FTC's Internal Memo On Google Teaches Companies a Terrible Lesson

schwit1 writes FTC staffers spent enormous time pouring through Google's business practices and documents as well as interviewing executives and rivals. They came to the conclusion that Google was acting in anti-competitive ways, such as restricting advertisers from working with rival search engines. But commissioners balked at the prospect of a lengthy and protracted legal fight. For a big company, that process may have been enlightening. Agency staffers might find evidence of anti-competitive behavior. But that doesn't mean the firm will face the music in the end. Previous attempts to go after big companies — such as the Justice Department's long-running antitrust case against Microsoft in the 1990s — loomed large in regulators' minds at the time of the Google probe, according to a former official who worked at the agency then. "Even if we were in the right and could win," said the former official, "it could take a lot of resources away from other enforcement."

Comments

Too Big to Nail

[Mycroft-X]

Ah, the efficient use of government resources trumps justice. Must be a first!

Re:Too Big to Nail

[gallen1234]

The efficient use of limited funding. How big a tax increase would you be willing to support to fully fund their operation?

Re:Too Big to Nail

[EmeraldBot]

Ah, the efficient use of government resources trumps justice. Must be a first!

Realistically speaking though, the FTC is understaffed as it is, and what resources they have are stretched. A lawsuit against Google is going to be a very long, costly affair, and it would ultimately come down to a battle of attrition. Even if the FTC won, what would change? They would just appeal the decision, and if they won, there goes however many millions down the drain, along with a huge reputation hit. Google can easily fund any such fight; this part of the government cannot. It's a pretty sad day when a corporation of our society has more wealth than the representation of society itself.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[gstoddart]

You mean all those corporate tax cuts which were handed to them which was supposed to trickle down to the rest of us?

Sorry, but bitching about the tax increases on corporations which would be required to enforce the law against those same damned corporations is absurd.

It's the years of giving corporations tax breaks and loop holes which is why there isn't sufficient tax base for this stuff.

How much money does Google and other large corporations effectively launder through international loopholes?

And how much money are the wealthy politicians hiding, and how much tax breaks have been given to the wealthy -- again, under the lie that it would trickle down to the rest of us.

Thirty years of tax policy has only served to make the corporations and the wealthy have even more money, while the rest of us starve ... and now we bitch that those tax cuts have made it impossible to apply the fucking law.

Just bloody awesome.

Welcome to the fucking oligarchy, kiddies. It's all downhill from here.

Eat the damned rich, and stop pretending that lining their pockets helps the rest of society.

Unfortunately it's greedy rich assholes, under the payroll of greedy rich corporations, who pass the laws -- laws designed to line the pockets of greedy rich assholes.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[Lunix Nutcase]

No, more like purposefully underfunded and understaffed agency can't afford enforcement against megacorps.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[Lunix Nutcase]

So it's okay to use your large marketshare to be anti-competitive as long as your Google?

Re:Too Big to Nail

[ShanghaiBill]

The efficient use of limited funding. How big a tax increase would you be willing to support to fully fund their operation?

We could fund it the same way we fund class action lawsuits: By giving the lawyers a big slice of the penalty if they win, and nothing if they lose. That way Google would end up funding their own prosecution, and no tax dollars would be needed.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[IamTheRealMike]

Ah, the efficient use of government resources trumps justice. Must be a first!

You're assuming that whatever a few FTC staffers think up and write down in an internal report is "justice".

That's not justice. That's the divided opinions of a few bureaucrats.

The reason the FTC would have had to spend a lot of time and money on an anti-trust case against Google is the underlying laws are vague and the arguments subtle and complex. Google would have mounted highly effective counter-arguments and there would be no guarantee of winning the case. If the case was won, what then? The FTC's goal is to try and improve the market, or so they say, but winning a court case doesn't automatically fix anything. And if they lost, questions would have been asked about why they weren't using those resources to pursue clearer cut issues.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[gl4ss]

make them work with less? they're employed to the job anyways, so it's puzzling how doing the job needs so much more funding. it needs them to do WORK sure.

besides than which in many countries it would be a crime for officials to come to this conclusion and not do anything, but apparently in not in the backroom deal plea paradise of USA().

