Google Accused of Interfering With South Korean FTC Investigation

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Accused of Interfering With South Korean FTC Investigation

Posted by Unknown on Monday January 9, 2012 @05:10AM from the only-do-evil-occasionally dept.

New submitter DCTech writes "South Korea's Fair Trade Commission is accusing Google of methodically interfering with an anti-competition investigation into Android. 'Google deleted files and made its employees work from home in an attempt to frustrate the investigation, alleges the commission in an interview with a South Korean newspaper [machine translation]. The non-cooperation allegedly came after Google's Seoul office was raided by the commission's officials in September. The anti-competition probers were looking into whether Google's Android phones unfairly prioritize Google search and are "systematically designed" to make it difficult to switch to another option'. Now the South Korean watchdog is considering maximum fines for Google's non-compliance. Google is currently under investigation for similar anti-competition issues in Europe and the U.S."

36 of 186 comments (clear)

"If this was Microsoft" by bonch · 2012-01-09 05:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

The responses to these stories are always interesting. Because it's Google, there will be criticisms of the South Korean commission and questioning of their claims. If this was Microsoft, however, the accusations would be taken at face value as more proof of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Google is being investigated all over the world for anti-competitive behavior, but you can't even suggest that Google has a monopoly on web search around here without getting pounded with downmods. Even the lead counsel who prosecuted Microsoft in their antitrust case believes Google is a monopoly.
It seems as if some people just can't believe that Google would ever do anything wrong. This isn't the cute little search engine from 2000. They went public and became an ad company; 97% of their revenue comes from web advertising. But I think they're really good at appealing to tech communities, using feel-good phrases like "openness" to make themselves more endearing to those demographics.
1. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by lorenlal · 2012-01-09 05:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  1) It took a long time for Microsoft to run through its goodwill and become the monster it is today. We all hated IBM back in the day... Perception changes slowly.
  2) Now that Google has a "monopoly," they're still trying to add products to the marketplace. They're still trying to make their existing products, services, and everything they do better. Compare that to Microsoft and IE6, which set us back at least 4 years in the web space. Name me 1 (as in a single) feature Microsoft introduced to comply with standards or make our lives any better between Netscape dying and Firefox showing up.
  3) Google doesn't have a slimy history of creating contracts with PC makers excluding the bundling of products that aren't made by Google. Microsoft leveraged their market position in search to hold PC makers hostage, and kill products that competed with Office. Show me a case where Google did any of that, and I'll eat my words.
2. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by merchant_x · 2012-01-09 05:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Even Google admits that they are probably in monopoly territory. Monopolies are not illegal though. Abusing your monopoly position to inhibit competition is illegal.
  If you don't want to get down-modded perhaps you should point out areas where you think they have abused their monopoly position rather than just say "see, Google is a monopoly!"
  Microsoft are convicted monopolists and there are numerous examples of the anti-competitive behavior. Point to Google's ant-competitive behaviors then perhaps there can be a discussion.
3. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by DCTech · 2012-01-09 05:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  3) Google doesn't have a slimy history of creating contracts with PC makers excluding the bundling of products that aren't made by Google. Microsoft leveraged their market position in search to hold PC makers hostage, and kill products that competed with Office. Show me a case where Google did any of that, and I'll eat my words.
  That's what the whole story is about. There's also another such thing, and it's why EU is investigating Google for monopoly abuse. Most slashdotters stupidly think it's because of their search engine and users, but it's not, because you're not Google's customers. EU is investigating Google for disallowing advertisers to run same ads on competing ad networks. Since Google maintains such a huge market share in online advertising, that is outright monopoly abuse. Google is directly leveraging it's market position to kill competing ad networks.
  
  Interestingly, recently Google changed their "Ads by Google" advertisements on websites to AdChoices. This is the very exact "soft" approach Google takes. Use cute and soft names and marketing. Hey, it's AdChoices, so there's clearly choices for advertisers! On top of that they wanted to change it from "Ads by Google" because all those advertisements were hurting Google's image. Not to worry - Just change it to different name and now people don't directly associate with the clean Google anymore!
4. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by slack_justyb · 2012-01-09 05:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually it's pretty cut and dry here. I really don't see room for question. The main problem that South Korea has with Android is that magnifying glass in the top left corner. You tap it and it seems to only get its results from either local machine or Google.com. The first isn't the problem and neither is the second. What the problem seems to be is that there doesn't see a way to change where Internet results as received from.
  
