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."
is a monopoly on something that is free, against the law?
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Proof?
I wasn't aware that a monopoly could be considered against a company when users by and large prefer a service they offer over their competitors. I wonder what's going to happen with this one, am I going to be forced to use a different search provider? Fat chance.
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-
Their search results get worse each year. Way too much spam, placeholder and link-farms are coming out in the top results unless you're looking for something specific in a limited field.
We had search engines before Google came along, we moved to Google because it was vastly superior to what we were using. Now that they're serving a lot of crud, we, the masses, will eventually move to an alternative when someone else moves into the field. Apple are ramping up a massive ad system, maybe they'll move into search?
Google have to move into new fields, as they are more than aware their search dominance is going to slip away.
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 search 'engine' that ranks sites according to what internet explorer users click on OTHER search engine's search results - like google.
Read radical news here
Almost all consumers choose to use Google, instead of other search engines. Almost everybody has tried several other ways to search, but Google simply gives the best results the quickest, and consumers voluntarily choose to ignore the competition. What's the problem?
Oh well, I guess this gives the politicians something to do. Whatever keeps them busy, and doesn't harm the public too much is a good activity for politicians.
I don't understand why they keep investigating and investigating and just won't finally leave google alone. Are they a monopoly? obviously. Do they abuse their monopoly position? That stone's been turned over more times than the average river rock, and nothing's been found. Why don't they give it a rest already?
I can only assume at this point that the others that wish they were in google's position keep lobbying and prodding and whining for still another investigation, if nothing else than to be a thorn in google's side. Nothing's ever going to come of it, it's just a waste of my tax money.
Funny how companies like AT&T can get snowdrifts of consumer complaints, year after year before finally being investigated (once?) and being found abusive and broken up, and yet I don't hear any consumer complaints about Google, just a few bit companies occasionally crying in their beer, yet Google gets hit with inquiries nonstop like flies on honey. Somebody's got their priorities all mixed up. (or is taking payoffs repeatedly from all the wrong characters)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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
While I agree Google does appear to be a monopoly on the outside, I don't think it's been abusing it's position and there is an alternative that people can use if they do not want to use Google. After all it's not like Google is saying that they own your computer and you're just leasing it from them.
Sadly the same cannot be said for the Cable provider. Cable Internet from one provider or my choice of Dial Up providers.
It's not. Suppose you buy a piece of property, that because of your insight, or dumb luck, turns out to be the best property for some activity. Think oil well, or prime seafront property.
You have a monopoly on that property, and control over it. That's ok. What's not ok is when you start to tell your customers that you won't deal with them at all if they ever use a competitor's product.
Excellent legal hackers can invent ways that are just this side of monopoly practices, but effectively give you control over your customers. Sometimes they go too far, and the FTC has to step in. Sometimes your competitors cry foul to their congresspeople, just to get you to back off. But, it's unlikely that any large business is 100% free of monopolist practices.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Right, it was "leeches" who were seeking to control and destroy Microsoft back when they were sued for antitrust violations. Microsoft had the superior product, right? Solaris was years behind Windows NT 4, right?
Please, this is just an investigation, and even if Google is found to be abusing its position the worst that will happen is they will get a slap on the wrists, like Microsoft did.
Palm trees and 8
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
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".
Any company that gets as big as Google should be investigated for being a monopoly, trust or anchor of a cartel. By "big" I mean both market share and sheer size in either revenue, profit, market cap or assets. Because when a corporation is that big, it probably is distorting the market substantially in those ways. All the other businesses, and of course the people, are paying taxes and expecting as citizens their government protect them from such abuses.
There's plenty of research the FTC could do automatically on any company that gets that big without causing any costs beyond routine compliance processing all its competitors also do. They should, and any substantial evidence of something more serious should automatically trigger a fuller investigation. The government should not have people whose discretion protects favored corporations from these compulsory reviews, who are obviously going to be corrupted by companies too big to stop. They should not get too big to stop before the government starts stopping them.
