Microsoft to senators: Google-DoubleClick deal is bad for America
Wednesday night, my colleague Anne Broache and I posted our article previewing the U.S. Senate hearing Thursday where Microsoft and Google will face off regarding the search company's attempt to purchase DoubleClick.
The hearing is about to start and can be watched via Webcast. Anne is there and will be writing about the hearing later Thursday.
Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith, during the company's antitrust trial in 2003
(Credit: Declan McCullagh/mccullagh.org)That article previewed Google's arguments. Now we have a copy of Microsoft's prepared remarks by Brad Smith, the company's general counsel, and we're sharing this excerpt. Smith, no newcomer to antitrust fights, says the merger would be bad for publishers, advertisers and consumers--the "bad for America" argument:
I will be the first to admit that Microsoft is not disinterested in this issue; competitors never are. But I do think we're in a good position of identifying important questions. We know this market very well. And it is absolutely clear to us that this merger raises serious questions that deserve serious answers.
I would like to address two of those questions briefly:
First, what are the economic consequences of allowing the largest company in online advertising to acquire its most significant competitor?
While there are millions of Web sites and advertisers on the Internet, there are actually a very small number of "intermediaries" that provide the tools and services that connect them. These intermediaries play a gateway or middleman role if you will, much like the natural gas pipelines that connect refineries to distributors and to consumers in their homes. If you are a Web site and want to sell ad space on your site, or if you are an advertiser who wants to display your ads online, you have to work with them or one of their intermediaries.
Already Google is the dominant company for one of the two main types of online advertising--namely online search ads. Roughly 70 percent of global spending on search-based advertising today flows through Google's AdWords.
If Google is allowed to proceed with this merger, it will also obtain a dominant gateway position over the other main type of online advertising: non-search ads. Today Google and DoubleClick are the two largest competitors in this area. Combined, Google will account for nearly 80 percent of all spending on non-search ads.
If Google and DoubleClick are allowed to merge, Google will become the overwhelmingly dominant pipeline for all forms of online advertising.
This merger will almost certainly result in higher profits for the operator of the dominant advertising pipeline, but it will be bad for everyone else. It will be bad for publishers, bad for advertisers, and most importantly, bad for consumers.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
Who cares about Google-Doubleclick merger??? Google want's DoubleClick for their advertisement reach not their user information. DoubleClick already knows gathers info about people whether you like it or not. Everyone might as well let Google have it....
But, something bad being common does not mean it is "no big deal" in my book. Nobody should be able to track people like Google, Yahoo, and DoubleClick do.
However, MS saying that is a bit like Rosie or Imus saying someone is an ill mannered jerk.
Microsoft complaining about a monopoly? That's like the UN
representative in Darfur complaining about human rights violations
in Bangladesh.
hate most of their products, but sadly, I have to agree with
Microsoft, simply because, this time, they are correct about
Google.
I have read a most chilling tail of just how EVIL 'the First-Do-
No-Evil' company is as reported below by worldnetdaily, the
largest news site on the internet!
Basically, they go on to prove how Google can, have and will
steal advertising space from their competitors.
I don't care who stands up to Google, just as long as someone
does - someone with clout, or they will make the Microsoft
monopoly case look trivial.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?" target="_newWindow">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?</a>
ARTICLE_ID=57274
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?" target="_newWindow">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?</a>
ARTICLE_ID=57274
don't like monopolies unless they are owned by Microsoft. Your
comments are so sad. No matter how hard you tried to out-
Google Google you failed, so now you turn your attack dogs
loose on the senate.
Oh, protect us from this nasty Google monopoly that we couldn't
beat at their own game. Stick it to them so we can reap the
monopoly statues here too. We are the good guys so we can be
a monopoly. We know what is good for our consumers. and
everyone knows whatever we do is only dome for our consumers
better interests.
Nice try Brad, but it looks to me like you haven't been taking
your meds lately.
It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with Microsoft regarding its own products. In this case, Microsoft is actually RIGHT. Some of you seem to be so caught up in hatred for Microsoft that you don't recognize when you're on the SAME SIDE. I'm supporting Microsoft on this because I'd rather see more competition than less in the online advertising market. It's difficult to fathom how anyone here could possibly be against greater competition, lower prices, and better service.
We all know about Microsoft's past and current abuses against the consumer and technology in general, so do we really want to open the door for Microsoft to take this market for themselves? After all they just purchased their own advertising company for 6 billion.
I think not. I would rather Google be the monopoly than Microsoft.
It seems downright unfair to not allow Google to compete when Microsoft is allowed to abuse consumers with it's monopoly and then using their inertia to move into Google's main business.
the bottleneck of intermediate/middleware software and
companies where innovation and the free market get rigged in
ways that are invisible to the public.
Let's give MS the opportunity to show us how they do it and hold
Google and they to the same standards.
MS may be correct, but they are like Stalin telling Roosevelt that
the Nazi's are bad .... yeah, so ....
I guess Ballmer can't handle 2 x 2 trick ponies.
Nay.
Google's 1 (revenue) trick is text ads. But now they want banners too.
A bit hypocritical of Microsoft isn't it?
I hope the Senators see this for what it is. If Google can't purchase DoubleClick, then Microsoft should also be split into two, i.e., Desktop and Server.
Otherwise there is no consistency and we have a double standard.
- Microsoft - downhill from now ...
- by jtjt145 September 27, 2007 3:50 PM PDT
- When the biggest monopolist in the country complains about another party succeed where they self didn't, you know things are bad for them.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(22 Comments)I hope my fellow Americans won't fall for their infantile whimpering.
Looking at their latest performance, they are not doing too well out there:
- Vista - their latest and greatest: Its a looser according to PC makers who are offering down-grades to Windows XP.
- their shareprice, (allegedly) artificially held up, by them selves (pardon me, their agents) buying their shares.
- all over the world the FOSS initiative is getting growing momentum. Governments deciding to use alternatives to MicroSofts software.
- their attempt to force their data format OOXML on the international community has been recognized at what it is - an unworkable format for anyone who does not use their proprietary software.
Poor, old Microsoft, a fading software giant...
Ron McCallum
CIO