  Now this wouldn't have been that big a fuss, if someone hadn't made such a big fuss about IE being so tightly integrated with Bing, which it really isn't but I digress; that's really a different conversation altogether. Anyway, so if we are going to slap Microsoft's hands for IE/Bing, then we need to slap the hands of Android/Google.
  
  Also the South Korean office of Google's has been pretty up in arms as of late. Now this one office could or could not be a representation of Google as a whole, again that's up for debate and not really what I came to comment on. However, it is clear that Google's South Korean office has been acting a bit mighty fishy and the one thing police don't like is when people start acting funny.
  
  However, I agree, I think Google should provide some options for changing up the search engine for the search button. It's not like I would ever change it, but it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside when I get options.
  
  Now I know what people would say about Google and Android tied together like they are, but we have to remember, tablet's and phone's are being held as the way casual computing is heading. Now a lot wasn't done until after the fact with Microsoft and ever since their antitrust case, I think people have been trigger happy to protect end-users. When in reality I think that the people who proclaim to be protecting end-users seem to understand computers less. Anyway, this shouldn't come as a surprise.
  
  I'd be surprised if South Korea actually did the same thing to say Apple! Apple usually argues that their stuff isn't a phone or a tablet or a computer. It's an Apple product and changing the options, search, or OS on an Apple product is like asking a microwave maker to provide a method for installing custom software on their microwave.
  
  Anyway, not trying to start a war here. Just wanted to say: 1. Not surprised, 2. S. Korean office is indeed acting fishy which tends to agitate police.
5. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Smallpond · 2012-01-09 05:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  3) Google doesn't have a slimy history of creating contracts with PC makers excluding the bundling of products that aren't made by Google. .
  To catch up, google "skyhook lawsuit".
6. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by stanlyb · 2012-01-09 05:38 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Name me even 1 feature that Google introduced to comply with standards.These guys even messed with the well accepted TCP/IP packet size just to make their main page to load faster, screwing all the rest of the world. What the........
7. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by AlecC · 2012-01-09 05:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The government's monopoly on the use of force. Having competing private armies would definitely be a bad thing.
  Linus Torvald's monopoly on the name "Linux".
  The IETF's monopoly over Internet standards.
  
  --
  Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
8. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by oxdas · 2012-01-09 05:54 · Score: 2
  
  Interestingly enough, Google is not a monopoly in search in South Korea. In fact, I think they are third behind Naver and Daum. Google is in single digits in search market share (Naver has something like 60%). This clearly is not about monopolistic practices.
9. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Ihmhi · 2012-01-09 05:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Or, in short, Microsoft used up all of their goodwill a long time ago. Google hasn't - yet. Geeks are skeptical by nature and are willing to give a company or person that is fundamentally good the benefit of the doubt.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
10. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by oxdas · 2012-01-09 06:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I hate to reply to myself, but I am mistaken. After further consideration, I think this is about monopolies. This about South Korean search monopolies Naver and Daum losing marketshare because Google Android directs mobile searches through their portal. This is South Korean using the law to try and protect Naver. I wonder what Samsung thinks of Naver pushing around their partner?
11. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by theshowmecanuck · 2012-01-09 06:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Use cute and soft names and marketing. Hey, it's AdChoices, so there's clearly choices for advertisers!
  Carl Rove used that technique a lot. IIRC one that stands out was one of GW Bush's assaults on the EPA that they gave a warm fuzzy name to. Something like 'green environment policy'. That name is probably way off, but it is the idea. And then they say it over and over in the media until the (generally lazy) public believes it, even though they were doing the harmful opposite.
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
12. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by ljw1004 · 2012-01-09 06:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  2) I don't know what timeline you want, since Firefox showed up in Feb 2004 well before the end of Netscape in 2008. But let's pick 1998 as your "Netscape" year, since that was when the source code of Netscape was abandoned.
  1999 -- Microsoft introduces "AJAX". It made our lives significantly better. (or at least, it was what turned the Internet from Web1.0 static pages into Web2.0 interactive pages).
13. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Locutus · 2012-01-09 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  maybe it's because Google does not make a phone as the headline states,("Google's Android phones") and Google does not force vendors to use their operating system. The operating system is free and open source so vendors can use it without opting to use Google's apps, market, or search defaults if they so desire. Unlike Microsoft's vast history of signing exclusionary deals and all the court documents which so they purposefully opt for designs which excluded others from competing on their platform.
  