FWIW every president should have an impeachment committee fired up and researching impeachable offenses starting the day they're elected. These various executives have far too much power to corrupt, delay and stop investigations that are the people's only defense from their crimes.
--
make install -not war
That'd be a neat proposition. But when you're #1 in your field and you use this to unfairly bash in people trying to compete... Then we have a problem.
I mean, Yelp content scraping? Undercutting costs on Android so they can bolster their own ad and search business(iOS is doing fine but what of WebOS, MeeGo and WinPhone 7?).
Sure, it's the unproductive politicians that are the problem. Not monopolists abusing their power. Or as Ayn Rand calls, "A wet dream."
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
"is a monopoly on something that is free, against the law?"
It's free to you. It's not free to advertisers who are google's actual customers of its main business area.
Your eyes on google's search pages are the commodity being sold.
Look at broadcast TV in the decades before cable. It was free to the "users". It wasn't free to the actual customers, the advertisers. The user's (viewers) attention was what was being sold.
(This isn't saying google is doing anything wrong, or right for that matter. Just that your picture of it being a "free" service is wrong.)
If they really wanted to investigate monopoly abuse:
Look no further than Ebay / Paypal. That relationship is a rediculous example of monopoly abuse. Ebay cornered the market for online auctions and then forced paypal on to everyone.
Oh wait... we haven't heard this before. Where was the letter from senators complaining that Microsoft could do these same kind of things?
I haven't checked yet but does anyone know whether senators Kolb and Lee have received sizable bribes^Wcampaign contributions from Microsoft, their friends, lobbyists, or industry groups that have Microsoft as a major supporter? (I'm guessing that they have.)
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
The Senators are also warning that Google is only facing one real competitor (PDF), Microsoft's Bing.
That's like saying the only competition Country Time Lemonade has is that kid selling lemonade on the street corner, which may or may not have come from a bottle of Country Time Lemonade to begin with.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
They never learned how to buy governments. Technology means nothing, without active participation in good ol' corruption, you can't achieve much in most of the world, including the US.
Make their search worse than the others. That is the only way to fix it their monopoly problem. /facepalm
I can still get to bing.com, yahoo.com, altavista.com, lycos.com, and ask.com. Maybe its not that we are forced to use Google, but that Google has superior products so we choose to use those products.
End Transmission....
Ayn Rand was no more the an economic cult leader. A cult that continues to destroy the economy.
There is no seeking to control and destroy here.
A company gains massive market share and is in many markets. The government wants to see if they are a monopoly and if any abuse is going on. That's it.
For those of us that can read actual histry, as opposed to fiction nonsense, it is obvious that when left to their own devices, corporation will rape and pilliage. They will lock out competition, steal homes, poison water and chain people to there work areas.
Read some ACTUAL hisotry.
Ayn Rand claimed corporation would take care of the people. Find the interview she did with Phil Donahue. Watch her whole idea falls apart.
Of course, of your only goal it for corporation to make money at all costs, then , yeah, You should continue the Ayn Rand lies.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Make that 'Kohl' and not 'Kolb'. And, while I didn't see anything in the FEC listings about Kohl having received anything substantial from tech companies, Lee, on the other hand, seems to do nothing but collect money from PACs and corporations. (The only link I see between these two guys is the concrete industry which makes you wonder what sort of back scratching is going on here.) Both Microsoft and K&L Gates (Bill's daddy's law firm) were contributors. Hmm...
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
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.
Can we perform an anti-trust investigation on Congress? :/ I trust Google more than our Congress.
Because companys keep complaining about Google.
This is a case of Yelp! and Nextag whining that they don't get as much business from googles links as they feel they should.
I have now removed Nextag and Yelp! from my devices.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I use Yahoo
I even use Bing
If Google was a monopoly, how would I be able to use those other search engines? I was never stopped from using them.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I can't believe all y'all're missing the point so spectacularly.
Yes, searching on Google is free. So what? Over-the-air TV is free. That doesn't mean a broadcaster can't have a monopoly.
