EVER bought anything from Google shopping? How many of you use Google shopping as your "go to" place for web shopping? I know for me its Amazon, Newegg and Tigerdirect, and if I just want price comparisons i use pricegrabber. i don't think I've ever used Yahoo or Google shopping for anything.

So unless there is a shitload of noobs somewhere shopping like mad with Google shopping it just smells "off" to me, but that's why there is an investigation, to see if it is off or not. But I have plenty of customers that do online shopping as well and frankly I can't recall a single one saying "Oh I got this from Google shopping" or Yahoo shopping either. Everyone just uses Amazon.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[RoFLKOPTr]

You do realize that you often times see advertisements for cable on satellite and advertisements for satellite on cable. Not to mention advertisements for shows on a different channel.

The reason why they should be forced to sell the ads at a fair rate is because advertising is heavily dependent upon audience, if you control 60% of the advertising space, then you have a significant advantage over the competition as you can place ads in places where others can't place them, and you have a much bigger pool of places to put ads where they're more likely to be seen by somebody interested in the service.

If the allegations prove to be true, this would pretty much necessitate Google be broken up or in some way be required to reduce it's influence on the market. Considering that Google still gets nearly all of its revenue from the ad business, I think it's something they should be very worried about.

Advertising is sold by the network, not by the telecom provider. Comcast has absolutely no control over what ads a given station can display, so they have absolutely no way of filtering out ads for satellite services. You see ads for shows on other channels (rarely, but they do appear), yes, but do you ever see ads for the news broadcast on other channels? Primetime shows are very different from one another, and generally people are going to watch what people are going to watch. If ABC refuses to display ads for 30 Rock, all they're doing is missing out on delicious revenue when the alternative is pretty much displaying redundant ads for a show everybody already knows about... but ABC is being forced by no one to display ads for anybody in particular. They can turn away whatever advertisers they want for whatever reason.

If you control 60% of the advertising space, then you should be able to charge a premium to your direct competition (and anybody else for that matter). Microsoft is directly in competition with Google in almost every way, and Google should not be forced to be "fair". If Microsoft really wants to advertise on Google that bad, then they had better be ready to pony up and make it worth Google's handful of lost customers.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that you often times see advertisements for cable on satellite and advertisements for satellite on cable. Not to mention advertisements for shows on a different channel.

The reason why they should be forced to sell the ads at a fair rate is because advertising is heavily dependent upon audience, if you control 60% of the advertising space, then you have a significant advantage over the competition as you can place ads in places where others can't place them, and you have a much bigger pool of places to put ads where they're more likely to be seen by somebody interested in the service.

If the allegations prove to be true, this would pretty much necessitate Google be broken up or in some way be required to reduce it's influence on the market. Considering that Google still gets nearly all of its revenue from the ad business, I think it's something they should be very worried about.

I call troll - Google don't control advertising. Any more than they control PC manufacturers, television, or telecommunications.

Nice try - hope MS cuts your shill wages for failing.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Oh, just shut the fuck up.

If you run for Senate, I will vote for you. (He's right, but you'd be funnier in the Congressional Record.)

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Anthony Mouse]

You do realize that you often times see advertisements for cable on satellite and advertisements for satellite on cable. Not to mention advertisements for shows on a different channel.

And if you type "windows phone" or "operating system" or the like into Google web search then you get ads for Microsoft. So it's clear that they're not charging so much that they're preventing the competition from buying advertising.

Ad space is a finite commodity. Google is allowed to bid on it as much as anyone else. If they want the same keywords as Microsoft, Microsoft will have to outbid them. There is no functional difference between that and what Google is accused of doing, assuming that is not the exact cause of what Microsoft is complaining about.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

The FTC is investigating. The Senate is window-dressing.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[mevets]

'Entice' might be a bit pejorative, but as you describe it, what possible law could Google have run afoul of? Even MS whining about being overcharged means SFA in this framework; the customer value is purely subjective. Kleenex, for example, should expect a different 'eyeball' rate than an obscure Scotch.

If MS get charged lots for queries like 'what is the shittiest OS', they might have a case. If they get charged a lot for eyeballs on 'viable mobile OS', well they are the obscure Scotch.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not the customer, you are the product.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[cdrudge]

You do realize that you often times see advertisements for cable on satellite and advertisements for satellite on cable. Not to mention advertisements for shows on a different channel.

You do realize that the majority of the time the satellite ads you see are injected at the network level, not at the cableco's local level. And cable ads are injected at the local affiliate level and not at the satellite co level. Right?

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Depends what they're planning to do. Congressional hearings are precisely the ones you want if the most likely fix involves changes to the laws. You can't really do that with the courts or regulatory agencies. And it may turn out that Google's behavior is technically legal, but nonetheless unacceptable.

Or at least you're not supposed to be able to, but SCOTUS tends to forget that it's supposed to declare things as constitutional or not, and in some cases weigh in on the interpretation of the law.

Not necessarily true for antitrust. Antitrust law is almost entirely judge-made law, by design; Congress wanted it that way because it figured any attempt to legislate it would be bad--too hard to write the law to correctly apply antitrust theory to all cases, and each case would be different. So they just wrote a law prohibiting "restraint of trade," and theoretically every contract is in restraint of trade, but the DOJ and other agencies can only use it to go after people who engage in behavior which should be regulated under antitrust theory. Now it's possible Google or MSFT is lobbying for this to get a new statute written since their lobbying powers are MUCH greater than their influence over the courts, but this would be a *really* thin pretext for that sort of thing.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Anthony Mouse]

Are you familiar with the antitrust laws in this country? The laws don't include any details. This is pretty much the entirety of the statute prohibiting monopolies:

"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [and listing penalties]" (Sherman Act Section 2)

In other words, 'monopolies bad, you federal courts sort out what that means' -- and that's the way it has been ever since. There is a whole body of cases interpreting what that means. Congress has had nothing to do with it for something like a hundred years, through cases far more serious than whatever Google is accused of. What makes you think Congress is going to do anything different in this case, other than possibly the result of being induced by Microsoft campaign contributions?

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[WorBlux]

Here's antitrust law in a nutshell..

Charging more than the competitiors? Must have a monopoly.

Charging less than the competitors? Must be unfairly undercutting them.

Charging the same as your competitors? Must be part of a cartel.

It's written very vaguely so whoever is successful yet unpopular can be prosecuted

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Anthony Mouse]

Are you for some reason under the impression that saying something over and over again without any reasoning behind it will somehow make it true? The Big Lie only works when no one is around to correct you.

Let's try another business where the customers do not pay for the product: The public library. Naturally, if a library has more patrons, it can use that fact to better solicit for donations and grants, which is how it gets "paid" for providing its service. Do you then say that the reader of a library book is the product? No, because that's ridiculous. The reader is the patron/customer. Then there is a separate transaction between the library and the donors in which having a greater readership is advantageous -- but that does not make the provision of books to the public, or the provision of web search, any less of a service.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[rtfa-troll]

Are you for some reason under the impression that saying something over and over again without any reasoning behind it will somehow make it true? The Big Lie only works when no one is around to correct you.

Let's try another business where the customers do not pay for the product: The public library. [...]

The public library is paid for by taxes and is a perfect example of a service which works best in that way. There is no "customer" there is just a citizen who has the right to read because the public have decided to pay for and create this service. Analysing this in terms of a business just doesn't work and will lead to inverted goals which will be completely wrong.

What's wrong with the claim that "you" are Google's product is that actually it's your attention which is Google's product. Google maintains a model where it provides the lead to you but the advertiser pays for your clicks. Contrast this with Facebook which gives pretty much full access to your profile to developers. Google's current business model pressures them to be a much less evil company because a) you are able to terminate your relationship with them and start using other services (Facebook can still sell your data even if you aren't using it) and b) they have to keep you interested in and not ignoring their advertising because otherwise they don't get their revenue.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[rtfa-troll]

The difference is that Microsoft's monopoly its self was illegally acquired (this is an appeals verified judgement of a US court; not just my speculation). Microsoft didn't just use their desktop monopoly illegally, their entire main business is illegally acquired. There's a whole bunch of "hang em high" people who run around wondering why we should punish microsoft. A bit like arguing Al Capone should have been let off because he was rich.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[PatrickThomson]

So you mean google does care about me?

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Lokitoth]

The Microsoft antitrust suits were more about them bundling IE with their OS, which forces the user to use it, even if it's only to download another browser.

And for many people, even if they wanted to get to a different mapping service or place ratings service (see Yelp) they would have to find it through Google search. Or are you going to argue that Google is not dominant in Internet Search, and capable of using that dominance to push their products? Yes, there are clear similarities in the cases.

Why should Google let MSFT advertise in the first place?

So you would be okay with Microsoft preventing other vendors from being able to run software on Windows that competes with other software that Microsoft makes? Although the bundling of IE was an important part of the case against Microsoft, the core allegations were that Microsoft inappropriately used their ability to control Windows APIs to generate artificial advantage for their other software by using undocumented APIs. That is the reason the initial ruling required the company to be broken up. IE bundling was just the foot-in-the-door the Justice department used to get the case into court.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[jthill]

The Microsoft antitrust suits were more about them bundling IE with their OS

Please, before repeating Microsoft's lies for them again, get the facts.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[TheRaven64]

Close. If you're charging more than your competitors for equivalent products then the free market dictates that no one will buy your products. Therefore, if people are buying them in large numbers, then this implies that there is some distortion in the market, which may be you abusing your market influence.

If you're charging so much less than your competitors that you are making a loss on each sale, then this means that you are subsidising your product from somewhere. If it is from some initial funding to gain a foothold in the market, then this is probably fine. If it's from sales of another product, then it may not be. If it's for the purpose of driving your competitors out of business, at which point you'll be able to raise prices, then it definitely isn't.

If you're charging the same as your competitors and you have large profit margins then, in an open market, one of your competitors would lower their price slightly and steal all of your business. You'd then repeat this a few times until you reached an equilibrium point where none of you were willing to cut anything further from your profit margins. If this isn't happening, then it is probably due to some agreement between the major players to keep the prices high, so that they each get a smaller market share than they would if they lowered the prices, but higher margins to make up for it. If so, then this is illegal.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Tim C]

Entice is not pejorative.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[trout007]

Who gets to decide if it's equivalent?

Why shouldn every product have to make it's own profit. I see printers at the store that cost less than their replacement cartridges. A new razor costs less than the replacement blades it contains. I still have a choice to buy or not.

You just said a few sentences before that a competitor can't lower prices to steal your business make up your mind. You also make the assumption that everyone is equally good at doing anything.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Sockatume]

Aside from the whole part about needing evidence of actual criminal intent, yeah.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[roman_mir]

Antitrust laws should not exist, but that's a larger discussion of why government shouldn't be allowed in business and money in the first place.

If a company has enough scale to undercut its competition, the government is then protecting the competition, it's not protecting the consumer with anti-trust laws, because the government then protects consumers from lower prices.

Government wants to protect business based on its relationship with a given business, but consumers would be better served by economies of scale if those economies produce lower prices.

IF a company does NOT provide low enough prices that there is no way to make money by producing a similar/same product and sell it cheaper or make it better quality, then there will be a competitor in that space.

Anti-trust laws are about protecting businesses, but not about protecting consumers. Consumers are better served with lower prices, not with large number of so called 'competitors', each of which provides the same freaking price/quality ratio.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[TheRaven64]

Who gets to decide if it's equivalent?

The courts. That's what they're for.

Why shouldn every product have to make it's own profit. I see printers at the store that cost less than their replacement cartridges. A new razor costs less than the replacement blades it contains. I still have a choice to buy or not.

But these are within the same market, they are not cross-subsidies. You don't see Gilette giving away cheap printers. This is disallowed for a simple reason. If you permit it, then you eventually end up with only one company making everything. When the company wants to enter a new market, it takes money from its profitable divisions (where it's already gained a monopoly) and uses this to flood the new market with products until its competitors go bust. It can then raise the prices and increase its overall profit, making it possible to push into another new market, and so on.

These laws exist because companies did behave like this before they were enacted.

You just said a few sentences before that a competitor can't lower prices to steal your business make up your mind. You also make the assumption that everyone is equally good at doing anything.

No, I said that you can't lower your prices below your cost of production to drive your competitors out of business. This is called dumping, and it is illegal for a very good reason. If you permit it, then the company in a given market with the largest amount of capital will sell their products at below cost until all of the competitors have gone bankrupt, then hike up the prices.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[roman_mir]

Otherwise, they could care less about you.

