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.
You get the government you pay for.
If I go to Google and search for "web browser" the results are:
1. Wikipedia
2. Opera
3. Opera again
4. Mozilla
5. News for web browser
6. Chrome
7. Safari
8. Webopedia (of all things)
9. Maxthon
10. Flock
11. docs.python.org
Those bastards!
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.
The analogy that I prefer is that of a creepy, too-friendly neighbor who hires a private detective to thoroughly investigate you, so that it knows what kind of housewarming gift to give you.
I'm not sure that Google has plans to go all Big Brother on us (that seems more like an Apple or Microsoft thing). Google strikes me as more like an awkward, autistic person who just doesn't realize how creepy his behavior is. He means well, but he's just to damn creepy for me to be comfortable around him.
Ri~ght, because the internet is totally closed and there is no price competition there. Also, everyone only buys the things they see in ads.
I have noticed that those who defend government intrusion into both the private lives of citizens and into the market come up with the wildest, most asinine examples to justify their intrusion. When bad things happen as a result of thier intrusion, they then use those to justify more intrusion. There is a disgusting metaphor that is apt here, but I will leave it be. Needless to say, the practice utterly disgusts me.
Mod parent up. How does it help business for the government to set the example of: "Oh, if you become too successful, we'll sue the shit out of you. Because it's unfair to your competitors that you did a better job than they did. Unless, of course, you've donated sufficiently to some of our campaigns; then we'll probably leave you alone."
I'm pretty sure I've seen HBO ads on all the major broadcast networks... If NBC was willing to buy ad space on CBS, I'm pretty sure CBS would allow it. If CBS wanted to charge NBC more for that slot than say ShamWow, there might be a problem.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Google has about 2/3 of the search market, while Comcast has about 1/3 of the connectivity market. Now zoom in a little bit and you get a bunch of regions where Comcast has 100% market share, because they are the only provider.
There's nowhere in the world where Google has 100% market share, or where users do not have a choice but to use Google.
.: Semper Absurda
Sounds like typical status quo for this administration: punish those that succeed.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This will be the hardest case the FTC has ever attempted.
In a normal anti-trust case you have a company that has and established product with barriers to entry to the market that typically include:
1. Cost of replacement products (Microsoft is an example of this because the cost of replacement was significant to the cost of the computer).
2. Difficult interoperability (Microsoft again is a good example because the software market made it difficult if not impossible for competitors).
3. Difficult customer access (AT&T is a perfect example of this, building out a last mile telecom network is a huge undertaking, even long distance competitors couldn't access their customers without government intervention).
4. Business collusion and exclusion that prevented competition (almost every FTC case involved this because it's a necessary aspect of enforcement of the sherman-anti trust rules, in the case of MS it was contracts and such that involved the punishing and rewarding of other companies in the business that worked with the competitor).
The FTC might be able to prove that Google is putting their results at the front but they are going to have a hell of time given the facts. No one, not a single soul is forced to use google products. Not only that but the startup costs and difficulty in creating competitive products is nearly non-existent. There are dozens of competing products in almost every single category Google works in and the only reason they haven't been replaced is that they continue to innovate their core products. I really don't think they have case against Google in any of their core markets. Now I do think that what Google did with maps pro (don't jump to conclusions, if you don't know what I'm talking about don't reply) was a dirty evil act right ouf of Microsoft's play-book but I don't think outside that the government even has a case. Everyone could decide to use a different search engine, advertising, maps, calendar, email, phone (android open source doesn't require Google products) tomorrow and there is absolutely nothing stopping people from doing so other than the fact that Google generally offers the better product. With the exception of the maps pro incident Google has none of the barriers to entry that the government hung their hat on during other anti-trust cases.
Personally, I don't think the government will win and I pray Google doesn't just give in.