Google's not a searching company any more than they're a Webmail company or a YouTube company or whatever.
They're an advertising company. Their customers are those who pay them to run ads, and the product they sell to their customers is the eyeballs of those who see the ads.
And they are very much a monopoly in that arena.
Sheesh. It's like everybody else who's posting on this thread needs to turn in their Geek cards. I thought y'all knew this already...?
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
Let's look at that example. Say I own said piece of real estate and I decide that no one can use my beach unless they use my suntan lotion. To be perfectly honest, I don't give a rat's ass what the law says. It's my beach. If you want to use it you better have my suntan lotion on. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. In the real world when things like this occur, people look for alternatives. Maybe the nearest beach isn't so nice, but with a little time, money and creativity I'm sure it can be transformed into something unique and wonderful where people can wear whatever suntan lotion they want. If you don't like a product or company then don't support it with your ad dollars. If it hadn't been for Federal involvement we would have had smart phones back in the mid-90s, but there was no reason for true innovation in communication when the Fed was busy splitting up ATT. Who needed to come up with a better product when the government was guaranteeing stagnation in development by leveling a playing field in a dying technology.
The original poster oversimplifies what was said at the actual Senate hearing. Fast forward to 1:21:50 here: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/301681-1
Herbert Kohl: but you do recognize that... in the words that are used in antitrust kind of oversight... your market share constitutes monopoly...dominant - special power dominant for a monopoly firm. you - you recognize that you're in that area?
Eric Schmidt: um i would agree senator that we're in that area um again with apologies because i'm not a lawyer my understand of monopoly findings is that it's actually a judicial process so i'd have to let the judges and so forth actually do such a finding...
Can we perform an anti-trust investigation on Congress?
Yeah, if you can get anyone to stop laughing long enough to take you seriously...like you're going to find anything other than rampant greed and corruption? Palm grease at that level gets delivered in 55-gallon drums, not little squirt tubes.
Hell, the criminal records of those in Congress should be enough to paint a rather ugly picture. Ironic how most companies won't hire a criminal to be CEO, but we sure as hell don't mind them running our country and making our laws.
Is monopoly on web browser usage in the 1990s with a free product (Internet Explorer) against the law?
Almost all consumers choose to use Microsoft, instead of other operating systems. Almost everybody has tried several other ways to abstract away underlying hardware, but Windows simply gives the best results the quickest, and consumers voluntarily choose to ignore the competition. What's the problem?
The problem with that analogy is that your piece of real estate is not a monopoly. However, if you owned ALL the beaches then you would have a monopoly, and could not abuse your position as beach owner to force every beach goer to use your other products, as that is anti-competitive. The problem is never that a monopoly exists, it is that the monopoly position is abused.
The big antitrust issue is Google's preference for its own services in search results. Search for "new movies" with Google. Everything on the screen is a Google ad or service. No organic search results appear above the fold. The same thing happens for "DVD player", where everything is either an ad or Google Shopping.
As Senators Kohl and Lee write: "Rather than act as an honest broker of unbiased search results, Google's search results appear to favor the company's own web products and services. Given Google's dominant share in Internet search, any such bias or preferencing would raise serious questions as to whether Google is seeking to leverage its search dominance in adjacent markets, in a manner potentially contrary to antitrust law." Exactly.
US antitrust law comes from an era when railroads dominated the economy. Railroads could use their routes and shipping rates to extend their influence into real estate (especially in the western US, where the railroads came before the population) and manufacturing (by favoring affiliated manufacturers in shipping rates). Google now has something of a comparable position on the Internet.