- so you are saying they care about me? If they could care less, so that means they care quite a good amount right now? That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[xouumalperxe]

If you control 60% of the advertising space, then you should be able to charge a premium to your direct competition (and anybody else for that matter). Microsoft is directly in competition with Google in almost every way, and Google should not be forced to be "fair". If Microsoft really wants to advertise on Google that bad, then they had better be ready to pony up and make it worth Google's handful of lost customers.

The IE problem was a matter of leveraging a monopoly. IE played on both the Operating System and Web Browser markets, and had a monopoly on operating systems. The issue with bundling IE with Windows was that it unfairly leveraged the OS monopoly to boost its presence in the Web Browser market.

What's happening with google is that they arguably have a monopoly on both the Online Advertising and Web Search markets. Microsoft needs to advertise Bing in order to successfully challenge google on Web Search, but google is using its Online Advertising monopoly to prevent that -- which, to me, sounds like leveraging a monopoly (though this time around the leveraging is defensive, with Google trying to keep its search monopoly, rather than Microsoft's offensive leveraging aimed at conquering a position in the browser market)

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Muad'Dave]

Comcast has absolutely no control over what ads a given station can display...

Although I don't have comcast, I have noticed a lot of what I consider to be commercial overlaying on my sat provider's channels. For example, a commercial for product X airs, and then a tiny snippet of the tail end of a commercial for product Y immediately follows, after which the 'real' program resumes. I expect someone along the line is hijacking the commercial slot for product Y and running their own commercial for product X, with the resultant slight timing discrepancy. It's really annoying, as if commercials weren't annoying enough in the first place.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[lwriemen]

The Microsoft antitrust suits were more about them bundling IE with their OS

Please, before repeating Microsoft's lies for them again, get the facts.

Plus the 1994 consent decree should be considered as well. Microsoft didn't establish their monopoly through consumer choice.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[GauteL]

"This isn't antitrust. If you are using Google's services, then you have a choice immediately and obviously accessible; direct your browser to a different website."

This isn't about you, me or other users. We are not Google's customers (as lots of others have pointed out). Our attention is their product, and their customers are companies which wish to sell to Google's users.

We, the users, can indeed switch to use other products, although leaving Google Mail is likely to be painful, but their customers may not be able to switch this easily. If Google holds a massively dominant role in internet search (and surely nobody disputes that they do), then companies which wish to sell their products may have little choice but to use Google's advertisement mechanisms.

I have no idea whether Google has actually breached any anti-trust regulations, but they may well fit the profile of a monopoly.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[hairyfeet]

The only problem with the "judgement" you site is this: If you believe in a free market then its completely full of shit and here is why: If I have a product and I say 'If you buy from me you can't have a kitten" and reserve the right to check your house for kittehs? that is COMPLETELY WITHIN MY RIGHTS and you have NO right to tell me what I can and can't sell my product for. you have the right to accept, or to refuse, that's it.

If MSFT wanted to say "if you buy my product you can't have a discount and sell other companies products too?" that is COMPLETELY FINE and it is only activist judging to say otherwise. The free market says that as long as I don't ask for something that is illegal, such as to have your wife as a prostitute then I can set ANY conditions that I want, you are free to accept or refuse. that is one of the most basic core tenets of a free market.

What MSFT SHOULD have gotten busted for, and frankly what Intel should have gotten busted for as well, is the "It isn't done until lotus won't run" kind of bullshit, because that is rigging, pure and simple, and that is fraud. Both Intel rigging their compiler and MSFT rigging their OS should have been treated no differently than if Shell rigged their gas so if you bought from anyone other than Chevy you fouled your engine. Its using dirty tricks, plain and simple. same as Intel should have gotten busted for bribing the OEMs but NOT for setting terms in their sales that hurt AMD. if Intel wanted to say that PCs with Intel chips can only be blue? you are free to tell them no deal and walk away, that's it. when they start cutting checks under the table to OEMs is where they should have gotten busted.

You can believe what you want, but having the state set what terms you are allowed to offer with your product sets a BAD precedent in my book. What if some government bunch decides that contracts should be based on how "green" you are? Or whether you support unions? The free market comes down the the buyer and seller negotiating a price, at its core that is all capitalism is. if you subvert that badness happens. look at all the government meddling we've had in the housing markets, or bailing out wall Street for bad decisions.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[lwriemen]

Antitrust laws should not exist, but that's a larger discussion of why government shouldn't be allowed in business and money in the first place.

If a company has enough scale to undercut its competition, the government is then protecting the competition, it's not protecting the consumer with anti-trust laws, because the government then protects consumers from lower prices.

This case calls bullshit on your statements. Consumers didn't benefit from the death of personal computing choices. Price an IBM PC (or clone) against a consumer friendly system in the '80s (Commodore, Atari, Coleco, etc.); you see a sharp decrease in affordable computers by 1994. How did Microsoft's monopoly benefit consumers? Look at the viable operating system technology back then; OS/2 and Amiga were clearly better than Windows. Windows today still hasn't met all of the vapor promised with "Cairo". How has that benefited consumers?

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[walshy007]

So you would be okay with Microsoft preventing other vendors from being able to run software on Windows that competes with other software that Microsoft makes?

yes

In fact, I'd welcome it, all the more reason for people to go to an alternative os.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Anonymous Coward]

You, who use their free services, are not Google's customer. You are their product.

Yes, and similar logic goes for cable TV, newspapers, etc. That's a valid (and amusing!) way to look at it. But while it's cute, I think it misses some important things.

First of all, advertisement-based companies are acting as middlemen between companies with products and potential customers. When you think of them as middlemen it changes the perspective slightly. Example: let's say company X is a middleman for auto parts. They buy them from various suppliers, and sell them to various auto shops. Who are their customers? What is their product? You ~could~ say that the auto shops are their "product" that they "sell" to their "real customers-the suppliers". That's cute. But it's simpler to say that they have two sets of clients: they have the suppliers, who they give money to in exchange for parts. They have the shops, who they give parts to in exchange for money.

Similarly, I think it's more correct to say that Google has two sets of customers that they are trying to keep happy: they have end-users, who they give products for in exchange for their attention; and they have companies, who they give advertising opportunities to, in exchange for money.

The reason it's more useful to think this way is because this is how Google, internally, probably thinks about it. They view the end-users as customers who are using their products, whose needs have to be met. On the other hand they have another set of customers who want to maximize advertising, and they have to meet their needs also. This is pretty normal for a middle-man: you have to keep both sides of the equation 'happy' and balance them in such a way that you're get a useful cut of the action.

When viewed this way, what Google is doing (offering 'free' services supported by ads) is neither nefarious nor particularly unique.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[roman_mir]

That doesn't call BS to my statement AT ALL. Did I put a TIME LINE on my statement?

Did I say: at the very moment that one company gets an economy of scale, and if that company increases prices, right there, right then you will have an immediate market response?

First of all in this case it would be very subjective to say what the appropriate price for a piece of software is, it's a new type of software for personal use - an OS, Apple computer, MS, Amiga, Atari, Spectrum, etc., all sorts of computer systems came out and provided all sorts of choices. The market takes a little time to sort things out.

Secondly: MS (and other companies) enjoy government protection that comes from government protecting copyright and patents, and I believe that when government creates a monster by its own methods, then it's not a fair assessment of the market, to say that it is free, and it is failing, because it is prevented from existence by government regulations in the first place.

However in case of MS - yes, they were destroying competition. So what? Competition appeared anyway in form of Free Software movement.

Now the real problem is further government destruction of market by patent and copyright laws, which may help large companies, like MS, to destroy Free Software competitors.

So no, I am talking about a holistic approach - you have to get rid of government regulations that stifle competition and that's the only thing that creates monopolies.

Any time government sees a monopoly forming, it should really ask ITSELF - what are we doing here that is helping this monopoly to destroy the market? Let's get rid of THAT.

Because there is nothing like government force to create and help a monopoly. But when there are economies of scale, their competitors are NOT automatically what the market wants or needs. They want to get a piece of pie, and they are definitely ready to go to the government to help them subdue the larger player, but it's all to the detriment of the consumer.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Talderas]

Because some services to some customer are free does not mean that all services are free.

Just because a companies provides ten services for free and only charges for one which is to business customers doesn't mean they can't be found in violation of anti-trust legislation over the service they charge for.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Anthony Mouse]

We, the users, can indeed switch to use other products, although leaving Google Mail is likely to be painful, but their customers may not be able to switch this easily. If Google holds a massively dominant role in internet search (and surely nobody disputes that they do), then companies which wish to sell their products may have little choice but to use Google's advertisement mechanisms.

Do you know how to tell that the advertisers aren't being harmed? It's because they aren't the ones doing the complaining. It's Microsoft, Microsoft-funded proxies and a bunch of SEO spam companies doing the complaining, because Google is offering a better product than they are. You don't see Ford Motor Company going to Congress about it because they know perfectly well both that they have a thousand different ways to reach their customers and that Google is charging entirely reasonable prices -- just compare the cost of advertising with Google and with a print newspaper or radio or television and tell me which is more expensive.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[znerk]

This isn't antitrust. If you are using Google's services, then you have a choice immediately and obviously accessible; direct your browser to a different website.

We are not Google's customers (as lots of others have pointed out). Our attention is their product, and their customers are companies which wish to sell to Google's users.

I never said we were Google's "customers"... I stated that people use their products. In order to be clear, the products I was referring to were their services, such as search engine, office document suite, maps/navigation, operating systems, etc.

The issue at stake here is that a senator has proclaimed that Google is cooking their search results and Microsoft has cried foul over pricing, so now Google is getting in trouble for making good products. A similar complaint might be Jimmy Dean crying about Eggo not allowing them to put coupons in their waffle boxes.

As for the senator's complaints, if you watch the video of the interrogation^W interview, Schmidt repeated several times that showing Google coming up third in every result meant nothing, because they were "comparing apples to oranges" - comparing Google's search algorithm to other companies' price comparison engines.

Microsoft is not the only one affected by the advertising price increases, and the other companies who have sued have been quietly ushered out of the courtroom and told to quit whining. I see nothing improper about raising the price of a product, especially one which has pricing based on bidding on keywords. Microsoft is upset that the prices have gone up, but the increase is a result of natural market forces.

In short, this whole thing is a "media scandal" designed to capture everyone's attention and make Google out to be the bad guy for managing to make a profit with services rendered to consumers for free. I guess making a better product and selling it at a lower price than the competition is illegal, now.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[znerk]

What's happening with google is that they arguably have a monopoly on both the Online Advertising and Web Search markets.

No, they don't. If you have facts to back this statement up, then present them. Otherwise, I think we can safely discount this statement as fallacious.

Microsoft needs to advertise Bing in order to successfully challenge google on Web Search, but google is using its Online Advertising monopoly to prevent that -- which, to me, sounds like leveraging a monopoly (though this time around the leveraging is defensive, with Google trying to keep its search monopoly, rather than Microsoft's offensive leveraging aimed at conquering a position in the browser market)

Microsoft is Bing and other products. They have radio, TV, and print ads all over the place... and they have ads on Google, despite this supposed price hike. Google's ad system charges advertisers based on a bidding system, where advertisers spend more money for keywords that are requested more often. The price increase is a natural result of this "auctioning".

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[RoFLKOPTr]

It's not really hijacking. Cable networks designate certain ad slots to sell to the providers. They typically end up being used for local advertising, but sometimes are used for On Demand or general ads for the cable company itself. Basically, the network sends out a signal that's encoded into the stream that triggers all the local cable systems to inject their own programming. Any given ad is supposed to be an exact length, but given the shoddy work of many small-time local commercial producers (especially those hired by Comcast Spotlight, etc) sometimes they just can't handle it, so they have to make it slightly shorter than the designated length. Sometimes, too, there may be an issue with the signal sync that causes a little glitch. The networks sell these slots to national advertisers at a steep discount (or sometimes for those who make big buys these slots might even be free) and run national ads that will end up being displayed to providers and markets that didn't buy that slot or aren't equipped for that kind of functionality.

I don't know how local a satellite provider can get with their ads, but they have the same opportunity to buy those same slots and could perhaps run national ads in them if they wanted.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[lwriemen]

Microsoft didn't use patent and copyright laws to abuse it's monopoly position in the 80s and 90s; it used market position to eliminate choice from consumers. This is clearly stated in the court documents. To say that competition exists in the form of the Free Software movement is pure folly. Look at the current PC market share. Microsoft still holds a monopoly position, that provides it with an applications barrier to entry. You would think that a free operating system of comparable or better quality would wipe out any non-free competition, but Linux has failed to gain a foothold in the consumer PC space. Big companies have and still do support Linux, so it's not a little guy against the big guy fight.