  So if Android, the open source/free version is not capable of using another search engine they might have something. But I doubt that is the case so WTF are they crying about? What do you expect a license from Google to use their Android applications and app store needs to provide apps and access to Microsoft's applications and app store?
  
  And besides, Google as a search engine works great and consistently provides great service while Microsoft has always been technical laggards and in many cases technically inept yet their licensing and contracts prevented people from choosing other products. Somewhat related, a lot of my friends are complaining about their Windows Vista computers when I told them to request Windows XP instead but were told they would have to pay extra for the older software. Microsoft forced computer makers to ship Windows Vista and eliminated the option to put Windows XP on the computers without added costs. This was monopoly manipulation of the market choices even though it was the same companies product. And Microsoft allowed some OEMs to pre-load Windows XP and even paid them incentives to do it( netbooks ).
  
  And didn't I see that Google only has 60% or so of the search market? Microsoft was at 80% of the PC market and stomped on all kinds of hardware and software companies with that share as they did with 90% market share too. There are lots of examples of this like Go Inc in the late 80s and early 90s, OS/2, Java, Netscape etc.
  
  They are liked because they make good products and when they do throw ads at you they're not massively annoying and many times they are actually related to what you are on the web pages for. What an amazing feat. The television industry still can't realized a feminine hygiene commercial during a Saturday morning cartoon is not well targeted. They got the beer and truck thing down for football and most sports though. amazing.
  
  LoB
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
14. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by hairyfeet · 2012-01-09 07:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'd like to know when this whole "Treat corps like ballclubs" shit started and can we all just stop it please? I use products from dozens of companies but frankly i don't give a shit if they go up, if they go down, as long as it does what i want it to I'm gonna use it. If a company acts like a prick, like Intel with their compiler rigging and bribery? i just don't buy their product, is that so damned difficult?
  And lets get one thing clear, okay? GOOGLE IS A MONOPOLY when it comes to search PERIOD. You don't have to have 100% of a market, merely be able to cause significant changes in that market. Apple is a monopoly when it comes to PMPs with the iPod having close to 90% of the market, that makes them a monopoly. MSFT is a monopoly when it comes to desktops and Intel is damned close to a monopoly on x86. Does that mean we should break out the pitchforks? Noooo, what that means is these corps need to be watched like a hawk because a monopoly gives a company enormous power which they can then use to slaughter competition. They can try to block competitor's products like the famous "Windows isn't done until Lotus won't run" or in this case give away a product (similar to how MSFT gave away IE) and use it to further lock in their market.
  So can we please stop this "All go to hell except for cave 76!" bullshit and just accept ALL corporations are neither good nor evil and are nothing to be rooted for or booed, but simply should be monitored to make sure they don't use their power to destroy the free market? Doesn't that sound nice and rational?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
15. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Mr.+McGibby · 2012-01-09 07:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually it's pretty cut and dry here. I really don't see room for question. The main problem that South Korea has with Android is that magnifying glass in the top left corner. You tap it and it seems to only get its results from either local machine or Google.com. The first isn't the problem and neither is the second. What the problem seems to be is that there doesn't see a way to change where Internet results as received from.
  You're thinking about this backwards. That's not monopoly abuse because they don't have a monopoly in mobile operating systems. You have to be abusing a monopoly position to impact competition. They're not in the case you cited. How exactly are they using their monopoly in *search* to keep Android competition out? If you can't fill in the blanks of "Google is using their monopoly in ___ to keep the competition out of ___.", then you don't have a case.
  
