On antitrust, is Google the next Microsoft?

(continued from previous page)

"Our view on all of this is it's important to stay focused on the Internet privacy issue," he said in a telephone interview. "People may agree with us for their own reasons because they're trying to block Google's acquisition of another company, but that's not going to be the reason we're doing it."

Similarly, in the past, when it called for a FTC investigation into privacy issues surrounding Microsoft's Passport service, EPIC told AOL, which the privacy group said had offered to team up, "No thank you, we want to pursue this independently," Rotenberg said.

EPIC has even created a simple rectangular sticker to match the campaign, which it displays on the top of its Web site. Using Google's signature blue-red-yellow-green letters on a white background, it spells out p-r-i-v-a-c-y-?. "They look really sharp on laptops," Rotenberg said, adding that they may do double duty as party favors, and mugs are also in the works.

The Center for Digital Democracy's Jeff Chester is Google's other chief antagonist among nonprofit groups.

For the last few months, he's been busy organizing meetings with nearly anyone in a position to scuttle the DoubleClick merger. Chester says the list includes FTC Commissioners Jon Leibowitz, Pamela Jones Harbour and William Kovacic, with another scheduled with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch. CDD and EPIC also have briefed the staffers for the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, the House Energy and Commerce Committee staff, and their Senate counterparts, Chester said.

CDD has also brought in a sympathetic University of Pennsylvania professor named Joseph Turow, of the Annenberg School for Communication, to brief staffers on why he believes Google's purchase of DoubleClick would lead to worrisome consolidation of the advertising industry. (CDD would not let News.com quote from the materials.)

An aide to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who asked to remain anonymous, confirmed that staffers had met already with EPIC, U.S. PIRG (which did not return phone calls for comment), CDD and Microsoft. Separate meetings are pending, the aide said, with Google and the European Union. The committee is also planning to hold a nonpublic briefing with FTC staff on the issue.

Staffers for the Senate Judiciary Committee, which presides over antitrust issues, largely declined to comment on their meetings except to confirm both Google and Microsoft representatives have paid visits. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) has indicated the Senate Judiciary antitrust panel he leads plans to examine the proposed deal.

"We are keeping up a steady stream of information to all the key participants at the FTC and in the House and Senate about the problems with the merger, both in terms of the market structure issues and the data collection," Chester said.

Unlike EPIC, Chester said his organization contacted Microsoft for a briefing on the company's views, but said his group has never accepted any payments from the company and is not coordinating lobbying efforts. Chester said he has also approached major advertising-industry and media companies about where they stand on the merger and heard some concern, but would not reveal details.

"Clearly, the reason this deal has the kind of visibility it does is because Google has powerful competitors," Chester said. "Sadly, one wonders how the public interest concerns would be addressed if it weren't major vested interests."

A representative for telecommunications giant Verizon Communications said he was not aware of any efforts his employer had taken to block the DoubleClick acquisition. Yahoo, which has reportedly been hostile to it, did not respond to a request for comment.

CNET News.com's Elinor Mills contributed to this report.

[s1kb0y]

Microsoft Punished?

Microsoft punished? When did this happen? The company should have been broken up into at least 4 or 5 companies. Today they can still afford huge loses (entertainment division) without breaking a sweat allowing them to break into any/all other markets they want to conquer and monopolize and still outweigh their competition banking on the gains from their Windows monopoly.

[hdubya]

This article is not about Microsoft

nt

[eurobloke]

Google should watch out.

Google is starting to realise that is becoming a monolith of its own making, and it starting to have its ass biting itself with the Department of Justice and an even more vicious opponent, the European Commission. The company with the slogan ?do no evil? is starting to become a fig leaf. I would be surprised if Commissioners Kuneva (consumer protection), Kroes (competition), Reding (information society and media) & Frattini (freedom, security and justice).

[eurobloke]

Re: Google should watch out

(Sorry I didn't finish)
Google is starting to realise that is becoming a monolith of its own making, and it starting to have its ass biting itself with the Department of Justice and an even more vicious opponent, the European Commission. The company with the slogan ?do no evil? is starting to become a fig leaf. I would be surprised if Commissioners Kuneva (consumer protection), Kroes (competition), Reding (information society and media) & Frattini (freedom, security and justice) have a good go at Google for various reasons including privacy breakdowns ie Gmail, causing monopolies with search and acting anti-competitively.

[adasha76]

Buying political influence?

From the article: "By comparison, last year AT&T wrote checks for at least $27 million to buy political influence and Microsoft spent $8.9 million."

What, is that supposed to be lauded? Are you saying Google is not corrupt enough? Ridiculous!

[declan00]

lauded

It's possible to describe a situation without saying it's good or bad, which is in fact what our article did.

We didn't say Google should buy political influence -- we just reported on it being outgunned.

If anything, we noted the public choice theory argument about rent extraction, so you should have taken away exactly the opposite conclusion. You may want to reread the article.

[KTLA_knew]

Diffrerent starting point

MS had zero footprint in DC, while their competitors had regular breakfast with the DOJ. They were completely unprepared.