Re:Too Big to Nail

[Hussman32]

We could fund it the same way we fund class action lawsuits: By giving the lawyers a big slice of the penalty if they win, and nothing if they lose. That way Google would end up funding their own prosecution, and no tax dollars would be needed.

I'm not sure paying the lawyers more will help anything, tort law is already the cause of more problems than it solves.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[Anonymous Coward]

And how much money are the wealthy politicians hiding, and how much tax breaks have been given to the wealthy -- again, under the lie that it would trickle down to the rest of us.

The big deceit about trickle-down economics is the promise that what trickles down would be green, not yellow.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[ultranova]

We could fund it the same way we fund class action lawsuits: By giving the lawyers a big slice of the penalty if they win, and nothing if they lose. That way Google would end up funding their own prosecution, and no tax dollars would be needed.

Google would also fund its own defence. I'm not sure if giving FTC effectively unlimited resources would be a good idea, since wouldn't it basically allow them to do the RIAA?

Re:Too Big to Nail

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Exactly this.

Everybody out there. You think you're overtaxed? Newsflash: you are. Big time. You pay way the hell too much in taxes. Really. Know why? It's not because of a bunch of fat cat government civil servants living the high life (except for political appointees, those are so hard to find that individual instances make big time news--right after the arrest for whatever crime they were committing of course). No, the reason you're overtaxed is because CORPORATIONS ARE UNDERTAXED. Period.

Don't even think about starting in with the whiny "the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world" bullshit either. I don't care what the tax rate is. I care what gets paid, and what gets paid is nowhere near that rate. They have a high rate for propaganda, and then they tax break and loophole and rebate their way to barely paying anything--and some of the libertarian idiots out there want to cut their taxes even more.

It's time we figure out who the contributors and who the freeloaders are in this economy, and it isn't what you hear on the bought and paid for nightly news throwing softball pre-approved questions to the bought and paid for politicians either.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[gbjbaanb]

We'll just have to do it ourselves then, we need a massive internet campaign that reveals Google's new branding : "We do evil".

Re:Too Big to Nail

[gbjbaanb]

such as restricting advertisers from working with rival search engines

Maybe there is no counter-argument here, and that they are guilty as sin. Just the cost of lawyering up is the only thing stopping them being brought to book. You make it sound like the allegations are just rumour and trivia.

Its pretty reasonable to suggest that justice is not being done at all here - despite what could easily be plain anti-competitive practices. That no-one will take it to court to test it means there is no justice for anyone, an allegation hanging over Google and whatever bad practices they perpetrate continue.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[Stan92057]

As long as politicians except money from the corporate tit, nothing will ever change. We desperately need campaign reform desperately. Also when they do get fined it should actually hurt how many times has Google been fined so far?

Re:Too Big to Nail

[hawguy]

The efficient use of limited funding. How big a tax increase would you be willing to support to fully fund their operation?

If they really believe they will prevail in the end, at a minimum, the resulting punishment should include a fine large enough to cover the agency's costs of pursuing the case, then no tax dollars would be needed.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[jythie]

Prosecuting something like this involves hiring more people and paying 3rd parties for various services related to the action. Basicly, they lack the manpower to fight something like this. They are already doing their jobs, which means they can not easily do extra jobs in addition to it.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[jythie]

It is also one of the sad parts of our legal system that on the one end people tend to lack the resources to fight, and on the other, wealthy people (and groups) can swamp the government and essentially have too much money for the state to fight them. That so much in our legal system depends on how much cash you have and how much justice you can afford is one of its great failings. Or great successes if you ask the libertarians.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[jythie]

Many people believe that there is nothing wrong with anticompetitive practices, all that 'might makes right' and 'free market' stuff.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[Jane Q. Public]

The "free market" is a complete and unmitigated fucking lie.

There will always be distorting factors -- like companies forming cartels to screw over everybody else, or morons who think corporations should have free speech, or idiots who think the free market is a real thing.

That's one of the things government is supposed to be for. A free market system requires real and enforced antitrust laws in order to remain free.

