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
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
The idea is this:
Being a monopoly is fine. (In this regard, a Monopoly is defined as holding a lion's share of the market, regardless of how many actual competitors there are.)
Being a monopoly, and *using* that market share advantage to take more of a share in other markets (using "search" to steal share in "advertising", for example), is deemed anti-competitive and subject to Anti-Trust laws and penalties.
Note: I am not taking sides in this, simply doing my best at explaining the concept behind what is going on 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.
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
Yep. And I think we maybe have the fatty finger of Apple on this investigation request...
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.