Slashdot Mirror
FTC To Recommend Antitrust Case Against Google
NeutronCowboy writes with news that a majority of top staff members from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission have become convinced that Google "illegally used its dominance of the search market to hurt its rivals." The FTC is now drafting a memo that recommends the U.S. government begin an antitrust case against Google.
"The agency’s central focus is whether Google manipulates search results to favor its own products, and makes it harder for competitors and their products to appear prominently on a results page. ... The memo is still being edited and changes could be made, but these are mostly fine-tuning and will not alter the broad conclusions reached after an inquiry that began more than a year ago, said these people, who spoke on the condition that they not be identified. ... The FTC staff memo does not mean that the government will sue Google for antitrust violations. Next, the vote of three of the five FTC commissioners would be required. And each step is a further prod for Google to make concessions to reach a settlement before going to court. Last month, Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the FTC, said a final decision on whether to sue Google would be made before the end of this year.
If you were in the business of advertising...
Wouldnt it be 100% your control AND your business to do exactly this? determine which ads to put where and why to get the best result?
Google is being investigated for doing their job... lol
Nobody forces anyone to use Google to search. They don't sell search. I fail to see a case, but IANAL.
I wouldn't go to the same extremes you do in describing google. I do agree that google's business model is built on exploiting consumer's habit for profit, but the issue with the FTC, is that the other creepy uncles of the world are demanding their chance to go through your things. Getting the FTC involved will only make things worse.
And so the crowd cheers as it gets its bread and circuses, while the government is going absolutely crazy, attacking successful business because it's successful and it doesn't 'share' enough with the government obviously.
Just like the cases of Standard Oil (the company that over the stretch of 30 years brought prices of oil down from 30 cents per gallon of refined oil in 1869 to 5.9 cents in 1899, and by the time it was broken up in 1911, there were 150 competitors, and since it was broken up the prices for oil never went down again, thus gov't ended up hurting the consumer), Alcoa Aluminium (again, the same thing - a large business giving its customers the best deal in the market for years, so the gov't saw an opportunity to make tons of money by allowing fake competition to emerge by preventing the successful business from being so successful) the same thing with many companies.
The same thing is happening here. What is Google? One of the worlds search engines, a successful advertising platform, an Internet app provider, a researcher and developer, etc.etc., one of the (if not the most) coveted employees.
It is obviously stepping on too many toes for it not to be attacked by the government dogs, and they are dogs.
Actually, personally, I have more reasons to be upset at Google than gov't does. I have problems with their advertising, but not because they push their own services more, or whatever, but because of their stupid policy on advertising, I don't want to get into details, but basically I have to advertise with their various competitors and not with them, but that's too sad for me. But AFAIC there are alternatives.
And even if there were no alternatives, while Google was highly profitable and problematic for some advertisers, what it would tell me is that there is a good opportunity in that space, not that government should be used by me to attack Google.
Yeah, I could use government to attack Google, in fact it would be a good business practice for me to attack Google by using the government, it makes perfect sense for a business to use the path of least resistance, and if that means using government, paying off some politicians to promote my business, I should do that.
Who really should be pissed off and upset are the people who get something from Google rather than from government. Whether you call them the clients, the consumers, even 'the product', they should be upset.
Right now Google is providing a good product, it provides a good platform, it provides people with what they want, and in case of the home users, they don't have to pay for it! What if government does get something from Google that it wants? What does it mean?
It means more money going to the government, it means reduction of money that Google has to spend on its own initiatives, on its own development and research, on its own business. It means reduction of service.
Does it mean that the quality of searches will increase? BY GOVERNMENT DECREE? Of-course not. It means that there may be new laws and regulations, it means there may be new licences, it means there may be new government positions, it means that Google may even be broken up into pieces! That's what it means!
Why would ANY of it be good for the consumer? It never is! Just like breaking Standard Oil or Alcoa was NOT good for the end consumer, this won't be either.
As an end consumer, do you give a shit that there is more artificial "competition" created by government in some field, with licenses, with taxes, with breaking of successful business apart? Why would you care if what YOU get is reduction of services, higher prices, less options?
What about investors, they are going to take a hit! In this economy.
What about employees? They are going to take a hit. In this economy.
Does this mean it's good for the government? Well, for SOMEBODY in gov't it may be good, but the overall situation will be bad. Google may outsource more of its operations into other countri
You can't handle the truth.
That used to be true. Today I get the government someone else pays for.
When you are dancing with wolves, never limp