Slashdot Mirror
Senators Recommend FTC Perform Antitrust Investigation Of Google
SharkLaser writes "U.S. Senators have written to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission about their concerns over Google's Internet monopoly. Google executives did themselves no favors when the Senators looked at Google's business practices in September. When asked if Google has monopoly in online search, Google chairman Eric Schmidt is quoted as saying 'I would agree, Senator, that we are in that area.' Another worrying quote is from Marissa Meyer, Google's VP of location services, who said that it was 'only fair' that Google put its own sites on higher placements than competitors. The Senators are also warning that Google is only facing one real competitor (PDF), Microsoft's Bing. Almost all other metasearch engines use either Google or Bing technology to deliver search results, including DuckDuckGo which uses Bing. In Europe Google is currently under investigation of monopoly abuse and the EU has also delayed Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility."
lol, I hope you are just trolling.
Monopoly means its the only one. Ma Bell was a monopoly. Google isn't a monopoly, it's just successful.
Take the Red Pill.
Really? I know Microsoft Bashing is a sport here on /. and all, but it just blows my mind that we let MS do as they will but Google needs to be checked out. Hm.
Google has like 64% (google market share), with competitors Bing and Yahoo (now powered by Bing), and some others.
Microsoft has a 91% market share ( windows market share) with competitors Linux (FOSS) and Mac OSX (only available on Apple hardware, Apple openly sues you for building hackintoshes).
And yet GOOGLE is the one who needs investigating? Really?
Oh wait, I forgot, Microsoft is all buddy-buddy with congressmen.
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
How you can own a monopoly in an environment where switching to a competitor who offers a better product at zero cost is beyond me but evidently some people in Washington seem to think differently.
Odd that the issue is being raised (yet again) just as Google publicly comes out against SOPA and Protect-IP.
The threat comes from the same politicians who are clueless enough to think they can tinker with the Internet's infrastructure without harming it.
Illegal monopoly, my ass. Google has done nothing to protect its monopoly, certainly nothing like forcing pretty much every PC maker in the world to use Windows, giving the illusion of no choice in software, and attacking competitors with underhanded tactics to help them maintain a monopoly. Microsoft should have been tried, convicted, and broken up LONG ago but Microsoft became a friend of the government and thus got a pass.
Just because Google does things right,getting where they are thanks to hard work and brand recognition, and that no one else has been able to duplicate their success doesn't make them an *illegal* monopoly. (Remember kids, it's not illegal to simply be a monopoly -- you have to do underhanded garbage like Microsoft has done to be an *illegal* one.) It's just because Google doesn't want to bend over and play the government's games that they're now being wrongfully accused of being one.
What a nightmare we all live in. Sadly, things aren't going to change until our citizens converge on Washington, D.C. armed and demanding to take their government back from the greedy moneyloving fucks that are ruining things for everyone.
AC for very obvious reasons.
the same whore who had railed against social benefits all her life, and then took healthcare and social security when she needed it in later years of her life.
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them/
Read radical news here
seriously, let's just cut to the chase here:
who's paying off which senators to do this?
congress doesn't do ANYTHING on principle any more & this doesn't make sense on principle anyway so obviously somebody (m$?) is greasing some palms to get this on the docket. debating it on the merits (or lack thereof) is completely irrelevant & a waste of time as we all know that isn't what drives the process.
sorry, but I'm in a particularly cynical mood today after reading Matt Tiabbi's latest article...
It's not illegal to be a monopoly. It's illegal to abuse that power. So, let's look at the main categories of anti-trust abuse that have been prosecuted in the past:
Limiting Supply - there's no way Google is doing that...
Predatory Pricing - They have always been free, as are the competitors. Then again, could that be classified as predatory I guess...
Price Discrimination - The same as above
Refusal to deal - Not that I've heard of...
Exclusive Dealing - Not that I've heard of either
Product Bundling - This is tricky. Sure, their products integrate. But then again you need to sign up for each one separately. There's no "Use search and automatically get this other product"...
So, either they will need to go out and tread new territory with little legal precedent to lead the way. Not saying it should or shouldn't be done, but just that it's a relatively new area.
Additionally, I really find the line who said that it was 'only fair' that Google put its own sites on higher placements than competitors odd. Let's show a few examples:
Free Email - GMail is #5 on the list for me. Yahoo, Mail.com, Hotmail and GMX.com are all above it...
ebooks - Google Books is #6 on the list. Ebooks.com, Amazon, Project Gutenberg, Barnes and Noble and Free-ebooks.net are all above it...