When government, as now, is not properly enforcing its antitrust laws and obligations, you end up with situations like we have now. That isn't a problem with "free markets", it's very clearly a problem with government.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[gstoddart]

No, it's a problem with governments, being beholden to corporations, trying to force corporations to stop being regulated, but doing it in a ham handed way which can't work.

So every idiot who keeps telling us how awesome the free market will be once they force it on all of us is trying to make sure governments have no power over corporations, and undermining their ability to do anything.

Unfortunately the people who believe that, once forced upon us, the free markets will bring us the bright shining future ... well, they have no more facts and certainty of the outcomes than Stalin did.

I see the forcing of your ideology on the world as being little different when it's sociopathic capitalists, or sociopathic communists.

It's some clown willing to let the world burn to bring about their ideological purity. In its pure form, capitalism and communism are both inherently dangerous ideologies, believed dogmatically by people, and which rest on assumptions which CANNOT be true for the simple fact they they ignore human nature and reality.

A free market is a lie. Communism is a lie. Killing government so we can live in some fucking Libertarian fantasy is a fucking lie.

The world full of clowns who are so damned convinced they hold Holy Fucking Truth, and are willing to force the rest of us to play along.

Those people should be fucking shot.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[Jane Q. Public]

No, it's a problem with governments, being beholden to corporations, trying to force corporations to stop being regulated, but doing it in a ham handed way which can't work.

This in no way contradicts what I wrote above. So why you begin it with "No" is a bit of a mystery to me.

So every idiot who keeps telling us how awesome the free market will be once they force it on all of us is trying to make sure governments have no power over corporations, and undermining their ability to do anything.

A free market wasn't "forced" on you. Read some history. That's the way this country started. And I have a big clue for you: it has been doing WORSE the more the government has been interfering, in its admittedly ham-handed way.

The thing you're missing here is that government interference with markets will always be ham-handed. Government will never have the necessary amount of information to centrally plan the economy. Many have tried, all have failed.

Antitrust is one of the few legitimate roles government can play in the economy, and be effective. But it hasn't been bothering.

"Crony capitalism" is not capitalism. It is "corporatism", also known as Fascism. It's not my fault if you get them confused.

Re: Too Big to Nail

[jhoger]

So you think environmental laws are unnecessary? Then you are willing to live in a sewer. Look up Tragedy of the Commons. It obliterated libertarianism absolutely.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[Damarkus13]

No, the Federal budget is about 35% of GDP. The only event that caused it to break 50% was WWII, and the only event since then that caused it to break 40% was the bailouts.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[Damarkus13]

This would still require them to be quite confident of a victory before beginning prosecution.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[shentino]

Maybe that's because we can't even issue money without borrowing it from the fed.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[IamTheRealMike]

You've only heard one side of the story. Perhaps Google would argue it wasn't really like that at all.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[stoatwblr]

The Free Market can only be created and maintained by govt.

Mercantilism policies of the 18th to early-20th centuries clearly show that in the absence of govt intervention, the market tends towards abusive monopolies which are anything BUT free.

The biggest problem in the USA's "free market" economy over the last 30 years has been lack of intervention to keep it free. As a result the market is inevitably moving back to mercantilism.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[stoatwblr]

> A free market wasn't "forced" on you. Read some history. That's the way this country started.

The modern Free Market is a lot better for the overall economy than mercantilism policies of the past - which were proven to concentrate wealth and power into a few hands over a 250 year period

Free Market - means free and fair competition, not freedom from regulation.

By the way, the REAL reason for the Boston Tea party was a removal of import taxes. Smugglers bringing untaxed tea into the colonies had been making out like bandits and had large stockpiles of the contraband onhand when the import tax was suddenly removed, leaving them with the prospect of selling at a substantial loss. What was thrown in the harbour was the first shipment of legal _untaxed_ tea and it was done in order to protect the smugglers' livlihoods.

It's arguably one of the first examples of unfair market manipulation by traders and Americans celebrate it like it was a good thing.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[stoatwblr]

There are two sides to the coin. All those loopholes and exemptions make the tax gathering system inefficient.

By simplifying the tax system, goverments can lower taxation rates whilst increasing their net take, due to lower compliance costs.

Fantasy? No: It's been done. http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/ta... - The Taxation system in New Zealand is one of the most efficient in the world.