Smart phones and tablets might be showing a crack in Microsoft's armor, but it would be hard to argue that they would be running non-Microsoft operating systems without government antitrust action. Without government antitrust action against IBM, Microsoft would never have been born (along with the IBM PC (at least as an open platform)).

Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[zbobet2012]

Where the competition will do literally anything, including tipping the ears of politicians with insanely expensive lobbyist to run you through the mud.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[ProfessionalCookie]

Yup. But google doesn't have a monopoly in search. So should be able exclude Microsoft from their index if they want and leave to users to decide if they want to search and customers if they want to advertise. And also please continue charging them too much for advertising. If you don't like it, return the favor.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[MHolmesIV]

So... Uh... Google currently outstrips all other tech companies in PAC contributions (money raised from employees for the purposes of lobbying). I suspect they've been in the "big boy leagues" for a while now.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[BradleyUffner]

Yup. But google doesn't have a monopoly in search.

Google has a higher percentage of the search market than Microsoft has of the OS market; Slashdot constantly tells me that Microsoft is a monopoly. Doesn't that mean that Google has a monopoly?

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. But google doesn't have a monopoly in search.

Nope, but how many search providers do you know of equal size?
Two? Three? Perhaps even four?

Google might not have monopoly but there is not enough large players for competition to work either.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[Patch86]

Zero, if you exclude the Chinese-language market (which is presumably of little interest to US regulators). Google's market share is somewhere around 10x all their main English-language competitors combined.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[Cyberllama]

Not technically true, unless you're looking at Microsoft as a percent of the TOTAL OS market and not just Desktop OS, which would be a bit. Even years later, MS still has a tighter grip on the Desktop OS market than Google does on search. Google commands 65% of US search vs Microsoft's 79% of Desktop OS. Back when it was under scrutiny, I do believe Microsoft had well above 90%.

At any rate, as others will point out, Microsoft's problems stemmed less from having a monopoly and more with the manner in which they abused it. Google is accused of practices which they alone out of all search engines actually deny doing (human manipulation of search results). You can't really prove a negative, so it's a pretty tricky claim to defend against. If Google is lying, then I'm not sure how I feel about it. There are quite a few people who say there's nothing wrong with it, and I'm not entirely sure how to feel about that. But, as I said, they do deny it. They've stated clearly, on the record, under penalty of personal prosecution, that this is something they do explicitly do not do. I'm inclined to believe that.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[DavidMarkHull]

This does not surprise me at all. Google often changes its policy to adjust it to the blunders or error they make. It is not a surprise that this year they have already updated the page rank tool bar 3 times and they will be updating it once again at the end of September. Technically, this will be the fourth time within a year and there is room for one or two more updates. It is to fix their own mistakes, everyone knows that big search engines cannot do updates that often. Google has no competitor and that's why they can do anything they want.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what the hell does it matter if Google deceide M$ Corp can afford to be given a bit of their own medicine, Good on you Google screw M$ Corp to the boards
now do the same to that other bunch of thieving tossers apple please .

 

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[jthill]

There's nothing wrong with a legitimately achieved and maintained monopoly.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[swillden]

Zero, if you exclude the Chinese-language market (which is presumably of little interest to US regulators). Google's market share is somewhere around 10x all their main English-language competitors combined.

I'm not sure it has ever been true that Google had >91% of the search market, but it's certainly not true now.

Google's US search market share for August 2011 was 64.8%. The next largest competitor is Yahoo, with 16.3%, followed by Microsoft with 14.7%. But since Yahoo search is actually Microsoft also, really MS has 31%. So Google has barely double Microsoft's share.

In terms of the measurement you used, Google has 1.8x the share of all of their competitors combined in the US. That's a far cry from 10x, and clearly not a monopoly.

If you want to look at this stuff, Microsoft's remaining desktop OS share is greater than Google's search share, and Microsoft clearly and unashamedly exploits their desktop share to boost their search market share. I recently bought a new PC, which came with Windows 7. I didn't use Windows/IE for long; mostly I just downloaded an Ubuntu ISO. But I did notice something that made me shake my head and chuckle.

When you install Google Chrome, the first thing it does upon starting up is ask you which search engine you want to use; Google, Yahoo or Bing. When you use IE you get Bing. Period. Even if you go into the setup to "manage search engines", I think it was called, Google is not offered as an option. I'm sure if I'd dug one level deeper there would have been a way to type in an appropriately-formatted URL to make Google IE's default search engine, but it would have required a little research.

Microsoft is not one who should be accusing Google of leveraging monopolies.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[jedidiah]

I can leave Google any time I want to.

I don't have to worry about a lifetime of accumulated Google software suddenly becoming worthless or a device like the HDHomeRun Prime suddenly becoming less useful. There is also no physical wire monopoly to be concerned about. Exit barriers for Google "customers" are nonexsitent.

Even Microsoft's own efforts with their own search engine demonstrate this.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[Ash Vince]

Yup. But google doesn't have a monopoly in search.

Google has a higher percentage of the search market than Microsoft has of the OS market; Slashdot constantly tells me that Microsoft is a monopoly. Doesn't that mean that Google has a monopoly?

The only difference being the much lower barrier to switching. You can switch search providers in seconds, changing operating systems is not so easy.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. Nobody can have a monopoly in search. Did Yahoo have a monopoly in search, before Google existed? If so, how did Google ever succeed? And, if so, it clearly proves that government intervention is not need to break such a "monolopy."

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[Anonymous Coward]

So... Uh... Google currently outstrips all other tech companies in PAC contributions (money raised from employees for the purposes of lobbying). I suspect they've been in the "big boy leagues" for a while now.

I call bullshit. Microsoft is consistently on top of the tech company PAC list, by a wide margin.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=B12&cycle=2012

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[BradleyUffner]

There's nothing wrong with a legitimately achieved and maintained monopoly.

I wasn't arguing that there was anything wrong with it. I was just pointing out that the OP was wrong when they said Google didn't have a monopoly based on the same criteria applied to Microsoft.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[BradleyUffner]

Not technically true, unless you're looking at Microsoft as a percent of the TOTAL OS market and not just Desktop OS, which would be a bit.

That is exactly what I'm looking at. I'm comparing all of Microsoft's OS products with all of Google's Search products.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[mTor]

Yeah, I'm sure Google can't do wrong. Right.

I'm really sick of Google sycophants who don't see what kind of a monstrosity Google has become. Yes, Google supported Linux and they were a "good guy" once but you gotta admit that Google has complete monopoly in many areas and they exercise their monopolistic power quite heavy-handedly. They're the new Microsoft and they have potential to be a magnitude more evil than MS ever was.

Google needs to be put in check.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[shutdown -p now]

There's nothing wrong with a monopoly per se, but it makes certain actions illegal ("anti-competitive") where otherwise they wouldn't have been.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[Patch86]

I'm not sure it has ever been true that Google had >91% of the search market, but it's certainly not true now. .

Think global, my friend (Google certainly would):
http://gs.statcounter.com/#search_engine-ww-monthly-201008-201108

Which gives 91% market share. Although to be fair, having thought about it for a day, I'm pretty dubious of that figure. Other sites give closer to 85%, which seems more sensible.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[swillden]

I'm not sure it has ever been true that Google had >91% of the search market, but it's certainly not true now. .

Think global, my friend (Google certainly would)

Indeed, but that's not relevant to US regulators, which is the topic under discussion.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[cynyr]

I'm also fairly sure that just about every google service has an export of the data somehow, bookmarks are downloadable, gmail is too, I'm not sure about calendar, although I think you can get the iCal feed for those.

How can you not "cook"?

[Anonymous Coward]

All search algorithms are "Cooking" results. There is no God given search result set for any query. Microsoft is no saint when it comes to discriminatory pricing.

Senate should do something useful, such as looking into Troy Davis fiasco and the general and routine miscarriage of justice, and Microsoft should just keep their moth shut.

Re:How can you not "cook"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft should just keep their moth shut.

Aw shit, it's Robert Smith again isn't it.

Re:How can you not "cook"?

[Anonymous Coward]

'There is no God given search result set for any query. '

There is no God given _anything_!

Re:How can you not "cook"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes there is!

I'M A GOD AND I GIVE YOU THIS GOD GIVEN POST!

(that first post came from the devil.)

Re:How can you not "cook"?

[fahrbot-bot]

Microsoft should just keep their moth shut.

Moths are chatty bastards. :-)

Re:How can you not "cook"?

[jacksinn]

and Microsoft should just keep their moth shut.

Bah I always thought it was a butterfly.

Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Schmidt's answers may not have satisfied "some senators," but Schmidt ultimately made Lee sound like an uninformed jackass during the Google Shopping line of questioning. Google may indeed be engaged in anti-competitive practices, but this hearing (which I enjoyed this afternoon live the C-SPAN XM channel) seemed merely to provide a stage for political posturing. If the evidence presented in the hearing were really the worst that Google was up to, I would be convinced they weren't "being evil" after all.

What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[LWolenczak]

I'd hate to say this, but company $A having an algorithm that might be tuned however they damn well please does not constitute cooking... unless, there is a master defined algorithm that every search provider must follow. Yes... I can see the goose-stepping algorithm enforcement brigades now.

Now, are we going to start with the "In Soviet America Jokes", or are we going to just define the algorithm Führer and get over with it?

Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd hate to say this, but company $A having an algorithm that might be tuned however they damn well please does not constitute cooking... unless, there is a master defined algorithm that every search provider must follow. Yes... I can see the goose-stepping algorithm enforcement brigades now.

Now, are we going to start with the "In Soviet America Jokes", or are we going to just define the algorithm Führer and get over with it?

No, no, no. This isn't Nazi Germany, this is America! We have algorithm czars !

Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[brusk]

Your definition of cooking is not the only, or even most, reasonable one. Sure, a search company can devise whatever algorithm it wants, but I think people have come, rightly or wrongly, to expect a baseline of impartiality in results from Google. If we define "cooking" against that expectation, it could include any tweaking that biases for or against certain pages because of Google's other interests. Ranking their own services higher in the results than where they would appear if a single algorithm were applied across the board would then be "cooking."

The question of what to do about this is a separate one. I might, for example, decide that the best course of action is to publicize Google's actions so that users of their search will be aware of this bias. There's no need to leap from pointing the practice out to legislating a master algorithm.

Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[AftanGustur]

Ranking their own services higher in the results than where they would appear if a single algorithm were applied across the board would then be "cooking."

I think microsoft usually refers to that practice as "compatibility"

Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[MrDoh!]

This might be a play to get the Google code published under senate orders, so their competition can use/abuse it.

Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[ProfessionalCookie]

I don't care if they add ginger and thyme or manually put their link as #1, this is purely political, not unethical. It's their index and they're not owned by the government.

Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is only that Google was not content to make enormous sums of money delivering ads based on search results. They are creating competing services, which fairly opens them up to the question of whether they favor their own, and whether they deliver honest results.

Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[quickgold192]

I thought the same thing - I expect to see Google shopping results third in product searches just like I expect to see Google image results about 3rd in concrete-noun searches. It's another very specific Google search that's integrated into Google web search. What boggles me is that Scmidt denies it like it's illegal or something. Like you said - it's not "cooking" results. It's integrating services. (Of course, and it's true, "integrating services" has been illegal since the 90s, apparently. Ask Gates about that one.)

Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google isn't cooking anything.

Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[DarwinSurvivor]

The code or the algorithms? The algorithms (as Google themselves have stated) change every day and the code is kind of useless without the algorithms.

Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[msclrhd]

If I type something like "pizza hut in manchester" in Bing, I get a link to Bing Maps as the second item. If I type in something that has images like "london" I see a link to Bing's Image Search in the top 5-6 results. Searching for something video related puts Bing Video Search at #1 which aggregates from YouTube and others. This is no different to what Google are doing.

If Google are going to get regulated for favouring their own services for things like this, so should the other search engines.

Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[Marc Madness]

I'd hate to say this, but company $A having an algorithm that might be tuned however they damn well please does not constitute cooking... unless, there is a master defined algorithm that every search provider must follow.

It might be considered cooking if the algorithm is found to process results relating to a particular party differently than those relating to every other party. A search algorithm should be mostly input agnostic, however, suppressing SPAM, for example, is a legitimate reason not to be. The line between tuning and willful introduction of bias, or flat out censorship, can be quite blurry. My head hurts just thinking about it.

Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[d0nju4n]

No, no, no. This isn't Nazi Germany, this is America! We have algorithm czars !

I respectfully apologize, but I am going to invoke Godwin's Law. Please refrain from posting any further comments about this story.

Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Apple can bundle their browser with their OS, why can't Microsoft?

Antitrust laws make no sense. But if they are going to be applied, then apply them to all companies with overwhelmingly large market share.

