Comments on: Report: Justice Department mulling antitrust suit against Google
The government's noose around Google's neck may be tightening, according to a report that says the Justice Department has hired an antitrust litigator.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Politics and Law
News at the intersection of technology, politics, and law, ranging from intellectual property to censorship to tech policy.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Politics and Law topics
Then again, I doubt this will go anywhere. Unless Google is trying to sign up black voters, they probably won't be much of a blip on the USA's radar.
I mean, you don't really believe that do you? Like, do you actually believe that everything goes perfectly as planned all the time? Like do you really think it's all unicorns and rainbows and stuff? Because if you do I really hate to break it to you. That's just not how things go. That's not how the world works.
Also, since we're having this conversation, even though I hate to do this, but since you're old enough to post here it's probably time to tell you, Santa Claus isn't real either. Just let you in on that. It's just the parents pretending.
And Santa Claus MAY exist, however as long as we accept that he does not actually fly reindeer and give presents on December 24th, we can safely say that there is AT LEAST a %99.9999999 chance that he exists. so nyah.
The deal is better than illogical idea of collaboration of giant news agency.
Lets not forget that the same Google has been very instrumental in using every means at thier disposal using their rabid lawyers to get thge European Union to keep their teeth on Microsoft's jugular. No outfit on the planet has done more to get the EU to terrorise Microsft than Google has. It will be very good indeed if both the DJ and the EU kept their teeth on Google throat for tghe next 20 years, like Gogle has been doing everything tin their power to get them to do to Microsoft.
What goes round, come around.
Isn't life wonderful?
Look, its simple. Build a better mouse trap. People scorn Google saying that they are too powerful, control too much of the 'search' market, control too much of the advertising market. They currently have the best product to search for information on the internet (at least in my opinion) Why would I use anything else? So I can waste time digging through pages and pages of results? Google gives me what I am looking for and usually on the first page of results. Apparently a lot of other people feel the same way. Because they have the 'eyeballs', they can charge higher rates for their advertising. This is the same way advertising works in every other medium available. Why do you think it cost 2.5 million dollars for a 30 second ad during the superbowl? Because they have the audience. How, in any way, shape, or form, has Google tried to keep anyone out of the search or advertising market? What anti competitive practices have they used to thwart competition? Oh yeah, NONE.
My personal take on the situation is that Google could care less about consumers interest and is way more interested in Googles interests. What makes some consumers angry like in several of the posts so far is that Google has been instrumental in sicking anti-trust regulators on Microsoft in the US and Europe. Their take is this- what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Frankly I too take the same position that two can play that game. In Microsoft's case, its poetic justice to be able to turn the table on them and let them sit in the hot seat. Now they too can experience what it feels like when you let greed and power determine your decision making process as in the case of the Yahoo deal that allows the door to swing open for government regulators.
Life is full of ironies isn't it!
If this was an exclusive deal, I would tend to agree with you. Problem is, this deal is non-exclusive. Microsoft, Ask, or any other advertising company can get in on the action here.
What I don't understand is your math. Where does this 90% come from? 90% of what? This isn't a 'search' deal. This is an advertising deal. Yahoo will continue to use their own search algorithm, but will show Google ads for searches they have no inventory to support. Yahoo will not be using Googles search algorithm.
Agian, please show me where Google has kept any company out of the search or advertising market. As far as them putting the screws to Microsoft, that's just business. The tech landscape is littered with the carcasses of Microsoft one time 'partners'. If you led a company and someone was gunning for your customers and revenue, would you just sit back and take whatever they throw at you? Competition is always good. And what Google has done has shown a lot of other companies they can actually compete against Microsoft versus partner with them and accept the crumbs Microsoft throws their way.
I don't really know if anyone at Google considers it the 'hot seat'. I beleive they achieved what they wanted to achieve. I don't beleive Google really cares if the deal falls through. The advertising deal was just gravy. Besides, if the deal falls through, Yahoo has to pony up 250 million to Google.
I personally wouldn't call full government oversite of everything they do on current and future versions of Windows through 2012, a slap on the hand. They have ordered many changes, with full documentation including code to competitors that have cost millions to alter and produce. The EU has fined Microsoft over 2.4 BILLION dollars. South Korea has fined them 32 Million, all in all approaching 3 Billion dollars in fines alone.
Again, as I understand it, ad sharing is not the complete issue. Having over 90% market share coupled with advertising deals that increase that percentage is the sticking point. If they go above 90% on their own, not problem, but once you hit that mark you can't be helped by the #2 company to do it.
Again, you are trying to cloud the issue. What is this 90% you keep referring to? No company involved in anything here has 90% of anything.
"Again, as I understand it, ad sharing is not the complete issue"
See, right there is the problem. You dont understand the issue. This deal has nothing to do with 'search'. Go back and get your facts straight and then you make comments. Learn, understand, speak.
And there are a whole lot more fines than the 2 you just mentioned. But that is what you get when you ABUSE your power. Microsoft never had a problem until they CREATED one. There is actually no law against having a monopoly. It is when you ABUSE your monopoly that you get in trouble. And that is exactly what they did. That is where the fines came from, not because they were successful based on superior products or services.
Now, one more time, how EXACTLY is Google ABUSING their power?
- by JCPayne September 9, 2008 9:53 PM PDT
- Also on Verizon MSN, Yahoo and AOL are the ONLY providers you are allowed to subscribe to for $21 dollars through Verizon. Allowing Microsoft and Yahoo means you would only have Microsoft-Yahoo and AOL for low cost DSL. That---- is way---- more of an anti trust issue. All the other DSL providers cost $29 dollars and up via Verizon's POTS system.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(16 Comments)