Google doesn't own all the search engines in the world. If a Monopoly abuses it's power then it spurs innovation. Let's say I owned ALL the beach property in the entire world. No beaches unless they belong to me and you can't go without using my sun screen. You think maybe someone out there might dredge a lake and build their own beaches? In fact, those beaches wouldn't be swamped with pollution from shipping traffic and may even be located in more temperate areas. Heck, those beaches will end up being better than mine in numerous ways. The end result is that thousands of people get jobs dredging lakes and making man-made beaches, wave machines not to mention the tourism boost to the local economy. During this time, my beaches lose visitors, my suntan lotion sales plummet and eventually I'm forced to sell my beaches just to pay my taxes. Or, you could fine me, impression me, take away MY LAND and split it all up and give it to people who might not know anything about the beach business and those new improved inland beaches will never get built and there will be no reason to innovate any other solutions. I know which world I want to live in, which world do you?
Are you missing that they aren't? They aren't the first, the last or even close to the only one. But you know what they are? The Best. Don't believe me? Bing it and see.
So they should be penalized for doing it right? where are you going with this?
Yeah, and then you tell lotion, beach umbrella and flotation device producers "You won't be doing business with me if I catch you dealing with them dredgers. Don't forget your shops are long ago moved to my beaches and you'll be out as soon as you sell anything outside of my beach" and you tell the drinks vendors "You wanna keep them vending machines on my beaches? That means no machines on their lakes".
And as first are almost 100% dependent on your beaches for profit and for second they give a sizable part of revenue too, they will think twice before dealing with newcomers.
So yeah, it will be a booming industry for those dredged lakes, without single umbrella and chaise longue out there.
P.S.: And to be treated as monopoly you don't need to have 100% of market, you need to have "dominant position" in it.
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.
https://blekko.com/ is an example of a competitor which has its own index.
Yes. The powerful are held to higher standards than the weak. A toddler can punch you all he likes without fear of the law; a heavyweight boxer had better keep his punches to the ring. It is not success that demands it, it is power. But the powerful are usually successful - failure is a weakness.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
My screen lacks a "fold".
I was not speculating so. In fact, I agree with you. I was taking it as a premise, a counterfactual to investigate. IF the FTC found what the Senate fear, what follows?
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
They got sued for this once before this isnt the first time they have abused the customers trust. Paid listing were placed on top of all the results with no warning that they were paid results thats why the paid ads are in colored blocks marked paid ads. I am sure we can say that Google has gone evil because they are doing the same things that got them into trouble in the first place. Their only true claim to fame was graphic free search results.
Jack of all trades,master of none
The employers of these career criminal politicians should demand an investigation into the monopoly of corruption.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Senator: “Do recognize that in the words that are used in antitrust kind of oversight, your market share constitutes monopoly, dominant — special power, dominant firm, monopoly firm. Do you recognize you’re — you’re in that area?”
Schmidt: “I would agree, Senator, that we’re in that area" link
Microsoft is one of Mike Lee's top donors.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00031696&type=I
Here's an informed opinion on the subject.
So you are saying I am a bad person to rig up fights between toddlers and professional boxers in the Allie games.
But I make so much money. No one will bet on the boxer as the toddler is too cute.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
IMO the real monopoly class violation Microsoft was guilty of was having API calls that only they knew the depth of & use of.
their in house software (Office) could do things with better integration under Windows that competitors could not because the available API spec was flawed and incomplete.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I'm pretty sure that would just create a new industry to create umbrellas, chairs & fizzy new sodas from other manufacturers eventually Mr. Beach Monopoly realizes that all his vendors just gave him the middle finger and decided to sell only to the inland beaches and no longer care about his quickly dying empire. You want to live in a stagnant world where if you can buy a coke at one beach then you better be able to drink a coke at the next beach. Go on a trip 1000 miles away to another beach, then you want coke on your beach. It's okay, you can try something new, it might even be better, if it is then it will grow in popularity and eventually Mr. Beach Monopoly will realize that his competitors have used INNOVATION to grow their business while he used intimidation. Your business grows an evolves, his stagnates and dies. Just because you have the "best thing ever" and can bully a people around doesn't mean no one can come up with a better idea or method, nor does it mean you have to put up with being bullied. If you're a total pussy you do, but people with backbone often stand up for themselves and find creative ways to succeed, it's kind of the philosophy the USA was built on.