Microsoft connection looms in new Google lawsuit

TradeComet.com has sued Google, claiming that the search company abused its market dominance to "squash" competition.

Rick Rule, who works for the company's law firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, claimed that SourceTool.com and its subsidiary, TradeComet.com, "had a thriving business before Google decided to eliminate them as a competitor...We believe this complaint has strong merit and represents a serious antitrust violation."

It also turns out that Rule helped represent Microsoft during that company's antitrust battle with the United States government. The Cadwalader law firm also was employed by Microsoft on its failed bid to acquire Yahoo.

In its statement, which was issued late Tuesday, TradeComet said it filed the lawsuit "when Google refused to stop engaging in predatory conduct to block search traffic by imposing massive, unjustified price increases. Google's anti-competitive conduct eliminated TradeComet as a competitor."

TradeComet.com said that its business-to-business search engine subsidiary was targeted by Google, which "then engaged in illegal conduct to diminish and ultimately extinguish SourceTool.com's platform."

A spokesman for Google said that the company's lawyers had not had a chance to review the lawsuit. But in a statement, Google said that "the advertising market in which Google operates is highly competitive and advertisers have a huge range of choices."

[irperez]

Its about time. I remember reading about this company and how Google didn't have a good answer as to why they raised the rates... When users have no choice, things quickly go south.

[shoonya]

Where is Microsoft connection in the report ? Without any proof or evidence STOP sensationalizing the report

[emancipated]

There is a strained connection, ref: National Enquirer.

[Vegaman_Dan]

The connection is that the same lawfirm represented Microsoft on unrelated court cases. That same legal firm has a lot of customers in the tech industry, so this is a pretty long stretch to try to link it to Microsoft.

Even if was linked, it doesn't change the entire point of the lawsuit- how Google used its position and power to squash all competition. Microsoft has been accused of the very same thing in the past with Internet Explorer. It should be interesting to see people use the same argument here.

[Dylan_Wisor]

Go capitalism!

[shootthecops]

it just goes to show that people dont really care enough to do anything about it... go consumers!

[Penguinisto]

This is funny... they never outline exactly how their site/company got disadvantaged... after all, they can always generate their own publicity instead of trying to leech off of Google's.

The connection is easy enough to make, but the trick is this: where is the money flowing, and from whom? That will be the answers you seek. Unless you can find a Baystar, you'll end up with coincidence.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Why does it matter what the connectionis? It doesn't change the issue here or the lawsuit. Keep to that line of thought instead. Who cares who is behind the law suit- deal with the subject.

Google is being accused of the same thing that Microsoft had been in their use of their power and presence in the market with Internet Explorer. You have gone on at length about how wrong Microsoft was in that situation. This is the same exact situation for Google in the search engine marketplace. Are you ready to rip into Google in the same way?

I'd be curious to see what you say. Is Google right or wrong to use their power and position in the market to dominate the market and squash competition?

[tm_anon]

How exactly did Google squash the competition? Did they tie in their own proprietary software doing what SourceTool.com did and then make that tool proprietary in order to keep all competitors from being able to do the same work?

Did they try and say that this tool is in fact part of the search engine and cannot be removed without causing damage to the search?

From what I read in that article, the answer is just that Google raised the rates. There are other search engines to frequent, other ways to market your company. Rather than going through Google in that way, why not set up your homepage with keywords for the business you're doing? (it's what every SEO marketer does) Why not advertise on sites where your business model would make sense? Why not market directly to companies which would be able to utilize your services?

The bottom line is that the company is looking for a scapegoat. Google raised its rates, big deal. If you must go through a search engine, go through Yahoo, go through MSN, go through Ask.com. Or, do the smart thing and go through all of them.

If I can set a website up to be ranked 5 of the top 10 spots for a certain set of keywords within a week on Google and not have spent a dime, shouldn't this company come even half that far?

[Penguinisto]

"Why does it matter what the connectionis?"

IF you want to see the hows and whys, you have to find out who all is involved.

You also make a huge logical mistake. You try to equate Google's 'monopoly' with Microsoft's.

Problem is, I can surf the entire web without ever having to visit Google.com, and I would not be hindered by doing so. Try to buy a laptop as a normal consumer without being stuck having Windows pre-installed on it... unless you know where to look, you can't.

[Super2online]

Penguinisto,
Microsoft does not make any manufacturer of computers install there operating system on any system. The decision on what OS to install is based entirely upon the persception that the vast majority of users want it. When Linux gains the kind of market share that Windows has, you will see the vast majority of systems with it preinstalled.

Also I think the vast majority of Americans have heard of Dell. You can get a system deliverd to you within 24-48 hrs with Linux installed on viturally any computer you want.

[mightythomas]

I've been reading news.com for over 6 years, and recently it is just going down hill with all these POS blog posts and speculations. If you have prove, bring it and show it. Perhaps the court might like to hear it as well!

As previous posters have mentioned, this law firm represents a lot of client from the tech industry. Since it being a well-known law firm that has experience in anti-trust cases (the only Microsoft connection I can make is here), they are quite suitable for representing TradeComet.com's case. To draw such a big connection from MSFT to here is like saying apples and oranges are genetically related because they are both nutritious fruits, beyond that I fail to see the connection.

[robvme]

Is this what journalism has come to? Microsoft connection indeed. You think maybe you used Microsoft to get more people to read this? I do. Lawyers have lots of clients. You come across as dishonest when you try to imply that Microsoft has some sort of connection to this suit.

[The_Voice_of_Reason]

Hang on, I'm a bit confused here. TradeComet was a *competitor* of Google, yet Google somehow drove them out of business by *raising* their rates? Wouldn't price increases on the part of one competitor give the other a whole new window in which to compete? The only way this makes sense is if TradeComet were relying on Google to do their search/advertisement *for* them, in which case that just sounds like a bad business decision. (Kind of like Burger King sourcing their hamburger from McDonald's.)

[flhu]

"yet Google somehow drove them out of business by *raising* their rates?"

Probably the rates they rose was on adword keywords for "Search Enigine" ... and yes, paying your competitor to advertise your competing product is a horrible business model

[FutureGuy]

Charles Cooper: National Enquirer is missing a reporter.