It takes a strong govt with the necessary cojones to NOT give in to vested interests. New Zealand in 1984 was in an unusual position in that the incoming govt went in on a massive landslide and the previous decade's worth of vote-buying policies had effectively bankrupted the country, so the govt was able to undertake drastic reforms.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[Talderas]

Its pretty reasonable to suggest that justice is not being done at all here - despite what could easily be plain anti-competitive practices. That no-one will take it to court to test it means there is no justice for anyone, an allegation hanging over Google and whatever bad practices they perpetrate continue.

This is, perhaps surprisingly, not an entirely bad situation. The FTC isn't going after Google but it is known they aren't going to after Google for this behavior because of the expense and Google's size. The good that comes from it is that there may be other companies that were considering this practice and now they know what the FTC was going to do and why they didn't do it. They're probably not nearly as wealthy or large as Google and would be an easier target for the FTC to go after.

This is obviously not as good an outcome as going after Google and winning the case but it is also probably a better outcome than going after Google and losing the case.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[Jane Q. Public]

The modern Free Market is a lot better for the overall economy than mercantilism policies of the past - which were proven to concentrate wealth and power into a few hands over a 250 year period.

Free Market - means free and fair competition, not freedom from regulation.

I didn't say it should be "free from regulation". Just free from irresponsible, interventionist regulation.

Antitrust has been known to be an essential tool for keeping free markets free, at least since the days of Adam Smith. However, antitrust is not the same as the other kinds of government "interventionism" we see today, which history pretty clearly shows over the past 100+ years to be failed economic policy.

It didn't work for FDR, it didn't work for Carter, or Nixon, or Reagan, or Bush, and it sure as hell hasn't worked for Obama. Our economy is still largely stagnant... after more than 6 years!

That by itself should tell you something. Pre- Keynesian "government-interventionist" economic policy, we recovered from economic slumps in less than 2 years... usually less than one.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[MoarSauce123]

I had the exact same thought, but you worded it much better. The only option the FTC has is to publish reports of its findings without initiating legal action. It might be sufficient to publicly shame companies and generate enough backlash. In the end companies do not cave to lawsuits, they cave when the money stops coming in. Not sure if it is legal, but the FTC cold outsource litigation to private lawyers who if they win the case get a cut from the settlement. I am sure there are plenty of greedy lawyers who would jump at that opportunity.

Re:Too Big to Nail

[MoarSauce123]

Why tax increase? Divert money away from the NSA. In comparison, the FTC generates results while the NSA has nothing to show for other than utter ignorance of laws.

So like the banks and Wall Street

[smooth wombat]

"We know they committed fraud and lied to investors, but really, they're just too big to do anything about so here, here's $700 billion of taxpayer money so you can pay your bonuses."

One step closer to fascism.

Re:So like the banks and Wall Street

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution would be a step closer to Fascism, by hiring more police to be able to handle the bigger or more numerous cases. This closer to something like a step towards an Oligarchy or the natural result of an unrestricted free market.

When companies make more money than countries, they become pan-national entities that wield just as much power with less responsibility (don't have to mandate legal system, defense, social security, etc.). In an interesting result, this gives more reason to support a progressive taxes and an increase in minimum wage, to remove power from the top and give it to the workers (low / middle class) just on principle instead of some economic ideology.

Re:So like the banks and Wall Street

[wiredlogic]

More like "Here's my bona fides. Please keep me in mind when it comes time for me to leave for the private sector and you need some wheels greased"

This is why markets are not a good model for govt

[blue trane]

The government should not be constrained by market assumptions, such as that resources are limited because of efficient allocation. The government operates on principles, such as unalienable rights, that markets do not value.

Cost of Enforcement v.s. Benefit to Society

[Aero77]

This is a universal truism that fits to all law enforcement actions. If a crime is too common to police universally, the law will be applied selectively. If you could convince every defendant of a specific crime to fight the charge in court, that would influence the prosecution of that crime. While every prosecutor would pursue crimes that have an obvious harm to society, prosecution of 'victim-less' crimes would drop off in the face of consistent & vigorous defense. The 'law & order' works because most defendants don't aggressively defend themselves in court.