  --
  Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
16. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by jmerlin · 2012-01-09 08:20 · Score: 2
  
  They patented it before they released it. They also didn't create it to comply with standards. But technically you can implement AJAX without XHR, using iframes or script tags, and the most browser-independent methods originally did this because IE wasn't compliant with what everyone else was doing. To this day, even IE9 and proposed IE10 is still dramatically different than every other browser in regards to standards (for eg. the handling of XHR request data, the browser still enforces control over MIME which may cause really-fucking-weird behavior on IE but nothing else, forcing you to sterilize the MIME type of your response). This is the reason IE is losing market share at an astronomical rate despite having the advantage of first-install and 100% availability to windows users. They don't advance web technology. They stand in its way.
17. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by datavirtue · 2012-01-09 08:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, but google is a monopoly because people fucking navigate under their own fucking free will to their website and run a search. Why? Because THEY FUCKING WANT TO RUN THEIR SEARCH ON GOOGLE!! ZOMG! Do they want Bing? No. Do they want Alta Vista? No. Do they want Dogpile? No. Let's stop pretending this is AT&T or Microsoft where everyone got locked in by chance and they no longer have a choice. A lot of established businesses are upset because Google ganked their industry due to their superior innovation. Notice the attack on Google while all kinds of assholes run rough shod over other aspects of our lives. Who's beating down Verizon's door? Who's kicking in teeth on Wall Street? Where is the big investigatory hoopla aimed at Congress? Let Google dominate the world of search information and ads. Out of the regular people in the world who is it going to hurt? Hell, Google is handing the average Joe a piece of the advertising world cake. I make money serving a couple measly Google ads on my website. Years ago the money I make would have landed in the coffers of a multinational publishing conglomerate. You people and your Google bashing suck dick. STFU!
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
18. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by idontgno · 2012-01-09 09:13 · Score: 2
  
  google "skyhook lawsuit".
  Irony, much?
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
19. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 09:43 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  But remember folks, Apple is the one with the fanboys!
20. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by theshowmecanuck · 2012-01-09 10:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Now I have to defend this one. This is exactly the stuff Rove used to specialize in. So how does the truth make it a troll? Karl Rove was Bush's strategist when they came up with their "Clean Air Plan" and their "Healthy Forest Plan." The first rolled back much of the Clean Air Act and the second allowed for logging on government/national Parks. So when is pointing out that a technique that the parent observes Google using was also used by Bush's former strategest a troll? Or does the truth hurt mf?
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
21. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by hairyfeet · 2012-01-09 11:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And people buy Windows computers because they want to run Windows programs, and they buy Apple devices because they are slick...is there a point there junior? Or was the foam spewing from your mouth so badly you had to write "All go to hell except cave 76!" so damned badly you couldn't think?
  I'd like to thank you though, you gave almost a texbook typical fanboi response and your post should be used as a great example of treating corps like ballclubs. But I hate to break the news to you, but Google is NOT your friend, they are NOT "for" you, and if they could make an extra 15% by having you assraped by gorillas you'd be getting some gorilla loving at this very moment. The ONLY people Google is for is Google, no different than IBM, or MSFT, or Apple, or Oracle, or any other tech company. So stop treating them like a fucking ballclub, okay?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Corporate Corruption by na1led · 2012-01-09 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

It seems that every Big Company eventually turns evil at some point.

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Re:Groan by DCTech · 2012-01-09 05:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Just like you could download any other browser on Windows. And that still doesn't change the fact that Google is working with manufacturers to keep competitors away. Google also owns AdMob, which specializes in mobile advertising and has 90% market share. That's a huge monopoly. And Google has used their monopoly to restrict advertisers from using other platforms for the same ads if they want to use Google's ad platforms. That's outright monopoly abuse.
Re:Really? by DCTech · 2012-01-09 05:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

It still blows my mind that anyone would want to use Bing anyway.
There's actually many slashdotters who suggest using them. Now, they suggest using DuckDuckGo, but as DDG uses Bing back-end the results are the same. Of course for Slashdotters if it's Microsoft it sucks, but if it's basically the same but they don't figure out it uses MS back-end, then it's superb. Go figure!
Systematically designed? by Chibi+Merrow · 2012-01-09 05:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's funny, until I rooted it, my Motorola Backflip would ONLY let me use one search... Bing.
What are these guys smoking?