I've been wondering.....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good to see the Senate is doing something, though. I was beginning to worry that they weren't doing anything. It may not be worthwhile, but at least it's something.

Re:I've been wondering.....

[Opportunist]

Nice to see that your tax money is not squandered on petty bickering leading to pointless laws that eventually just end up being circumvented.

Erh... waitasec...

Google being Anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there is clearly some truth to the anti-competitive behavior from Google here. I think it is clear that in many cases Google does favor its services over its competitors. This creates an unlevel playing field and definitely stifles innovation. However unlike the MS anti-competitive case, I think the line between being anti-competitive is blurry and in some instances it is very hard to pinpoint whether Google is purposely being anti-competitive or its one of the consequence of them changing their search algorithm all the time to combat SEOs. In the case of Yelp, I think it is very clear in my mind that they are leveraging their search engine monopoly to compete. The issue here is not whether the consumer has choice to switch to other service. The main issue here is that a company is leveraging its dominant position in one area (search) to leverage other areas (i.e. local commerce).

Re:Google being Anti-competitive

[znerk]

So, let me see if i understand you properly...

You're saying Google shouldn't be allowed to market its own products on its own web pages, hosted by its own servers?

Or are you just objecting to them dropping a link at the top of the page to the Google version of whatever product or service you happen to have searched for?

If you have an issue with using Google products, then... well... don't.

Problem solved, and I didn't even hit you with a surcharge. Have a nice day.

Re:Google being Anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Google has every right to advertise their product on their own page so I don't mind them advertising at the top of the page or even on their home page, but I do have a problem with them ranking their own services higher in the search results and mixing it up with other results without clearly marking that they are giving their own results higher ranking. If they put up their services as 'ads' and then ranked them at the top of the results then that would be fine.

I don't have any problem with Google product as a consumer. I use them all the time (gmail, chrome, search, maps etc). The problem here is another new & upcoming business trying to compete in an online services and after some time Google creates a copy cat service (i.e. google locals vs Yelp) and mixes up the search results to favor their services without making that clear. As a consumer, you may think that does not effect you but this type of practice creates an environment where the playing field is not leveled and as a result new and innovative online services does not get a fair chance to compete. This will effect the consumer in the long run and it is the government job to come in the middle and analyze the situation.

I think you should read the Yelp transcript here (http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/11-9-21StoppelmanTestimony.pdf) and decide for yourself whether Google was being anti-competitive.

Re:Google being Anti-competitive

[Opportunist]

I think what he objects to is Google "cooking" the results to rank its own subsidiaries higher than competitor. It's actually quite similar to the MS antitrust case, where they have been accused of using their market position to corner the browser market.

Re:Google being Anti-competitive

[Anthony Mouse]

I see a big difference in that Microsoft went out of their way to make sure that Netscape was not included whatsoever and went so far as to prohibit OEMs from adding it, whereas search results for Google's competitors appear in the search results in such a way that anyone who is actually looking for them can easily find them. It is, naturally, not Google's responsibility to give their competition free advertising.

Re:Google being Anti-competitive

[poofmeisterp]

I believe Anonymous is saying they're having a problem with Google "playing fair" in the court that they built.

If you don't like it, don't use it. Typical response, "BUT BUT, Google has all of the data and no other company can compete with that!"

What usually happens when there's a company out there with something that everyone wants but, at the same time, doesn't do it the exact way people want it to do it? Oh, and on top of that, for it to be free?

I've said enough :)

Re:Google being Anti-competitive

[znerk]

I think what he objects to is Google "cooking" the results to rank its own subsidiaries higher than competitor. It's actually quite similar to the MS antitrust case, where they have been accused of using their market position to corner the browser market.

Have you considered that Google's products rank so high on their (or any) search engine results because they have good products that hundreds of millions of people use?

Re:Google being Anti-competitive

[znerk]

From the text you linked to:

Google forces review websites to provide their content for free to benefit Google’s own competing product – not consumers.

No, that would be the freely available content of the World Wide Web. Post it online, and it's available for anyone to see.

Google then gives its own product preferential treatment in Google search results.

... or maybe Google products get used by literally tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people all over the world, and so rank higher in the search results.

In 2010, Google began incorporating the content that it indexed from its competitors into Google Local without permission. Although Google had previously acknowledged that it needed a license to use Yelp’s content, it was now using it without permission to prop up its own, less effective product. In some instances, Google even presented this content to its users as if it were its own. [See Exhibit C]

In response to our objections, Google informed us that it would cease the practice only if we agreed to be removed from Google’s web search index, thereby preventing Yelp from appearing anywhere in Google web search results. This, of course, was a false choice. Google’s dominant position in the market prevents services like Yelp from exercising any sort of meaningful choice in the matter: it is a choice between allowing Google to co-opt one’s content and not competing
at all.

So, let me get this straight... This guy is complaining about Google indexing his site, but then cries when Google offers to stop indexing his site, because it would reduce their web presence. In essence, he's mad that Google offered a fair exchange: either Google indexes the site and presents the information to its users, or Google doesn't index the site and the site has to flail about on its own to get more eyes for its content.

You can't eat your cookies while complaining that the chef who made them has his own cookies, too. Or rather, you can, but it makes you look like a spoiled brat who shouldn't have cookies in the first place.

We again asked that Google cease its practice of co-opting content from Yelp for its own benefit. Google responded by removing Yelp links from portions of Google’s web search product, providing a new twist on the same old false choice: if we chose not to help power Google Local, we could not appear in the “merged” portions of Google’s web search results.

Translation: We told them to stay off our site, and they stopped linking to our site. Gee, why would they do that?

Your argument is specious, damn near an outright fabrication, and your linked evidence is simply another company crying that Google made a better product using publicly-available resources. If you are trying to say the Internet is not a publicly-available resource, then I'm going to laugh at you.

Re:Google being Anti-competitive

[webnut77]

I haven't seen anyone mention that Google's search results are targeted toward the user. For instance, when I search for 'heartbeat' I get Linux clustering results which is what I want. However, 'Pacemaker' still gives me predominantly medical results. Hope they get that one figured out soon. As far as shopping goes, I want to see Google's shopping results.

I think tailoring search results per user is part of the reason for Google's success.

Google overcharges Microsoft?

[microphage]

`On top of all that, Microsoft is alleging that Google overcharges them as much as fifty-fold for advertising prices as compared to other buyers', samzenpus

Take notice of the exact phrasiology eminating out of RedMond.

Google “shouldn’t be permitted to pursue practices that restrict others from innovating and offering competitive alternatives .. That’s what it’s doing now”, Jack Evans - Microsoft link

Re:Google overcharges Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

They should follow Microsoft's example, and not overcharge anyone. And play fairly with all competitors. Oh, that's right, Microsoft is suing people for using Google's varient of Linux. And Microsoft is trying to get everyone to pay them for an OS they didn't make, and don't own.

Re:Google overcharges Microsoft?

[znerk]

... And here I thought it was going to be something along the lines of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason" ; maybe with a healthy dose of IDFLY (I Don't F'ing Like You) fee.

Personally, I would charge Microsoft even more than Google has... "sorry, you're our competition; If you want to advertise with us, you'll need to pay the 'We don't like you' fee, the 'Microsoft sucks' fee, and a 'huh, thought you were the big boys' fee... for administrative purposes."

This is not anti-MSFT ranting, merely an observation of how I thought things worked (and if they don't, then I've got a civil suit against the local convenience store for throwing me out because I wasn't wearing shoes).

Re:Google overcharges Microsoft?

[shutdown -p now]

Things normally work that way, except when you're a monopoly in a certain area (hence why it didn't e.g. work back in 90s when Microsoft told OEMs that they'll be buying Windows licenses for all PCs they sell, or else they won't be selling any). Whether Google is a monopoly in online advertising or not is a different question.

Re:Google overcharges Microsoft?

[QuantumRiff]

How much more is Full Retail then OEM, vs One of the many other MS licensing agreement choices (Like Select and Open)..

Yeah.. Hi Pot, quit yelling at the kettle..

Re:Google overcharges Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

When Microsoft charges Asus more if they don't purchase ONLY from them instead of selling Linux and Android, that's illegal anticompetitive behaviour. When Google charges Microsoft more because they don't like people who threaten to "Fucking Kill" them, Microsoft should just advertise on their monopoly profit funded search engine.

Re:Google overcharges Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google “shouldn’t be permitted to pursue practices that restrict others from innovating and offering competitive alternatives .. That’s what it’s doing now”, Jack Evans - Microsoft link

HAHA! Sucks when it's happening to you, eh MSFT?? Hope you like the taste of crow!!

Serious Business

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Google was a business? Can't they charge what they want?

'Softies, time to call the WAAAAAmbulance

[Anonymous Coward]

What goes around comes around. The Redmond bullies are getting sand kicked in their faces.

Re:'Softies, time to call the WAAAAAmbulance

[DarwinSurvivor]

More like their being told to pay twice as much bubble gum to play with the new kid's truck.

Cooking?

[dubsnipe]

Oh come on. I remember Microsoft's Bing doing some toasting> of their own on Google/a.

Re:Cooking?

[DarwinSurvivor]

AHA, Now I understand. Microsoft if just pissed that their own products aren't ranking as high on Bing anymore.

The Google chairman was on a hot seat

[bogaboga]

He failed to explain why Google results always came 3rd on product comparisons though.

The entire interview can be watched here .

Re:The Google chairman was on a hot seat

[NeutronCowboy]

I don't understand. What product comparisons? Based on what criteria? As far as I can tell, most of those studies were purely subjective assessments of what constituted good. Because if there was an objective assessment of search quality across an entire set of searches.... well, someone could build a better Google right and crush Google I'm its core area: search. But they don't.

I smell bullshit.

Re:The Google chairman was on a hot seat

[Anonymous Coward]

From the slide later in the presentation, he seems to be complaining about a block of product search results interspersed with web results.

Re:The Google chairman was on a hot seat

[Opportunist]

I smell cooked bullshit.

Re:The Google chairman was on a hot seat

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell, most of those studies were purely subjective assessments of what constituted good.

If a vast majority of studies agree that something is good, doesn't that mean it's likely that that thing is in fact good?

Or would you argue that even if 99% agreed on a single point, because there was no objective standard, it must be wrong?

Re:The Google chairman was on a hot seat

[nbetcher]

He failed to explain why Google results always came 3rd on product comparisons though.

The entire interview can be watched here .

Watching the section of the video you're referring to, he specifically answers that the reason they are third is because Google does a VERY good job at finding the ACTUAL product, versus (yet another) product comparison website. He states that if you were to use those other product comparison sites to find the same product, you will find they rank the product results (what website the product is ACTUALLY sold at) in their own method. Basically, Google does the best job, but doesn't make it the first link.

Say what you will, but I think we all know by now that Google tends to have the best search algorithms out there, mostly because they hire the best-of-the-best and because that is what the company was founded on.

Re:The Google chairman was on a hot seat

[Omnifarious]

I would like to see how Google's results compared to Amazon and other sites where you could actually buy the products. It sounds like when people search for a product Google is trying to find a place to actually buy the product.

Re:The Google chairman was on a hot seat

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's core area is search? Wrong, it's advertising.

Re:The Google chairman was on a hot seat

[Dunbal]

How many times do you click on a search link, versus clicking on an ad sense link. Have you ever (intentionally) clicked on an ad sense link? While they may make money selling ads to idiots who think that people actually click on ads, click for click you could say their core is the search engine.

Re:The Google chairman was on a hot seat

[Anonymous Coward]

He failed to explain why Google results always came 3rd on product comparisons though.

The entire interview can be watched here .

Don't care. I always assume that Google has a slant to their search, in their favor. I may or may not be interested in their slant, but I assume it is there. Goose & Gander, if MicroBing wants to cook, I say "Bon apetite". Maybe if Yahoo had self-favored a bit more, they might still be yodeling.

Re:The Google chairman was on a hot seat

[Anonymous Coward]

I can explain it. If you do a search for a product, say "nintendo 3ds" you will see:

Result 1 is an ad
Result 2 is the top non product link
Result 3 is an aggregate of several product results, that is it is not the "Google" result, it is an aggregate of other product offers from the results.

In fact most of the complaints against Google in this area come down to whether you think that Google is allowed to change the presentation of the search results based on the context of the search. If you type an address and a map comes up (Locations) is that cooking the results? Or if you type a restaurant name and a collection of reviews pops up (Places)? Or if you type Nintendo 3DS and a list of vendors with prices and rankings pops up (Products)?

Since things like Places and Product Search are just specialized presentations of search results it also makes sense that when you demand to be pulled from "Product Search" or "Places" Google wants to do it by removing you from the Search Index. Because it is all Search to them.