Re:Too big

[gweihir]

I do not think that crash can be averted. Too many people with power do not have any common sense. Eventually, that ends a culture. History is full of examples.

Too Big To Face Justice

[QuietLagoon]

Why are corporations now free to act above the law?

Re:Too Big To Face Justice

[Moof123]

They are not black.

Re:Too Big To Face Justice

[fyngyrz]

"now"?

Re:Too Big To Face Justice

[thegarbz]

Oh don't worry it's not just the corporations. Politicians and rich people are above the law too.

MS was saved by Bush DoJ

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's illegal monopoly was spared a break-up by the dept. of Justice's 180 degree turn to a settlement -- that happened right after the Bush presidency started. Read about the case here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Judgment

Re:simple solution to the Google problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is becoming impossible to avoid. I know because I try. You can still easily block Google ads on most sites, except the really big ones like eBay. You can use other search engines. But that's about it. Far too many web sites rely on *.googleapis.com, and not just for maps. Far too many people use GMail addresses or forward their mail to GMail. It doesn't matter that I don't use it when my emails end up in their system anyway. Some universities have Google operate their mandatory student email addresses. Far too many people use Chrome. Far too many people store all my communication with them, my address, my birthday and anything else they know about me on their Android phones with Google services, diligently backed up to Google's servers. Far too many people think that being critical of Google is unpatriotic.

I can help

[fyngyrz]

You mean all those corporate tax cuts which were handed to them which was supposed to trickle down to the rest of us?

Trickle down economics carefully explained

Re:I can help

[Austerity Empowers]

Doesn't show the magic, how all the wine/champagne ends up in overseas investments, banks and other tax avoidance holes. It's positively great if you don't actually live in a western country.

Re:I can help

[lucien86]

The really scary thing is when you do the long term extrapolation.. In fifty years the whole world will be roughly equal - a global equal third world of poor. Democracy will be even more irrelevant than today, everyone will be poor and powerless, and a tiny super ultra-elite will rule the world and own everything..

The third world is a true capitalist society, no one gets anything they don't pay for - healthcare, school for children, social justice, police protection from crime, food or shelter on destitution. The poor will go back to being expendable, beggars, or forced to steal to live, or for the most part dead. That is the ultimate long term direction of travel and maybe the desired aim, to create a global paradise for themselves by killing most of us.. starving us out - and it will be totally legal. The Capitalist Globalist version of Pol Pot...

other enforcement?

[meeotch]

What "other enforcement"? o.k., presumably the FTC is doing other things with their time than just antitrust. But if you're talking about getting the largest enforcement effect for your tax dollar, wouldn't going after a huge company be a good buy? 1) big company = big effect (in $) on the market. 2) big company = big news = littler companies telling themselves, "Well, if google can't get away with it, than neither can we."

I'd be interested to see the actual numbers behind this comment. It smells to me like not just a case of maximum efficiency, but rather a total imbalance in the numbers. Either google is so huge that they can outspend the U.S. Government - in which case, um, antitrust? Or alternatively, it's code for, "We're stretched so thin that we genuinely can't do our job."

But, hey - limited government, right? Thank God we don't have fascist socialist muslim regulators preventing Google from coming up with yet another half-baked product that they abandon as soon as someone finds it useful.

Re:other enforcement?

[Livius]

What "other enforcement"?

Against Google's competitors, obviously.

Here we go

[ArcadeMan]

After the banks and car companies which are "too big to fail", we've got Google/etc which are "too big to sue".

U.S.A., land of the free*

* if you have enough money

Time "better spent" going after mom-and-pop

[perpenso]

Yes the federal employee will be paid win or lose. But the goal is for the federal employee to generate revenue, to bring in money. Their time is "better spent" going after some mom-and-pop shop that can't afford to defend themselves and will just pay the fine.

Re:Time "better spent" going after mom-and-pop

[TapeCutter]

Please name a "mom and pop shop" that has been investigated for anti-trust behaviour, just one will do.

Re:Time "better spent" going after mom-and-pop

[perpenso]

Please name a "mom and pop shop" that has been investigated for anti-trust behaviour, just one will do.

This thread begins with "the efficient use of government resources trumps justice". That is a general statement not exclusive to anti-trust.