--
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
1. Re:Systematically designed? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-09 06:28 · Score: 2
  
  It won't ask at startup (which, if I remember correctly, IE8+ does if it's the first launch on a clean machine), but it's Options->Basics->Search Engine.
Android is Open... by jesseck · 2012-01-09 05:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

Since Android is open, the device manufacturers / Microsoft / South Korea / Anyone Else can modify it to not use Google for search results. At that point it may not be "Android Powered by Google", but that seems to be what South Korea wants. So, let device manufacturers modify Android, change the default search provider, and not include GApps. That way, every person who purchases a new phone gets to install a market, search for packages to do what they need, and the world will be happier since the monopoly has been crushed.
Of course this will never happen... South Korea isn't breaking up a "monopoly". They see a chance to extort money from another business, and use the "monopoly" threat to do so. They do this because the device manufacturers won't abandon Google's version of Android- it's exactly what 99% of their (the device manufacturers) customers want. Pre-installed apps, GMail, Facebook, and the Google Marketplace so they can easily find the latest app their friend told them about./P.
1. Re:Android is Open... by anonymov · 2012-01-09 07:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Google, by tying together search and access to the android store, is doing "bundling"
  Motorola Backflip is an Android device, uses Bing as default search and has Android Market. Your argument is invalid.
The proof is in the possibility by Saishuuheiki · 2012-01-09 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Google denies that its employees deleted documents or that it instructed them to work from home in order to impede the investigation."
Only evil corporations have their employees work from home...
And everyone knows the damning evidence wasn't there because they deleted it.
If there were real consequences this might matter
What about Apple, Microsoft ? by unity100 · 2012-01-09 05:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

There has never been such cases about them. they didnt have to be raided, they didnt have to delete files to escape investigation ........ they just dont get investigated. microsoft got bothered approx. 2 times in this entire 30 year period in its history. nothing more. freaking 30 years, total domination of personal computer compatibles, and just 2 times. one is the ie thing, and the other is eu's browser ballot box.

and dont get me started on apple.

maybe google also should start buying representatives and bureaucrats ........

--
Read radical news here
1. Re:What about Apple, Microsoft ? by Dog-Cow · 2012-01-09 05:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Both MS and Apple have been repeatedly investigated by the EU. MS has had a trial in the US (which they lost). Apple was investigated a time or two, but not so much for monopoly practices (which is reasonable, given that they don't have one). Just because SK hasn't done so (and I don't know they haven't), means nothing. Governments rarely bother investigating trade practices of any corporation unless someone complains.
Re:Really? by Idbar · 2012-01-09 05:55 · Score: 4, Funny

And, since Bing uses Google's results, everyone uses google anyways. Go Figure! ;-)
Fair Play, Google by MacGyver2210 · 2012-01-09 06:02 · Score: 2

Ridiculous nonsense inquests deserve ridiculous nonsense responses. +1 Google, WTG!

--
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Re:History repeats by TheRealMindChild · 2012-01-09 06:28 · Score: 3, Informative

But you couldn't uninstall IE because it was a "vital part of the OS" (at least until they were forced to)

It WAS/IS a vital part of the OS. We aren't talking the kernel, or the drivers, but the shell, Explorer.exe used the IE components for doing close to everything. You did have sillyness like 98lite that removed IE by actually installing the old windows 95 shell from disk. However, due to the fuss about being forced to have IE, Microsoft just component-ized the hell out of it, so if you were to "uninstall" IE, you are actually only getting rid of the executable, not the essential OS components.

--

"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Re:AJAX According to WIKI by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 08:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Also according to Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

The concept behind the XMLHttpRequest object was originally created by the developers of Outlook Web Access (by Microsoft) for Microsoft Exchange Server 2000.[4] An interface called IXMLHTTPRequest was developed and implemented into the second version of the MSXML library using this concept.[4][5] The second version of the MSXML library was shipped with Internet Explorer 5.0 in March 1999, allowing access, via ActiveX, to the IXMLHTTPRequest interface using the XMLHTTP wrapper of the MSXML library.[6]
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest