Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senators Recommend FTC Perform Antitrust Investigation Of Google

Posted by Unknown on from the do-no-competing dept.

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."

19 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. monopoly on free service... by swinferno · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:monopoly on free service... by lexsird · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:monopoly on free service... by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Furthermore, just being a monopoly isn't, generally, enough to get in trouble. Using your monopoly status illegally, generally to force customers to use your other products, is illegal. You'd have to make an argument that Google is unfairly forcing their search users to also use their other services, which is an argument that can probably be made but is going to be hard to sell when nearly all their services are provided for free.

    3. Re:monopoly on free service... by AlecC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:monopoly on free service... by ircmaxell · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes you can. In fact, Motorola launched a series of android phones that used Bing for everything on Verizon. Now, they were a flop because they sucked, but that's not Google's fault...

      --
      If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    5. Re:monopoly on free service... by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    6. Re:monopoly on free service... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "You'd have to make an argument that Google is unfairly forcing their search users to also use their other services,"

      The argument for a monopoly is generally about the customers, and the people searching on Google are not the customers. People searching on Google are part of the product. The advertisers are the Google's customers. If Google is overly dominant in the advertising or possibly even in just the search/advertising markets, AND they are charging more when they feel someone is competing with them, it could very well be considered anti-competitive behavior.

      Also, if they have search dominance, and are using that to gain advantage in other markets(even if their only profit in those markets is ad revenue), then they could also be considered anti-competitive.

    7. Re:monopoly on free service... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      So, it's possible to do so, but you can't actually do that right now. I wonder why.

      That's what monopoly abuse looks like.

      By your definition, any new invention, in any field, is monopoly abuse. After all, when it first appears, there is no alternative, therefore it's a monopoly that's being abused.

      Now, if Google were to make it technically impossible to do so (which they haven't), or legally forbid others from doing so (which they haven't), then it would be monopoly abuse.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:monopoly on free service... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    9. Re:monopoly on free service... by CryptDemon · · Score: 5, Informative

      It doesn't sensor search results. It censors search suggestions. The title of that article is intentionally misleading. People who still want to search for TPB or isohunt still can just fine, they just have to finish typing the whole word now. I know entering 5 more key strokes can be a daunting task, but you can still search. I think of it as a nice was for google to kiss some corporate media ass (considering they do content provision now) without actually affecting the people who still want to search for these sites.

  2. Google? But not Microsoft? by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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-
    1. Re:Google? But not Microsoft? by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And lets not forget that 91% is an all-time low. Linux has been slowly gaining market share. Windows has had a 95%+ market share for over a decade.

      Then there's the fact that the EU is suing MS for millions and millions for their practices with IE, but over here in the US, its A-OK.

      --
      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-
    2. Re:Google? But not Microsoft? by Galestar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The real message is "You're not donating enough money to our campaigns, fix that or we'll destroy your business.

      Yup, pretty much this.

      --
      AccountKiller
  3. "Nice little search engine you got there buddy,... by jmichaelg · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Be a shame to see anything happen to it..."

    .
    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.

  4. My ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. yeah. ayn rand. by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  6. It's Not Illegal by ircmaxell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  7. 100% a Hit by AdamJS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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".

  8. Too Big to Ignore by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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