Re:The Google chairman was on a hot seat

[Nick Ives]

If I'm searching for a product and it appears in the text ads, I'll click the ad. I make a point of clicking the ad if I'm looking for something on the Apple or MS website!

Re:The Google chairman was on a hot seat

[DarwinSurvivor]

Depends who runs the studies and how their done. If it's simply someone doing a survey, "Windows" could be considered good.

Re:The Google chairman was on a hot seat

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, it was never clearly expressed what 3rd meant or how it was arrived at.

Re:The Google chairman was on a hot seat

[jedidiah]

I would use this as an opportunity to point out the differences between the hard sciences and everything else.

You don't need science to create a certain level of agreement and consistency of groupthink.

And if the reverse were true..

[Billlagr]

I'm sure that MS would provide a totally fair, unbiased, perfectly even playing field if Google were to advertise on Bing. But then..MS does need to make Bing profitable somehow..

Re:And if the reverse were true..

[Anonymous Coward]

"MS does need to make Bing profitable somehow.."

That ship has sailed.

Re:And if the reverse were true..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that MS would provide a totally fair, unbiased, perfectly even playing field if Google were to advertise on Bing.

Irrelevant/Offtopic. Microsoft doesn't have a search monopoly, Google does.

Re:And if the reverse were true..

[Opportunist]

Sure they did. After haggling for a decade, and when that didn't work so well, struggling and wiggling in an attempt to get out of the fines and not have to pay it, they even tried to whine at their big uncle, but it seems Uncle Sam didn't want to wage was with the EU over something like a Browser crisis.

So, essentially, I'd expect a decade to pass before Google has to rise its rear and change their algo. Which will have been changed a thousand times by then, and the war starts over.

Job security for lawyers.

Re:And if the reverse were true..

[Billlagr]

Bullshit. There is more than one search provider. Granted one is dominant, but it does not have an absolute stranglehold on the service it provides. Anyone can choose not to use it. I haven't used Bing extensively, but when I have, it seems like a reasonable alternative.

Re:And if the reverse were true..

[Rockoon]

1998 called and it wants its pro-Microsoft arguments back.

"I havent used Macintosh's extensively, but when I have, it seemed like a reasonable alternative"

Re:And if the reverse were true..

[Billlagr]

How is that pro-Microsoft? What I said still stands, it is my personal experience. Bing seems ok, I haven't used it enough to have an in-depth analysis, I prefer to use Google. Google does not have a monopoly on searches. There are viable alternatives.

Why is the being policed?

[il1019]

Why is the being policed? Google doesn't have any requirement to be fair, do they? Who ever said the search results were unbiased? This just boggles my mind as to why this is even an issue - they are a private company. I think they should prioritize their links, it's in their best interest. I don't necessarily agree, but if you don't like it use a different search engine. No one's forcing you to use Google.

Re:Why is the being policed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the being policed?

Because we are a country of laws.
 

Google doesn't have any requirement to be fair, do they?

They pretty much have a monopoly on search results. So, they can't abuse their position

 

Who ever said the search results were unbiased?

The Senator in the interview actually used a Larry Paige quote stating that Google objective was to be unbiased
 

This just boggles my mind as to why this is even an issue - they are a private company. I think they should prioritize their links, it's in their best interest. I don't necessarily agree, but if you don't like it use a different search engine. No one's forcing you to use Google.

And I believe that Microsoft had the right to screw over Netscape and that AT&T was fine to own pretty much own all telephone services. We aren't forced to use Google, but we use Google because it is the default choice on pretty much everything. The common user is not very smart. I've seen users using those malware search engines without any second thought. Yes, Microsoft is fighting and losing billions of dollars to try and be a player, but Google is fighting back by using its existing dominate position to prevent competition as opposed to winning via Marketing, Product Excellence etc...

Re:Why is the being policed?

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time I checked my stock purchases they were not a "private company" and we're very much publicly ran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
"..first incorporated as a privately held company on September 4, 1998, and its initial public offering followed on August 19, 2004..."

That said I see no harm in them providing free services and promoting them. As long as they are relevant they will stay relevant otherwise everyone can go use bing/yahoo, lycos or altavista for all I care, I certainty wouldn't have bought stock if I thought they were irrelevant though over priced.

Re:Why is the being policed?

[Opportunist]

The game changes its rules when a monopoly is in the play and it can be used to muscle into other markets with an unfair advantage. They could take over any online market they want to and there's very little anyone could do about it. Shoes, clothing, jewelry, you name it. People will search for those things and the first result takes them to a Google subsidiary.

Is that what you envision for free enterprise and free market?

Re:Why is the being policed?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that happened, then people would just quickly stop using Google since it's so simple to switch search engines.

Re:Why is the being policed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its simple to switch browsers too...

Re:Why is the being policed?

[Opportunist]

And here's where the capitalist ideal world has to bow to the reality: People are EFFIN' STUPID. They're NOT the perfectly informed consumer that makes a perfect decision and gives the best offer his prize in form of his purchase. People are gullible sheeple that are easily tricked into believing that they're getting a good deal while they're essentially being bullshitted by marketing, and even easier to trick that there is no alternative if what they know kinda-sorta-maybe does what they want.

Re:Why is the being policed?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope your stock-purchase decisions are better than your grammar.

He runs / he ran / he has run.

(Note: Anybody who says "has ran" is obviously not a foreigner but rather a native-born redneck.)

Re:Why is the being policed?

[Zontar The Mindless]

And here's where the capitalist ideal world has to bow to the reality: People are EFFIN' STUPID. They're NOT the perfectly informed consumer that makes a perfect decision and gives the best offer his prize in form of his purchase. People are gullible sheeple that are easily tricked into believing that they're getting a good deal while they're essentially being bullshitted by marketing, and even easier to trick that there is no alternative if what they know kinda-sorta-maybe does what they want.

"Perfect market" is a myth perpetuated by the haves.

It's an expecially powerful myth when the haves manage to convince the have-nots that the haves themselves believe in it.

Re:Why is the being policed?

[Opportunist]

The main difference between Communism and Capitalism is that the Communist bullshit is easier to debunk. Aside of that, same bullshit.

Antitrust?

[flimflammer]

FTA:

If true, the Microsoft allegations could be used to help the FTC build a case showing that Google abused its power as the owner of the world’s most popular search engine, violating the Sherman Act and other antitrust laws, said Andre Barlow, an antitrust lawyer at Doyle, Barlow & Mazard PLLC in Washington.

So if you're the most popular at something, you are suddenly held to higher standards?

I'm kind of confused here. Google may be the most popular advertiser right now but they're not the only one and certainly not the only successful one. How do they violate antitrust laws for charging various people/companies different rates? Couldn't Microsoft just as easily advertise elsewhere if they didn't like the pricing scheme? Sure it might not be as effective, but I'm not sure I like the idea that being "the best" means you aren't allowed to charge what you want.

That's not to say I support it.

Re:Antitrust?

[shutdown -p now]

So if you're the most popular at something, you are suddenly held to higher standards?

Briefly speaking, yes, you are.

Re:Antitrust?

[wvmarle]

I don't have the feeling that Google has a >95% market share in advertising. Microsoft has (had) such kind of market share in desktop computer operating systems. That's a big difference.

As long as Google is not abusing search engine market share to muscle in on advertising market share or so, they can't be accused of leveraging a monopoly to gain advantage in another market, like MS did with the IE browser.

In how far they are allowed to exclude certain customers from their advertising offers, I have no idea. But I'd guess that'd only be an issue if they have a monopoly in that market - in that case one could argue that they use an advertising monopoly to gain unfair advantage over certain competitors. Yet I think Google is pretty far from having anything near a monopoly in online advertising.

Re:Antitrust?

[Opportunist]

But that's exactly what they are accused of. The bickering is over Google ranking its subsidiaries higher than competing services, essentially using their market position as a search engine to gain an edge in other markets.

Think MS and IE. Do you think anyone would use that stinker if it wasn't bundled with the most used OS on the planet?

Re:Antitrust?

[wvmarle]

But that's exactly what they are accused of. The bickering is over Google ranking its subsidiaries higher than competing services, essentially using their market position as a search engine to gain an edge in other markets.

Do they have a monopoly in search? Their market share is big, many people will argue that they have a monopoly of course, but do they really? When does one qualify for monopoly status?

Think MS and IE. Do you think anyone would use that stinker if it wasn't bundled with the most used OS on the planet?

It was gaining quickly on Netscape before it was bundled already. At the time IE was considered by most to be the better browser, and as such it was gaining market share. Fair enough: let the better browser win. And then indeed MS started to bundle it in Windows. Including calling it an integral component that can not be separated.

Nowadays we have Firefox; back in the day we had Netscape 4.7 trying to compete with IE5.5 and later IE6. Having those proprietary extensions in IE that were used happily by more and more website designers didn't help Netscape much of course. IE6 was when it was released simply the best offering out there.

I think it's just been a stupid move (in hindsight at least) by MS. Without the bundling there still would have been a great chance for IE to kill Netscape. After all most people buy computers with software pre-installed; that includes an OS (usually Windows) and basic utility software such as a browser. Netscape was the one that was added by most, but with IE winning popularity likely the computer builders would have switched to providing IE instead. In effect almost the same as bundling, but without the anti-trust issues.

Re:Antitrust?

[Alex Belits]

No. IE4 was competing with Netscape Navigator/Communicator 4 and inexplicably won despite being an inferior product. After that, Netscape made little progress because it couldn't support development. IE 5 and 6 then focused on adding worthless doodads and providing new functionality only in cases when it was possible to do it in a way that can not be reproduced in non-Microsoft products or on non-Microsoft OS. Browser monopoly, once achieved, was supporting OS monopoly, not the other way around like if was at the beginning.

Re:Antitrust?

[dward90]

But that's exactly what they are accused of. The bickering is over Google ranking its subsidiaries higher than competing services, essentially using their market position as a search engine to gain an edge in other markets.

Think MS and IE. Do you think anyone would use that stinker if it wasn't bundled with the most used OS on the planet?

The difference that when IE is bundled with the operating system and you don't like it, it's difficult, time consuming, and possibly expensive to choose a new operating system. Alternatives in the general desktop market to Windows are either expensive (Apple) or difficult (*nix) for average users (especially before more friendly distros like Ubuntu).

Alternatives to Google's products are plentiful, easy to find, and largely free. Bing, Yahoo, Ask, etc. All you have to do is redirect your browser. You can even use Google to find them. There is a certain amount of lock-in to an operating system. There is almost none to a website.

Re:Antitrust?

[Opportunist]

And you could even use IE to download them all, from Opera to Safari to Mozilla to whatever. Still, IE took the market. See a pattern?

Face it, giving a company that holds a sizable share of a market (and has market dominance, as Google undoubtedly has in the search engine market, at least outside of China) can push its products more easily down the user's throat.

Oh yes, they could redirect their searches to Bing, Ask, whatever. Here's something to ponder: They don't even KNOW that those exist. Just like the same people didn't even know Opera, Mozilla et al existed. We, people who know what they're actually doing, are becoming rare on the internet, and with every day that passes our share gets smaller with more computer clueless people flooding in. They don't care about what search engine they use, they don't care about what mail provider they use, they'll take the next best. And the next best is the one that pops up on top of the search results.

Can you see now how Google can abuse its market dominance position? We managed to get it in everyone's skull: "Search engine = Google". Why did we teach them that? Because for the longest time it was simply true, the rest just plainly sucked big donkey balls. Now they learned that and they spread the word. Teaching them something else will be quite tricky, especially now that they got used to Google. And people HATE having to learn something anew they don't really want to learn, so they will not do it without good reason.

Why bother, you might ask. Why is it important to you whether they use GMail or Yahoo or AIM or whatever mail provider is out there? Because market share matters. And while I don't really care on the surface whether the next million of ad revenue that clogs my pipes goes to Google or Yahoo, going to Google means that they're getting more market share there, too. Smaller providers will vanish, or at least not have the dough to improve their service. And Google needn't invest more than the bare minimum to get better since, well, if you're number 1, why try harder?

This is why monopolies are dangerous and should be fought BEFORE they corner more than one market. It's already bad enough.

Re:Antitrust?

[unapersson]

IE3 was the first bundled version, before bundling that version wasn't gaining quickly on anything. Netscape easily had the dominant share back then, and that's why MS grew concerned about Netscape's talk of creating cross-platform applications/services than run in a browser and make the OS irrelevant.

my irony meter just blew

[microphage]

"Google is being scrutinized by the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee for supposedly "cooking" their search results"

Are these accusations coming from the same source that scrapes Google search results and posts it as their own?

