Slashdot Mirror
Alleged Secret Google Antitrust Proposals Leaked
itwbennett writes "Google's latest proposals aimed at avoiding an antitrust fine from European authorities have been leaked amid growing anger over the secrecy surrounding the case. The documents, which have been verified by sources in possession of the originals, revealed the full remedies put forward by Google, the questionnaire that rivals have been asked to fill in giving their response to the remedies and a comparison document showing the changes in Google's remedies since the last proposals. Unlike the first round of so-called 'market testing,' Google's revised proposals have not been made public and were only sent to 125 interested parties who were warned that they were not to be made public."
So, how exactly is it that Google gets to dictate that these stay private?
It's Google who committed the offenses, and they're being punished by the European regulators.
Why does this seem like Google is the one dictating how this plays out? That makes no sense to me.
These back room deals don't help any but Google -- who is no doubt proposing things which don't actually limit or change how they do things, but just a few token gestures.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The whole investigation was done by a group controoled by Microsoft, so Bing is unlikely to be a target.
This information is completely missing from the summary and from the article it links to.
Really, is it a crime to be better than your competitors?
;)
In the EU, for an American company - Yes. Google. Microsoft. Amazon.
In the EU, for a European company, they actively promote that. Airbus. RBS. BP.
In the US, for an American company - Only if they reach some completely arbitrary threshold of "too big", which at least since Standard Oil has apparently applies solely to technology companies, while the banking industry can snort blow off the asses of underage Filipino prostitutes with impunity. AT&T and Microsoft, vs Goldman Sachs and Fannie.
For symmetry I would mention "In the US, for a European company", but see no point in dealing with purely hypothetical situations.
I'm attempting to figure out what Google has done that has functioned as an antitrust-type of scenario...
Search engines? At the time they came out there was a crowded market in Internet search. There are still competitors that come and go, and Google does not appear to be interested in buying them out.
Advertising? Last time I checked, Doubleclick was not the only ad-delivery that's blocked by my adblocker...
Mail? Gmail is certainly not the only e-mail provider, by a longshot, and most of us who've migrated to it have done so because it's proven to be long-term reliable so our e-mail addresses haven't had to change.
Calendaring, collaboration, productivity suites, file storage? No, lots of companies do those things.
Web Browsers? Given that I'm typing this using a Mozilla browser...
Operating Systems? Android has competition with iOS, and to a lesser extent with Windows Phone and Blackberry. Chrome is in its relative infancy, competing with MacOS, Windows, GNU/Linux, and even Android.
Maps? I can get maps from several providers.
I won't deny, Google does one hell of a good job integrating their various services, and they're also willing to modify their services at-will. They provide platforms for which others can develop things to either use features of Google's services or can integrate their own services, but they are willing to yank the floor out from under someone's creation with little or no notice. But, they're not usually charging the developer or user of this third-party addon either, so it's hard to claim that they're not in their rights to do this.
If the issue is the very nature of the tight integration, where a user will go from using Google's search engine to using their maps, calendar, e-mail, etc, again I point out that they've made the entire process of using these systems very smooth, and that when a Google service has proven to be clunky people don't use it. They also don't stop competitors like Microsoft or even Yahoo from developing their own integrated suites.
I'd really like to know what's considered antitrust...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
If you had to completely obliterate all competition before you could be prosecuted for anticompetitive action, it would completely defeat the purpose of the legislation.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Google's revised proposals have not been made public and were only sent to 125 interested parties who were warned that they were not to be made public.
Apparently they never heard the maxim that the only way to keep a secret is if just two people know and one of them is dead.
It has nothing to do with size. AT&T and Microsoft were engaged in specific, targetted actions against their competitors, while Goldman Sachs and Fannie Mae were not. You should have taken the fact that you had to introduce arbitrary-looking exceptions to your hypothesis as a warning that because your hypothesis was wrong.
You've missed a prerequisite here.
The things that AT&T and Microsoft got busted for, while specific and targeted, don't break the law when done by a "not too big" company.
If you wrote your own OS today, and bundled your own browser with it, specifically and targetedly intending to undercut Microsoft's sales - You have done absolutely nothing wrong. You could even brag about your attempts in your SEC filings, and comfortably remain on the legal side of the fence.
Microsoft's actions only crossed into antitrust territory because they exceed a magic (and completely arbitrary) threshold for size.
Perhaps instead of modding this as flameait, you should ue a search engine, perhaps even Bing, where you can find Reuters articles and other with information like the following:
"Lobby group FairSearch, whose members include complainants Microsoft, online travel agency Expedia and British price comparison site Foundem, expressed doubts over the effectiveness of Google's proposal.
"It seems that no genuinely significant changes have been made to the initial proposal, so it is difficult to see how the new package can hope to solve the competition concerns Mr Almunia (the EU Competition Commissioner, Joaquin Almunia) has declared must be addressed," FairSearch lawyer Thomas Vinje said.
ICOMP, another lobby group that that counts Microsoft and four other complainants among its members, agreed."
I see Microsoft is putting those Android patent dollars to good use.
When the EU took action against Microsoft, IE had about a 60% share in Europe... and falling.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?