Re:This is why markets are not a good model for go

[roman_mir]

Wrong, it's the governments (of the world actually) that do not value unalienable rights. That is the only reason USA used to be known as unique, it had those rights built into the Constitution and then eventually as those rights allowed the markets to create the wealthiest economy in the world in 19th century, the collectivists saw that as an opportunity to steal and pushed for destruction of what made USA unique - protecting those rights.

Markets value what individuals value on voluntary basis and individuals on voluntary basis making individual choices do value their own freedom to possess and operate private property. That's the most important right that governments of the world violate every minute of every day.

AFAIC it is absolutely Google's business and nobody else's how they provide results to the search queries sent to their servers. Governments involving themselves into that process is destruction of the unalienable rights, destruction of private property rights, just like all business regulations, all income and wealth related taxes, pretty much everything governments do every moment of every day.

Myth: Fascism promotes corporations

[perpenso]

One step closer to fascism.

I realize it is currently trendy to believe that fascism is somehow related to corporate control but it is not. Fascism is an odd combination of far right *and* far left ideas. With respect to industry its actually socialistic. Fascism promotes control of industry by syndicates of workers *not* control by corporations.

Re:Myth: Fascism promotes corporations

[Bing Tsher E]

So, then, Fascism is more like the General Motors bailout.

Re:This is why markets are not a good model for go

[Cyberdyne]

The government should not be constrained by market assumptions, such as that resources are limited because of efficient allocation.

That's not a "market assumption", it's plain old reality: resources are finite, so you need priorities. If a cop pulls someone over for speeding, then sees an armed robbery in progress, or a paramedic is treating someone's sprained ankle then a bystander has a heart attack, do you want them to stick to what they were doing and reject the notion of priorities as being a "market assumption"? I'd rather they focus their efforts on the higher priority, because that gives the best outcomes.

In this case, the FTC had more pressing enforcement jobs, like telemarketing scams, the fight with cellphone companies over ripoff premium services ... they felt putting their resources there made more sense than fighting Google over the order of search results, and I'm not at all sure they were wrong about that.

By coincidence, I was discussing law enforcement priorities at work on Friday (we teach computer forensics for law enforcement, among other things); unlike the world of CSI, real law enforcement doesn't go spending days testing out an obscure theory, or digging into every possible detail of each case: they do enough work on a case to pass it to the next stage, then get on with the next case. No "market" - there just aren't an unlimited number of hours in each forensic caseworker's day.

I call BS..

[fred911]

None of the linked articles state any charge of breaking the law. Looks like regulators have done an in-depth investigation and found no evidence and have used the media to cover their ass. All we see are accusations that their shopping search engine used to (or may had have) rank results that they participated in higher, and they had captive agreements with business partners. But where are the specific charges and evidence?

  The links states " Google was acting in anti-competitive ways". Leads one to believe that that is not the current situation. With new technology (wonder why we have such long beta services) errors will be made, it's the companies responsibility to create the highest RIO it can. Specifically speaking, if I run a shopping service wouldn't I want to present the most profitable product first? If I am not participating how will I assure future survival and with a publicly traded company, how does this protect the investor?

  I don't buy excuse that they are too scared to litigate or prosecute a violation of law. If it's true, the regulatory agency needs to be replaced, isn't their primary function to uphold the law?

  Recent media coverage seems like, "Hey boss we took the whole fleet fishing for the past few months, spent a bunch of money and came back with an empty hull". The recent media coverage seems like smear to me.

Re:I call BS..

[ckatko]

People here love to hate Google, but they never bother to list any facts. Meanwhile, just five years ago, (see Internet Archive) everyone here was wishing Google would do anything and everything. They wanted more, more, more.

I've seen zero changes in their policies. But now, they've somehow become the devil--even while trying to protect Net Neutrality and gay rights.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is still shipping broken software and walling in UEFI, Apple is the North Korea of software platforms, and Canonical keeps trying to change the face of Linux by tossing out their existing userbase (Nintendo Wii anyone?).