`Mr. Singhal posted a detailed post on Google's official blog describing how the company came to the conclusion that Bing was copying the Google search engine .. Google wants to compete with "algorithms built on core innovation, and not on recycled search results from a competitor"' link

link
link

Re:my irony meter just blew

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you couldn't be bothered to research, but taking user data from a toolbar and using it to facilitate long-tail searches isn't 'recycling competitors results'. Google engineers made a lot of noise, and the media lapped it up. A _tiny_ bit of research, and you'd avoid looking like another mass media Lemming.

Absolute stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh. What are web search results if not pure opinion? "Here are a million websites, give me the ones you think are most relevant to query X". If Google programs its search engine to return website A before website B, that's totally their right. If you don't like it, use Bing -- it's not like Google is a monopoly, especially in the states. The same applies to the advertising complaint: if you don't like that Google hates your guts, buy your advertising from somebody else since you aren't exactly short on choices -- I hear Yahoo! might have special prices just for you.

No. this is not accurate

[poetmatt]

Search is completely impossible to not have a bias. If it did so, it wouldn't be a search, it'd be a table of contents and also completely useless as a search. If they rank their own shit higher, well, that's their choice.

When you search for a microsoft KB article on bing, do you complain that it showed up ahead of other relevant results? no.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[brusk]

Search is completely impossible to not have a bias. If it did so, it wouldn't be a search, it'd be a table of contents and also completely useless as a search. If they rank their own shit higher, well, that's their choice.

Of course there's no purely objective search. But if Company A builds into their algorithm that their own pages will always appear among the first five results, for example, it seems perfectly sensible for a Company B to point that fact out and say "We never do that. We rank all pages on the basis of a formula that does not consider who provides a particular web page," it would be a selling point for at least some consumers.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

"We never do that. We rank all pages on the basis of a formula that does not consider who provides a particular web page," it would be a selling point for at least some consumers.

I think the consumer does not really care about this because as long as get the information that they are looking for quickly they are happy. The problem here is Google ranking their online services results higher by leveraging their search monopoly and hence they would likely generate more traffics at the expense of other online services. I think this type of practice clearly unfair.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

Google does not have a "search monopoly". Please come back when you know what "monopoly" means.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[RoFLKOPTr]

Of course there's no purely objective search. But if Company A builds into their algorithm that their own pages will always appear among the first five results, for example, it seems perfectly sensible for a Company B to point that fact out and say "We never do that. We rank all pages on the basis of a formula that does not consider who provides a particular web page," it would be a selling point for at least some consumers.

Right. Selling point. Competition in the open market of search engines. What we're talking about here is the fact that the government is taking legal action against Google for whatever it is they might be doing.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the pointing that out. Instead of "search monopoly", I should have said "large market share"

Re:No. this is not accurate

[martin-boundary]

Search is completely impossible to not have a bias.

That is neither relevant nor interesting. A more interesting question is whether the bias is deliberate and targeted or not.

Here's a target practice analogy: When you shoot darts at a target, you won't get all darts in the bullseye. You might even find that your darts land more often in the lower half of the board. That's bias, and it's not deliberate.

Now suppose that a champion throws some darts, and his darts all land in the upper left corner of the board. That's bias too, but it's clearly deliberate and targeted. If moreover there's money riding on the game, and the champion was expected to win, then there's a case for cheating.

In both cases, it's completely impossible to not have bias, ie to hit the bullseye every single time always.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[Anthony Mouse]

I don't see how that would be a selling point for the consumers whatsoever. A single result being in a different place has no real negative impact on the consumer: If the consumer is actually looking for that result then it's a convenience, and if not then it is so utterly trivial to ignore it and go on to the next one that complaining about it is frivolous.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your fucking point? It's their search engine, they can write the algorithm however they fucking want. If they want to take money from Amazon to return Amazon hits over Barnes and Noble hits, they can feel free to do so.

Google does NOT have a monopoly, they can do whatever the fuck kind of shit like this that they want to.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[martin-boundary]

My point is that bias is like ice-cream. It comes in many flavours.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

The search engine can be simply a mechanical tool with no inherent bias. Consider the early internet search engines that simply showed the pages that include any of the search words, and the display order is dictated by the number of times the search words occur on the page? Such a simple rule is so easy to understand for the user, that if there is any bias, it is in the words the user typed, or in the words page authors happened to use.

Of course in practice google won because its complicated search algorithms are able to more effectively predict which pages are the most relevant for the search, but the price is that the search engine becomes a black box that is hard to understand.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[FreakyGreenLeaky]

If they rank their own shit higher, well, that's their choice.

While pretending that their ranking is based on automation and mathematical formulas only and is not biased? I don't think so pal.

That's monopolistic behaviour, is illegal and is no different to MS fucking over the competition.

Wake up.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google is deliberately changing the results to the worse, that's a plus for the competition. They don't have to work as hard to be better.

However, if Google is deliberately changing the result to the better, that is their product. Delivering the best search.

Personally, I think Google needs competition. Their results aren't as good as they used to be, and often I find that even when I click on "cached", the result doesn't contain the words I was looking for. Unfortunately, their competitors are still crap. When Google added Javascript that ruined scrolling with the arrow keys, I went to Bing. After two days I was so frustrated with the result, that I searched for a workaround for Googles stupid Javascript, and when I found it, switched back.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that triple-20 is worth more than the bullseye... the analogy was almost perfect! =)

Re:No. this is not accurate

[Cheech Wizard]

Google's results aren't as good as they used to be because these days there are millions of web sites on the internet. Not so many years ago that wasn't the case so it was easier to get "good" results from Google (or any other search engine for that matter). If you remember back in the early days there were *big* search engines which *charged* you if you wanted them to list your site even though there weren't (comparative to today) many sites out there. I put my first public web site online in January 1996. I remember watching/reading Danny Sullivan's early Search Engine Watch site in the late 1990's so I could improve my search rankings. The bottom line is that as the number of sites on the internet increases exponentially, relevant results become harder and harder to come by. There are so many web sites these days it amazes me that any search algorithm can be good enough to *really* know which result to return is "better" than another. Not to mention - There's a lot of subjectivity in search.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

To use company A or B?

If I'm on google and I search for mail or calendar, then yeah, I *expect* google to give me links to its products. Amongst the first.
If Google didn't do that, if Google couldn't even find it's own stuff and offer it to me when I ask for it, that'd be pathetic.

If I'm on Bing, and I search for MS IE, and I get a non-MS blog page as a first result, I don't think I'd be getting back to bing. Seriously, I'm asking *you*. That's context, now use it to do a better search.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

The article also mentions how Google boosts enhanced content as well. I'm guessing this means things like Google profile abstracts, Google Map thumbnails, Google Image thumbnails, etc.

This enhanced content improves the quality of the search experience. It identifies the type of content for which the user is looking and displays it without a need to navigate any further. They could remove that content at the expense of the search experience, but what other alternative is there? Do they have to develop an API or meta tags or URL manipulation technique that would allow Mapquest, Yelp, and other competing services to identify what type of content they're producing and give it an even shot at appearing in the search results? Won't they still complain about the development overhead (as trivial as it has the potential to be) that they incur as a result of listening to Google's rules? Won't this make the search results look even worse as all the competing map providers / image providers / review providers occupy a larger, more garish chunk of real estate on the page?

The end result of this - that Google has to make their product inferior and degrade the user experience to give competitors a chance - seems like a nonsensical path that appeals to nobody except those who have something to gain by Google's failure. Bing does the exact same thing as Google (sometimes even more dramatically) and they pay their users for search queries and ad clicks, providing that they themselves recognize why this is a reasonable strategy, yet they're on the offensive side of this debate.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[Atzanteol]

You forgot to call us "sheeple."

Re:No. this is not accurate

[poetmatt]

what is the monopoly exactly? Nobody forces you to use google. If they are "monopolizing" their own service, you can use another. Don't like $search? use $search2 instead.

"hey guys, people are selling products similar to their own when they buy them. HOW DARE THEY!"

oh right, you're a moron.

You forgot to tell me how google was the first, even though search has existed for 25 years.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[Agent0013]

When you search for a microsoft KB article on bing, do you complain that it showed up ahead of other relevant results? no.

Ha ha ha! Sorry to laugh at you if you were being serious. I have never been able to find Microsoft results on a search from Microsoft. But if I google the Microsoft site I end up finding tons of stuff. It's pretty sad when your own search engine can't find stuff on your own site.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[poetmatt]

No, his point was correct - it's a search, and you don't have to use it. It's not a monopoly, and never has been.

This is the Government's Business because ..

[microphage]

Cause Microsoft is one of the biggest funders on Capitol Hill !!!

"Microsoft's chief Washington lobbyist has been convening regular meetings attended by the company's outside consultants that have become known by some beltway insiders as "screw Google" meetings ..

Microsoft is trying to harm Google in the regulatory, legal, and litigation arenas because they're having problems with Google in the competitive marketplace." link

Re:This is the Government's Business because ..

[RightSaidFred99]

Whatever, fanboi. When the shoe was on the other foot and Google was whining about Microsoft I didn't see such posts.

Re:This is the Government's Business because ..

[Cyberllama]

What?

Re:This is the Government's Business because ..

[Anonymous Coward]

lol WUT?!!

Reparations for IE

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time someone charged Microsoft for all the wasted time fixing websites for Internet Explorer!

Re:Reparations for IE

[Billly Gates]

"It's about time someone charged Microsoft for all the wasted time and resources spent fixing websites for Internet Explorer!"

No please Mike. Think of the children?

Reparations for IE

[mikeytag]

It's about time someone charged Microsoft for all the wasted time and resources spent fixing websites for Internet Explorer!

Pot meet Kettle, Black?

[guruevi]

I don't see Bing advertising Google nor Microsoft advertising Linux. It took many, many years and literally millions of dollars in fines for them to simply remove Windows Media Center from EU versions of Windows.

I think Google has explained before how part of their algorithm works - if the site is faster, it's higher ranked. Since Google -> Google crawling is probably in the sub 10ms delay range, it will be higher ranked.

Google does not have a monopoly, get over it already.

Re:Pot meet Kettle, Black?

[Rockoon]

I don't see Bing advertising Google nor Microsoft advertising Linux.

Search for "Linux" on Bing and if your eyes are open then you will see the advertisements on the right hand side for Linux stuff.

The key thing is to have your eyes open. If they are still shut, you wont see them.

Search for "Google" on Bing and if your eyes are open then you will see the advertisement on the right hand side for google.com

The key thing is to have your eyes open. If they are still shut, you wont see them.

The choice is yours. You can either open your eyes, or remain a jackass ignorant fucknut.

Re:Pot meet Kettle, Black?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google does indeed have a monopoly over search in the USA and many other areas. The question is are they abusing their monopoly, or using it to leverage other services such as Google Shopping.

Re:Pot meet Kettle, Black?

[Nick Ives]

That's because MS appear to have removed their adverts. Apple still seems to advertise on Google fine.

If MS wants to get all butthurt that's their problem.

Re:Pot meet Kettle, Black?

[Henriok]

Google does not have a monopoly, get over it already.

Ha ha ha! You made a funny!

Re:Pot meet Kettle, Black?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they don't have a monopoly. Please go about learning what the fuck "monopoly" means.

Re:Pot meet Kettle, Black?

[Rockoon]

We all learned what "monopoly" means when the DOJ went after Microsoft.

It doesnt mean 100% market share. It doesnt mean that there are no alternatives. It means a dominance in one market so great that the company can pick who the winners and losers in another market will be.

Its OK to be a monopoly as long as you dont start picking winners and losers in other markets. The moment you do, such as bundling Internet Explorer with another product, its an anti-trust issue.

Google is accused specifically of picking winners and losers in other markets.

Re:Pot meet Kettle, Black?

[ilguido]

It doesnt mean 100% market share. It doesnt mean that there are no alternatives. It means a dominance in one market so great that the company can pick who the winners and losers in another market will be.
Its OK to be a monopoly as long as you dont start picking winners and losers in other markets. The moment you do, such as bundling Internet Explorer with another product, its an anti-trust issue.
Google is accused specifically of picking winners and losers in other markets.

But Google is not forcing anyone like MS did. MS was fined because:
1) You could not buy a pc without MS Windows preinstalled (exclusivity deals with resellers)
2) MS Windows forced you to use MS IE (do you remember the joke? IE is good for downloading FF.)
3) You could not uninstall IE.
4) You paid all this.
Do you think that Google's services are not good, because you suspect they are cooking their results? Don't use them, you can. This is not a monopoly leverage.

Re:Pot meet Kettle, Black?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you mean Windows Media Player, which created Windows N... N standing for "No sales"

Re:Pot meet Kettle, Black?

