Comments on: Report: DOJ was hours from filing Google suit

In interview, lawyer hired to look into the Google-Yahoo deal says government was on the verge of filing antitrust suit when the companies abandoned the search pact.

[Pete Bardo]

Typical lawyer approach--let's file a suit and see if we can win! Google and Yahoo had both stated many times that if they did not get approval of the deal they wouldn't go forward with it. They even gave DOJ plenty of time (and time again) to review the proposal. There probably was no need to threaten them with a law suit, other than "Yeah, I would have liked to have done it."

[t8]

Google ads are the best ads. Thanks to them the web is a place of innovation because Google have figured out how to monetize it and hence pay people who own websites. Google could have paid Yahoo billions in ad revenue, but if they can't show Google ads, then I am happy that I can.

[kieranmullen]

Who has to look at ads? Download firefox a free and much more secure browser than Internet Explorer and add the free plugin adblock Pages will now load faster and look much less busy. Enjoy!

KieranMullen
http://360oregon.com

[lowenbrau212]

@ Pete Bardo:
The DOJ felt that if a deal had gone through between Google and Yahoo that a "trust" would have been formed in the internet advertising agency. A trust being a business entity formed with intent to monopolize business, to restrain trade, or to fix prices.
Forming a trust is illegal according to United States Anti-Trust laws. The enforcement of these laws falls to the Department of Justice. Since the deal had not gone through, legally speaking Google had not done anything illegal yet and could not be prosecuted under these laws. The only option the DOJ had was to file a law suit seeking to block the formation of the trust. If the DOJ is aware of the potential of a trust forming that has not yet formed they are to attempt to stop the trust from forming. The DOJ did their job in the appropriate manner in which they are to do it.

[GhostAlph]

...which would make sense IF Yahoo and Google were the only Internet advertisers in the game...and as we all know that they are not. They're not even the only search engines in town, either. So how does this constitute forming a trust? You say, "A trust being a business entity formed with intent to monopolize business, to restrain trade, or to fix prices," but I've read all the available documentation and I don't recall anything to the effect of "Oh, and by the way, once we get together, no one will EVER be able to advertise on the Internet EVER without OUR SAY SO." To me, that seems a bit bizarre, b/c, sorry, they're not the only games in town. I mean, if two huge media conglomerates like AOL and Time-Warner can get together and not be a trust, then so could have Google/Yahoo. If anything, the DOJ should have stopped it not on the basis of it possibly being a trust, but to prevent Google from taking essentially a step down.

[testusernamekat]

Timing seems odd

[testusernamekat]

maybe not

[testusernamekat]

It is nice to save the DOJ from spending taxpayer money

[Super2online]

Now that the Department of Justice has offiicially pronounced Google a monopolist in their statements maybe we won't have to endure Google forcing Microsoft to remove features out of the operating system that we have paid for when we purchased it.

I for one an very happy to see this happen.

[GhostAlph]

And just when did Google force Microsoft to remove features out of the operating system?
Oh yeah, I can just see it now: "This just in! Google to Microsoft: Go Chrome...or else!"

Though here's something I'd like to see: Windows users forcing Microsoft to remove features out of the operating system that we have been made to pay for but DON'T WANT, NEED OR USE...like IE, perhaps? Or maybe UAC? (say what you will, but UAC is like your spouse putting padlocks on every door, drawer and cabinet in the house and then making you get permission from them before you can get in the fridge. Or the bathroom. Or anything.)

What about Citibank? Is the DOJ going to do nothing? Twice it was rescued because it was too big to fail. Why is it not too big to break up?

[as901]

It is strange that the government overlooks unfair trade practices used by Microsoft, and they do nothing about gray mail stocking fees, but when a deal upsets Microsoft, then the government will act within hours?

Mark Heinemann