Online Calendar - Google Calendar is #3 on the list.
US News - Google News isn't even on the first page for me (not even in an ad)...
Shopping - Google Shopping is #2 behind Shopping.com
Now, searches for News, Gmail, Images, Videos, Maps and other product names return google first. But that sort-of makes sense, since those are the product names...
In fact, searching for Maps and Images on Bing returns Google for the first results! Is it an anti-trust violation to name your products intelligently???
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
Not in the light of the remark quotes in the summary. If they have a monopoly of search, it is reasonable that they report search results as impartially as reasonably possible. But the quote implies that Google will bias its results to favour its own sites. If it were one of many, this wouldn't matter; people could decide to use more impartial search engines if they wished. But if it is a monopoly, this could be construed as abuse of monopoly power. Monopolists are held to a higher standard than those with competition. (And, ISTM, this breaks the now-dropped "Don't Be Evil" maxim. Providing clearly marked advertising around honest search results is fine; providing slanted search results is not).
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
They are just doing everything they can to beat up Google. To tie it and restrict it and (if all else fails) destroy it. Facts be damned.
Congress' brief relationship with silicon valley has long since ended, and they're doing everything their rusty old selves can manage in order to placate and "secure" America's "#1 Industry".
It may be free for me and you, but it so happens that we aren't google's clients. In fact, we are google's product. Just like facebook, these companies rely on us to grant them "eyes" for advertisements and our personal information for them to profit as they see fit.
As a more sinister aspect of this monopoly, if everyone relies on a single private company to access information then they also control what we can and cannot access. For example, google currently censors our search results in order to bury sites which google doesn't want us to access, sites such as the pirate bay, isohunt and 4shared. If we keep relying on them to access information then what today affects only harmless download sites, tomorrow may also cover sites on political parties, corruption scandals, disasters and whatever they see fit. And, of course, potential google competitors.
So, a monopoly affects a lot more than our wallet, and google is currently placing itself as both the knowledge gatekeeper and big brother. You bet it poses a serious danger to humanity.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Your analysis is correct, but it relies on one assumption: Google biases its results to favor its own sites. From what I've seen so far, the only argument in this direction is coming from people who claim that when doing things like searching for stock tickers, Google defaults to showing the graph from its own site, finance.google.com. Which is fine, but it's a) not a search result (it lives in the same space that calculation results do) and b) right next to its own link, it provides links to every other major stock charting site. If it's ok for MS to ship a browser in its OS by providing a list of browsers on initial boot-up, this setup should be entirely fine as well.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
But if Google's monopoly power has ensured that they are by far the best search engine, because they can afford (as monopolist) better spiders, more defences against link farms and so on, then the alternatives are no good. As I said, if there are many equal search engines it doesn't matter if one is slanted. But the allegation being raised by the Senate is that there are no other "good" search engines, except Bing. That was my point about monopolists: if Google has destroyed, by being better, all other search engines, then the demands for fairness made on it are higher than if it has face-to-face competitors. Your point is a bit like saying that, if there is a monopoly car manufacturer but you consider its cars unsafe, you can always walk.
I am not sure the allegation of being a monopolist holds water, but my reply was couched on the basis that it is, as alleged. IF Google is a monopolist THEN there are no alternative good search engines SO the government is entitled to demand impartiality from Google. IF the initial premise is false, then the whole response does not apply.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
But if Google's monopoly power has ensured that they are by far the best search engine, because they can afford (as monopolist) better spiders, more defences against link farms and so on, then the alternatives are no good. As I said, if there are many equal search engines it doesn't matter if one is slanted. But the allegation being raised by the Senate is that there are no other "good" search engines, except Bing. That was my point about monopolists: if Google has destroyed, by being better, all other search engines, then the demands for fairness made on it are higher than if it has face-to-face competitors. Your point is a bit like saying that, if there is a monopoly car manufacturer but you consider its cars unsafe, you can always walk.
I am not sure the allegation of being a monopolist holds water, but my reply was couched on the basis that it is, as alleged. IF Google is a monopolist THEN there are no alternative good search engines SO the government is entitled to demand impartiality from Google. IF the initial premise is false, then the whole response does not apply.
Your real point is whether entry costs for startups are prohibitively high, enough so that a free-market cannot exist: a "natural monopoly." You speculate that they are, and that Google has a "natural monopoly." I, and most others, would disagree. If you want to look at real examples of natural monopolies, you should better focus on the airlines. They are often touted as textbook examples.