[Rockoon]

1) You could not buy a pc without MS Windows preinstalled

Yes you could. It wasnt 100% of sellers.

2) MS Windows forced you to use MS IE (do you remember the joke? IE is good for downloading FF.)

Unless of course you had another browser burned onto a CD, or even floppy (Opera fit on a floppy back then.)

3) You could not uninstall IE.

There are lots of things that cant be uninstalled without issue. People that did force IE to be uninstalled found out that other programs relied on the markup rendering engine continuing to exist, a shared component of both Microsoft and 3rd party programs.

4) You paid all this.

Viewing advertising is also paying.

Don't use them, you can. This is not a monopoly leverage.

1998 called and it wants its Microsoft excuses back.

Re:Pot meet Kettle, Black?

[Rockoon]

That's because MS appear to have removed their adverts.

Google advertises on Bing, contrary to the claims of the poster who somehow made an "insightful" post about how Google wasn't advertising on Bing.

What point are you trying to make?

FACT: Slashdot is full of people that will believe anything anti-microsoft even when its easy to demonstrate that the claims are 100% false.

Re:Pot meet Kettle, Black?

[MrMickS]

Two wrongs do not make a right.

I reckon that if you did the figures that Google would have enough of the search traffic to constitute being classed as a monopoly. If you only looked at smart phones I think that that percentage would be higher. Given that more people are moving to smart phones and tablets as their device for internet access I don't think that classifying Google as a monopoly would be wrong.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

Google for years has mandated their 15-minute refresh of Google News on browsers that "are not supported".

Ergo, the "hit"resutls of web sites favorable to Google are highly doubious, and in fact absurd.

Google follows M$ playbook to the letter and even better than M$ could ever execute because William B. Gates II is an idiot.

PS.

We need to trak the cash from the Solyndra and other Green Techs that got money. Basically, the money from the FED was in part diverted as cash into the offshore bank accounts of Barak Hussein Obama II and "Call me Joe" Bieden among others of the White House Staff. Ergo, the function of Solyndra was to act as a money laundering scheme for Obama and Phutsy Friends.

LoL Bernackie Baby

Are you kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is a company. A company in a position to to control massive amounts of information. No one is denying these things. However, has EVERYBODY who uses the Internet forgot the phrase, "buyer beware"? What Google provides is not IN STONE, the end all be all for whatever you're looking for! It's one if they're doing anti-competitive behavior w/ regard to who they're doing money to money business with in their searches, but it's something else to claim because of their position, they must be doing something shady. It's the phreaking INTERNET people! BUYER BEWARE!!!

HEY MSFT! USE YOUR STUPID BING!

[Anonymous Coward]

If MSFT wants to advertise whatever on the net, go use that stupid Bing (or bong or whatever the hell it was). If MSFT was any good, they wouldn't need to buy anything from Google. As for charging... MSFT has overcharged people billions for years for the same product over and over and over. At least Google offers value for money. Everything MSFT peddles is crap!

Schmidt before Congress.

[Animats]

I watched the whole committee session. Schmidt did reasonably well. Susan Creighton, a lawyer from Wilson Sonsini speaking for Google, not so much.

The chart showing Google Shopping almost always in the #3 position in organic results was interesting, and weird. I look forward to seeing more details on that in the SEO blogs.

Schmidt had a painful time replying to questions about Google's active encouragement of offshore pharmacy ads. He refused to say much. Part of the plea deal is that Google can't deny in public statements what they admitted in writing in their plea bargain. (If they do, the plea bargain is off and DOJ takes them to court on criminal charges.) So Schmidt can't claim Google did nothing wrong. He could have been more apologetic, though.

Susan Creighton had a rough time. Google pays Apple $100 million a year or so to be the default search engine on the iPhone. She was asked about that, and tried hard to evade answering the question, which was put to her several times before a grudging admission that Google paid Apple for that. That's a real antitrust issue - buying your way into a new market when you're #1 in a related market doesn't go over well.

Re:Schmidt before Congress.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that they asked Schmidt for legal opinions (which he should not give) and they asked (relatively new outside counsel) Susan Creighton for business decisions (which she is ignorant of).

The iphone deal is revenue sharing. Google offered X% of profit from google searches on iphone. Bing offered X-1%. Or maybe Bing offered more but Apple didn't want to go with a search engine its users didn't prefer. Either way there's a world of difference between saying "We'll share profits if you make us the default" versus "We'll pay you $100M to stay away from Bing!".

This is the same kind of deal Firefox gets for making Google the default. How do you feel about Amazon affiliate links to books, which is also a simple revenue sharing setup?

This is also the same kind of deal Microsoft strikes with PC manufactures to get IE to be the default web browser (as well as having Bing as the default search engine). Given their 90%+ market share and historical monopoly abuse conviction, wouldn't that be a worse problem? Nobody seems to mind though (except the EU) , and since they are just paying folks extra instead of trying to strong arm them ("cut off their air supply", etc) I don't see a problem. By extension I don't see a problem with Google's iphone web search deal.

Are you of the opinion that Apple should not be able to enter into these agreements?

Re:Schmidt before Congress.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a real antitrust issue - buying your way into a new market when you're #1 in a related market doesn't go over well.

Search on a smart phone is a different market??

Re:Schmidt before Congress.

[Animats]

Are you of the opinion that Apple should not be able to enter into these agreements?

When you're a near-monopoly in field A, and you make an exclusivity deal with someone who's the leading player in field B, that does raise antitrust concerns.

Re:Schmidt before Congress.

[marcosdumay]

And that actual situation is even worse, because those are two monopolies* closing an exclusivity deal. It doesn't seem bad to me, but it does deserve some investigation to stablish that as a fact.

Now, just to answer the GP, I also think MS sharing its profits with OEMs deserves some investigation, and on this case there is quite some smoke emanating from it.

* And if you don't consider Apple to have a monopoly on phones, they are doing an agreement with their only real competitor. That is even worse.

Re:Schmidt before Congress.

[dave562]

Yes, search on a smart phone is a different market.

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

Re:Schmidt before Congress.

[openfrog]

I also just watched the whole committee session, and I disagree with you on Susan Creighton's performance, even on the Apple episode you mention. She had very solid answers to the core questions related to whether Google constituted a monopoly. The questioners simply assumed that to be the case and were very aggressively asking hypothetical questions: "If a court found that Google was a monopoly, what would you suggest Google do in response to correct the situation". She rightly did not answer those and she very clearly established why, in her view, Google did not constitute a monopoly. She was the most articulated of any of the members on this committee, not lessening the solidity of Schmidt's testimony, which was also impressive.

Re:Schmidt before Congress.

[Anonymous Coward]

The $100M question is whether getting installed by default, but allowing the user to change the setting, constitutes exclusivity. IANAL, but I would think that is a hard argument to make.

Think of it this way; Apple has to set *some* search engine as the default. Getting a fraction of profits should only be a bonus for them, and doesn't effect the user. Of course money may tempt bias to select a different result than you otherwise would. However, to argue harm, you would need to show that the default selected is worse for the consumer than some other option. Setting the default to any search engine with 10+% of the market naturally (Bing, Yahoo, Google) seems a pretty safe bet. None of them are *that* different, and enough users choose them on their own it'd be hard to say it constitutes harm.

Sooner or later this will show up in court, and we'll find out.

Next the Senate is examing The Rolling Stones

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Group had monopoly on popular music and controlled the musical preferences of millions of people alleged George Michaels - The Stones cooked their musical influences and gave preference to R&B whined Rick Astley and Wham. Today the Senate interviewed Keith Richards who failed to explain why drum machines didn't feature more prominently in his music. Expect new laws to be passed to protect [insert music production company name here] from unfair market monopolies by popular musicians. (don't worry about the deficit morons, watch more television, get fat, drink more beer - this is your wage earner's tax dollars at work)

Next week the Senate will be investigating Chinese claims that NASA controlled the space race, and unfairly denied Chinese companies manufacturing contracts for the Space Shuttle.

P.S. There's a lot of jobs currently available for market researchers needed to interview people about their views about how Google is evil...

Not to piss on anyone's parade...

[idbeholda]

But doesn't it stand to reason that a search engine would have its OWN results towards the top anyways? I think it also stands to reason that they WOULD charge a direct competitor more in the first place. I also find it a bit ironic that Microsoft would complain about price gouging when they have been known to charge upwards of $150 for an operating system.

Bing

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was "The number one search term on Microsoft Bing is 'Google'", and "The number one search on Google is 'How to remove Bing Toolbar'".

Why is the government snooping into Microsoft??

[jmcbain]

I don't know or care if these accusations about Microsoft are true. I think the more important question is why should the government care about how Microsoft is running their operating system or web browser. They are the dominant operating system and web browser, but there are other competitors in this space and other alternatives. Yet another example of government pushing its nose into something it doesn't understand in the name of the public good.

Re:Why is the government snooping into Microsoft??

[DarwinSurvivor]

I don't recall Google forcing companies to use only its product (OEM installs), locking people in to their products with locked down file formats, using their market share to force themselves into other markets or spreading blatant FUD about competitors. Making your competitor pay more for your services, especially when the price is negotiated one-on-one with each company, is hardly close to any of the crap Microsoft pulled to earn those anti-trust lawsuits.

Tiniest violin

[b4dc0d3r]

Maybe Google is recovering all of the money lost due to crashes, corrupted files, and all the other nonsense we had to put up with because you paid hardware manufacturers not to put anythig else on their computers.

Every time I click and Vista doesn't do anything, I use google to find something entertaining to watch until Vista responds. Using FireFox. With NoScript.

I wish they would give it to me, but as long as they are taking it from you when my government couldn't, I'm perfectly fine with that. I use you cos I have to, not cos I want to, and that hurts every day. Spread your cheeks and see how it feels.

Fifty times?

[Dracos]

Well, MS has to pay somehow for scraping Google for Bing results.

Context

[Quiet_Desperation]

Google was accused of cheating a client today.

Those bastards!

The client in question was none other than Microsoft.

Those magnificent bastards!

Re:Context

[Anonymous Coward]

While you are trying to be somewhat humorous, that view is particularly pervasive on slashdot. Google is seen as some defender of open source, Microsoft is a villain. Google is a defender of open source when it suits them, and Microsoft is no worse than Google as far as predatory practices go.

Re:Context

[Atzanteol]

Defending open source for your own gain > calling open source a cancer.

Re:Context

[Quiet_Desperation]

*snore*

Re:Context

[Geminii]

If Microsoft thinks they're not getting good value from Google, why don't they advertise on other services instead - like Bing? Surely they're not implying that they've been making the choice of their own free will to pay Google's rates to date because advertising on Google has been AT LEAST fifty times as effective as advertising on Bing?

Because it's what people want

[Fryth]

Maybe it comes high in the results because it's actually what people want to search for. Come on, we all know how these search engines work, and the proposition that they have hard-coded "if Google, bump up to 3" in their algorithm's logic is just laughable. Nobody is suggesting Google is colluding with Wikipedia, even though Wikipedia "mysteriously" shows up high in the search results all the time. This is ridiculous.

If Google is a monopoly, so is Coca-Cola

[thomasmoreorless]

This is a political farce. The majority of people choose Google over Bing and Coke over Pepsi, there are plenty of alternatives.

Re:If Google is a monopoly, so is Coca-Cola

[Entropy98]

Google is a near monopoly when it comes to online advertising, they get most of the US search traffic. They bought out Double Click, Ad Mob, and others. If you want to do any serious advertising online you have to deal with Google. You have to pay what they want and play by their rules (which can be quite akin to voodoo if you've ever had the misfortune of attempting it)

Can Slashdot get any worse?

[thsths]

This most be one of the worst stories I have seen, and it is only fitting that it comes now that the founder has left.

Those sentences don't even make any sense in the sequence they are given. The links are pointless. And the name is Schmidt, for Pete's sake.

Poll: When is big too big....

[martijnd]

When would be about the right time to do an AT&T on Google and split is up into baby google's?

1 year, 5 year, 10 years, never?

Re:Poll: When is big too big....

[oreiasecaman]

When would be about the right time to do an AT&T on Google and split is up into baby google's?

1 year, 5 year, 10 years, never?

never.

It's their product

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I misunderstanding something, but if it is their product, can't they put whatever results they want in it?

For the record

[Tuqui]

I always center click MS adv. when I see them. I like to send MS money to the Pages I visit. Maybe like me a lot of people is doing the same thing.

Barrier to entry is not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

And since in the USA antitrust is ONLY about ABUSE of a monopoly, not the existence of one, this too doesn't apply to the idea "you're held to higher standards". I.e. someone cannot abuse a monopoly they don't have.