But let's focus on Google. After all, I'm forced to use their products. Oh wait, no standard anywhere requires me to use their services at all. Isn't it terrible how we're required to use Google Drive over Dropbox to get a job? Nope. Isn't it terrible how we're required to use Google over Bing when we ship a PC? Nope. Isn't it terrible how we're required to use Google Docs over OpenOffice when we make a contract? Nope. I believe the answer you're looking for was Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft.

Re:I call BS..

[chowdahhead]

According to the WSJ article, it seems that Google has been willing to compromise on the main concerns that FTC staff raised, and modified some of their business practices as a result. There's nothing egregious remaining that would warrant a Federal lawsuit and that's why it was dropped. I think the EU also spent something like 4 years investigating Google and has found themselves in the same position. That's why some are calling for Google to be a regulated utility, which is completely ludicrous, but it would allow them to circumvent the process that they feel stuck in now.

Ahh yes

[Anonymous Coward]

The result of the Republican efforts to create a government that "Can be drowned in a teacup" has resulted in government agencies that can in fact be drowned by insufficient resources.

Wins and fines vs justice

[perpenso]

This portion of the gov't does not work on a market model, it works on a revenue generation model. What generates more revenue, having staff go after mega corporations that can afford to defend themselves or much smaller businesses that can not?

So many problem in business and government exist because the incentives/rewards are screwed up. In business school there is a recurring lesson that shows up in many varied topics. You don't get what you ask for. You don't get what everyone agrees is right. You get what you reward. So if you reward a gov't bureaucrat based on win/loss ratio and/or fines generated you will not get justice, you will get wins and fines.

Re:This is why markets are not a good model for go

[quintessencesluglord]

That gets dicey, from everything to perpetual war (thank god the last depression reeled in our Middle East adventures) to reexamining drug laws after 40 years of paying for prisons for the drug war. If it weren't for market assumptions, that madness might have never ended.

Besides, this is the same lie that was told regarding the lack of prosecution for the banking scandals, while accepting million dollar fines for billion dollar frauds, yet there is absolutely no problem in finding the 2.7 million per prisoner to keep Guantanamo open. It's handing waving away the problem, as that is much more media friendly than a simple fuck you, we'll do what we want.

Yeah, but...

[rnturn]

``Even if we were in the right and could win,'' said the former official, ``it could take a lot of resources away from other enforcement.''

A side effect of following up and taking an offending company to court just might be that other companies might clean up their act lest they suffer the same fate. ``Sternly-worded'' letters haven't done squat to end anti-competitive practices. The fines, though, have helped to make some money for the government. Not like that does anything to the groups who've been screwed by the anti-competitive practices. All they get is a warm and fuzzy feeling that some justice has been done. At least until a future Justice Deptartment decides to look the other way again.

Political Climate

[rsilvergun]

with the far right in power at the moment and no credible left wing in America it's pretty much a waste of time/effort to go after a big corp. The right is openly against anti-trust regulation (among other forms of regulation), and if all else fails they'll just cut the agency's funding until enforcement stops. It's a side effect of our screwed up political system. Gerrymandering plus our Senate makes it cheap and easy to put a little pressure in the right place and completely control our politics. That wasn't by accident either. It was designed that way because wealthy land owners were afraid of the plebes voting themselves land & food.

Re:"pouring" through... LOL

[Hognoxious]

No excuse, it's not even pronounced the same.

"Even if we were in the right and could win"

[memph]

you'd never here about it on google searches :)

Give a hoot. Read a book

[mrbester]

Preferably a dictionary so you can spell "poring" correctly...

A Working Economy

[JimSadler]

This situation is an example of an economy that has never had a base. It is also proof of a system that has been corrupted. The congress will never pass laws that would correct the problem in that one way or another the congressmen are on the take. For example we could pass a law that bans complex contracts. To enforce that law we simply put a rule into play that if challenged as being a complex contract and the challenge is upheld the complaining party must always win a complete recovery plus legal fees. We can also continue to tax companies that try to offshore divisions of their business. For example if GM wants to make all car seats in Mexico we can add an import tax and also fine them if they do not pay American minimum wages. Further we should allow only individuals to contribute to political campaigns and not corporations and we should cap individual contributions at $100.. Many things could be done to have a rational and just society but they will not be done due to capitalism corrupting the entire political system.