Re:Barrier to entry is not a problem

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, antitrust is about abuse of monopoly. And it is claimed that price discrimination like this is that abuse - that's what "held to higher standards" mean.

Simply put, having 80% of the market is monopoly - not by itself illegal. Charging your competition significantly higher prices is anti-competitive, but also not by itself illegal. But being a monopoly and doing something anti-competitive - that rings some bells.

But that doesn't remove them

[Anonymous Coward]

And, since the development of IE was purchased out of the sale price of Windows OS, this is illegal bundling or subsidy.

Windows was also put on the burner for OEM contracts that forbid the sale of Non-Windows OSs or not bundling an OS at all. Which is also not what Google is doing.

Why is it so important that you neglect these huge differences?

All you need to do to stop using Google is change the preferences of the search panel in the top right corner of your browser (and since Bing is default on IE with search built in, you actually have to choose Google deliberately).

Lastly, since there's no monopoly power to exercise, the abuse of monopoly power is impossible to exercise. After all, the only barrier to entry is how much it costs for the servers and bandwidth. And if you're going to complain about that, you'll have to complain about Microsoft, Intel, GM, Walmart, ...

Why is it so important to ignore these huge differences?

Re:But that doesn't remove them

[MrMickS]

All you need to do to stop using Google is change the preferences of the search panel in the top right corner of your browser (and since Bing is default on IE with search built in, you actually have to choose Google deliberately).

Lastly, since there's no monopoly power to exercise, the abuse of monopoly power is impossible to exercise. After all, the only barrier to entry is how much it costs for the servers and bandwidth. And if you're going to complain about that, you'll have to complain about Microsoft, Intel, GM, Walmart, ...

Why is it so important to ignore these huge differences?

Now I understand why you didn't understand the point being made in the post you replied to. You're a technologist. You visit, and post, on Slashdot. You understand how the technology works and the options open to you. The majority of society doesn't. They switch it on and type into Google. They don't even understand what an address bar is, believe me I've seen it and given up trying to educate family members, they get the link they want from Google so don't care about the extra work that they have to do.

The point is that most people don't know or care that other search engines exist. Given the trned of people moving away from general purpose computers to access the internet and instead towards integrated devices such as phones or tablets they will use whatever is available by default on the device. On the iOS devices and Android this is Google. Given their market share on such devices I'd err towards a monopoly position in search for Google.

Its important that Google is held to account, just as important that anyone in a monopoly position is held to account. If there's a possible monopoly then its important that that be investigated. If, as they say, Google is squeaky clean over this matter then the investigation with prove that. Everyone can go about their business using Google with the knowledge that the results aren't 'cooked'.

If they are found to have bias in the results, isn't that a good thing? Isn't it better to be informed than not? Remember the WiFi data that Google collected quite innocently from their street view cars? Just because the motto of Google is 'do know evil' doesn't mean that they won't cross the line. Evil is subjective.

Re:HEY MSFT! USE YOUR STUPID BING!

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to hate Microsoft but I have to admit that maps.bing.com are better than maps.google.com.

Fucking stock tickers

[Hognoxious]

Why refer to microsoft as MSFT? Do you think it sounds smart? If you're going to play ticker symbols, why don't you use GOOG too?

Because you're a wanker, that's why.

Think People

[Anonymous Coward]

If you pay any attention at all the numbers are stark:

70% of desktop searches
95% of mobile searches
75% of ALL online advertising REVENUE
The list goes on and by definition of a monopoly is having a large enough market share and being able to increase the costs of your competitors to do business. Bing lost $2 billion last year. The actual companies in the questions (Nextag and Yelp) have both claimed significant increase in costs of doing business since Google entered their markets (Google Products and Google Places respectively).

On the board with Apple, Apple releases iOS a year later Google releases Android? YouTube was huge, Google created Google Videos and failed. Google purchased YouTube. More recently, Google offered $8 billion for Groupon and was refused (why I have no idea). Google creates its own version and purchased Zagat, some airline price comparison and others. This is repeated over and over again in Google's history. Nextag has been around long before Google Shopping. Google partnered with Nextag, then offered to buy them but was refused. Google created Google shopping and all shopping results put Google in the top 3 far too often when Nextag has huge variance in its results ranking. In online advertising the practices are even more aggressive with Google purchasing analytics tools, admob, and tons of other small advertisers.

Now none of this means anything as of yet as it is just an inquiry, but the definitions and evidence are not really in favor of Google, even if Google is 100% above board. Anti-trust is not about good intentions, it is about competition. Further complicating matters in my opinion is the fact that we are talking about a nascent technology really and the ever-changing internet. What has to be determined is if Google truly has a dominance that cannot be broken because of that dominance. And that is going to be a very long discovery to include all of what Google (DNS, Analytics, advertising, etc) does and the advantages it has to drive traffic to Google. This is so much more difficult than the case against Microsoft as it is much less defined and choice is by-and-large easy for technical users, but that was the case with Microsoft as well. The question is not whether or not folks on slashdot have choice, it is whether the other 97% of the population does. Firefox search is Google, so is Safari, so is Chrome, so are all of the mobile phones except the Windows phone and some smasung phones. So yeah, the population can type in yahoo or bing, but why would they ever do so? An interesting and complex inquiry for sure, but we instead have yahoos like the Senator from NY kissing ass and begging for Google Broadband in the Hudson Valley instead of asking questions. Reprehensible. Half the panel was wiping their mouth after speaking about Google and the other half wanted to wring their neck. So I have no idea how an unbiased and valid result is going to occur. But the process will be interesting.

advertising prices?

[drinkypoo]

On top of all that, Microsoft is alleging that Google overcharges them as much as fifty-fold for advertising prices as compared to other buyers.

That's fine. I allege that Microsoft is overcharging me as much as fifty-fold for a Windows license as compared to OEMs. A class action suit against Microsoft by all non-corporate windows users ought to be worth approximately sixty bajillion dollars.

wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

Google services lands top simply because they *knows* the Google algo, and can SEO thier
pages to rank high in results.
That's an *unfair* advantage, which the n00bs asking the questions missed completly.

Google Should Charge

[JAlexoi]

Google should charge MS $15 for each click that directs to an MS site. And give that money back to HTC as compensation...

Microsoft, time to taste your own medicine

[sakari]

Google “shouldn’t be permitted to pursue practices that restrict others from innovating and offering competitive alternatives,” Evans said. “That’s what it’s doing now.”

Reminds me of when Microsoft used to make computer manufacturers a "deal that they cannot say no to" when bundling Microsoft Windows with consumer PCs, ultimately lockin down them to one vendor and restricting innovation and offering competitive alternatives.

Great counter-argument on Techdirt

[Anonymous Coward]

For the most part, the arguments against are idiotic, and pure FUD. Here is a great counter-argument, and also some good comments.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110921/14190816043/how-quickly-we-forget-googles-competitors-falsely-claim-google-dominates-because-it-was-first.shtml

So much for "don't be evil".

[toddmbloom]

Business as usual at Google.

OK: 'taxing the rich'...

[Anonymous Coward]

> On top of all that, Microsoft is alleging that Google overcharges them as much as fifty-fold for advertising prices as compared to other buyers.

Or, explain to me again, how this whole 'taxing the rich'-thing is SUPPOSED to work?

An "independent study"? Is there an echo in here?

[jthill]

An "independent" study. Where have I heard this before? Hmmm. Hmm Hmmm. Oh! Here it is!

Working behind the scenes to orchestrate “independent” praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy’s, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. “Independent” analyst’s report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). “Independent” consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). “Independent” academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). “Independent” courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage.

I'm guessing this study is roughly as independent as the DPRK is democratic.

fair != free

[Fujisawa Sensei]

I want a fair market. Because free markets are just a myth.

Re:fair != free

[hairyfeet]

That is what I want too but I'm sure you'll admit that government regulation has to be carefully administered or else you get nothing but a rigged game. Look at Wall street, thanks to bail outs THEY can take risks that YOU can't, because they have the power of the US government making their losses a public burden and their profits their private gains. Is that fair? no of course not.

So if MSFT wanted to offer contracts that said your CEO had to wear a bunny costume and do the developer dance, then they should have been allowed to do that. They should have NEVER been busted for offering discounts for those that didn't sell Linux or BeOS, because exclusives have been offered and been part of the market for ages. companies like Best Buy and Newegg get exclusive pricing all the time for featuring a product. Sony and MSFT pay good money to get exclusives for their consoles. Should they have been busted for that? again of course not.

This is what bugs the shit out of me about /. of late. not talking about you but so many here have become sooo polarized in an "us VS them" mentality the ONLY response they find acceptable is "Gee isn't product X swell?" or you get called filthy names. for the record I thought the DoJ didn't go far enough and MSFT should have been busted up. I think the same should happen to intel now, or at the very least they get busted at least as bad as MSFT did.

But trying to bust them for what they OFFERED in their contracts is WRONG with a capital W. Nobody put a gun to anyone's head and said they had to take those contracts, they were free to negotiate or walk away. What they should have been busted for is the rigging of their products and in Intel's case outright bribery. it is one thing to offer a contract that gives a better deal if you buy solely from me, it is quite another to give you kickbacks for screwing my competitors.

Re:fair != free

[Fujisawa Sensei]

The problem with the bailouts, wasn't so much the bailouts, I wish they had bailed out Lehman Brothers, but the the fact they didn't prosecute the people who masterminded that shit.

There's also the issue where they let the companies sit on the capital, and pay out bonuses. The ground rules should have been: "Hey Fucker In Charge, once you get bailed out, you are fired with prejudiced, and we're seizing your personal assets, and charging you with misrepresenting yourself as actually being competent.".

Interest rates are great, but because the market is so fucked, still, the peons can't take advantage of it. Only the rich fuckers.

Actually Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

The extra charges are for copying Google's search results directly in Bing..

Do you people know what the word "monomopy" means?

[marcosdumay]

"But google doesn't have a monopoly in search."

That is simply not true. Google does have a monopoly in search, and leveraging it, even do destroy Microsoft would be wrong (or evil if you prefer).

Just a hint, having a monopoly doesn't mean that it is hard for competitors to appear. There is another word for that. Having a monopoly just mean that you have nearly all the market for yourself.

The Google search engine a monopoly?

[Jerry]

Only if you can prove that Google was holding a gun to your head when you chose Google over Bing or some other search engine.

Wikipedia lists over 300 Internet search engines users can choose from, and most are free for the using. Many use DuckDuckGo, for example, because it doesn't track users activities. Google doesn't have monopoly on the Internet search engine, and in a supposedly free market it is entitled to charge what ever the market will accept for the use of its paid services. There is amply evidence to support the contention that Microsoft used Google search results behind its Bing search display, after doing its own ranking and organizing of the Google results. Maybe that is what Microsoft is complaining about? That they cant exploit Google against itself like they are exploiting Linux but suing vendors who use Linux under the unproven pretext that Linux contains Microsoft IP? IF Linux does contain Microsoft IP then Microsoft has to explain how Linux can be so secure and stable and Windows so insecure and unstable, of both are using the same IP.

Contrast Microsoft's claims against Google with the PC OEM desktop, which is a hegemony, a monopoly, totally controlled by Microsoft and its ad rebate dollars. Perhaps that Congressional committee investigating Google will ask the Microsoft witnesses to explain their pricing structure to the PC OEMs if one of the OEM strays off of the Microsoft plantation and begins offering other operating systems preinstalled on their desktops. Looking at the current PC OEM desktops one could conclude from their behavior, and that of Microsoft, that the PC OEMs are wholly owned subsidiaries of Microsoft.

Re:The Google search engine a monopoly?

[neminem]

I actually did use DuckDuckGo for a little while, not because it doesn't track me, but because I was sick of google bloating up their interface with crap I didn't care about or want. I used it for about a month. Then I realized I'd rather deal with google's pushing dumb features, than use a search engine that returns terrible results. At least half the time I searched for something on DuckDuckGo, I got a pretty, incredibly useable page full of irrelevant results, and ended up consulting google anyway. So I switched back.

And last time I tried Bing, they were even worse.

Google doesn't have a monopoly, they're just good at what they do.

what are they being accused of?

[Anonymous Coward]

i dont understand the accusation... im sorry, i feel so ignorant right now. can someone please explain to me what they mean by google product search consistently placing 3rd? what are they searching for? with what search engine (google or google shopping) ? how can i attempt to replicate whatever they are testing?

MS Admit Bing failed or blame Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else think that someone in the MS chain of command passed the idea up that Bing's failure wasn't their fault but was because Google was "cooking" the odds? It takes one guy desperate not to lose his job making the right/wrong comment in the right/wrong ear and we are back to playing the blame game.