Google is not, and certainly has learned from MS' mistakes. They will not be cuaght ignoring DC the way MS did until it was too late. (As noted in the article, MS has since realized that they needed to play the "games" its competiors had pulled to stay ompetitive, and has done so.)

Google will not get caught the same way, they will USE DC, not have it used against them.

[amigabill]

business as usual then

If USA government puts Google through the same antitrust process, then it'll be a minor annoyance during that time and then business as usual when any possible trial is over. Isn't that how things worked out for MS?

[bobby_brady]

I thought Google could do no wrong?!

I think Msft was the evil empire and Google was our dearly beloved.

[LuvThatCO2]

Silicon valley broght this on themselves

When all the losers like Sun, etc started going after Microsoft via legal channels when they realized they couldnt compete with MS by offering superior products, all they did was provide a little bit of room for the Camel - government regulators - to get his nose under the tent. Once government regulators get into an arena, they dont get out. I knew this was going to happen back when everybody was bashing MS for being a monopoly. I knew it'd come back to haunt all those companies jumping onto the MS break-up bandwagon.

[LuvThatCO2]

oops...

Thats 'brought' it on themselves :-)

[Renegade Knight]

Google Power vs. MicroSoft

If I wanted I could ignore Google almost entirely. A few adds would appear, but I don't need to use their applications to use my computer. I don't have to use their check out. Gmail has alternates.

Not so much with MicroSoft. They are harder to avoid. MS has no business testifying about Googles Monopoly Power. Yes Google has taken over big chunks of the internet and they are worth watching.

In the mean time. Google.com still works and Vista doesn't. I'm stuck with using Vista much more so than Googles search. Interesting how the larger monopoly has more issues with basic products.

[Turlingdrome]

Lucky you

"If I wanted I could ignore Google almost entirely. A few adds would appear, but I don't need to use their applications to use my computer. I don't have to use their check out. Gmail has alternates."

Thats true for a user, but not for an advertiser or web site owner. Google is fast becoming the only game in town.

[Llib Setag]

MS / DOJ antitust punishment for Google?

Google: Yes?
DOJ : Stick out your arm & roll up your sleeve.
Google : O.K....?
DOJ : Wrist up.
Google : OK
DOJ : "SLAP!!!!" Now you've been "punished just like Microsoft was in the past by us. Did that hurt?
Google : a little...
DOJ : "we'll take our millions in unmarked nonsequencial bills, thank you very much.
Google : OK"
DOJ : "What antitrust actions by Microsoft...errr...I mean Google...?"

[ralfthedog]

Data insulation

I see no problem with Google purchasing DoubleClick, as long as Google/DoubleClick data is kept segregated. Google and DoubleClick both have a great deal of information about us. If that data was integrated we would loose a great deal of our privacy.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

But what if...

Google decides to rank pages that include advertisements from Doubleclick higher than pages that use some other advertiser?

How will we know if they do that since they are so very secretive about how they rank pages already?

[aintnorainbowdorothy]

Google and DoubleClick

I don't use Google for anything. I definitely want my privacy protected. If they combine with DoubleClick, which is pervasive in the online ad business, then they will possibly have information on other companies search business, and other areas also. The merger shouldn't be allowed. Let Google continue trying to dominate the world, ignoring their motto, and DoubleClick do its' thing.

[technewsjunkie]

Hogwash. They are completely different companies

Google's founders have integrity, Microsoft's don't.

Google is BIG, yes. That's where the competitive approach ends.

[JuggerNaut]

Google versus Microsoft!

Well if I had my choice on who should be the monopoly powerhouse of the world wide web going forward, I'd choose Google over Microsoft any day. Google's approach is open and platform agnostic whereas Microsoft's is closed and Windows-only, which impedes real choice in the market (versus the perceived choice people are brainwashed into thinking Microsoft somehow delivers real choice to the market)!

So uh, yeah, go Google :-)

[Rusty Digital Marketing]

In Microsoft's Dreams!

Google is in a far better situation than Microsoft ever was. It has a commanding position in an industry - advertising - that evolves but cannot be eliminated. Business will always spend megabucks on advertising, and Google has a killer business model to extract profits from this business.

Despite the hoo-har advertising is nothing to Microsoft - it is barely 5% of Microsoft's revenues. Microsoft's problem is that it is operating in a mature business area with many, many alternatives for what it produces - many of which are free.

Microsoft's efforts so far in the advertising world reflect it's background as a product company who is not so great at marketing.

More at:

www.digitalmarketing.us/blog/

[The_Decider]

Google definitely does evil

But how are they manipulating market forces, even close to what Microsoft has done?

Google became the most used search engine through merit. Microsoft never became market leaders through merit.

Google isn't forcing their software on others, nor are they forcing anyone to use their software exclusively.

No way in hell that I would ever use their spyware, I mean desktop apps and email. But to even compare them to Microsoft is foolish.

[bearded_oneder]

"Google is seriously outgunned in Washington" ...

... "By comparison, last year AT&T wrote checks for at least $27 million to buy political influence and Microsoft spent $8.9 million."

Huh?

More importantly, shouldn't we really be questioning the constitutionality of "buying political influence" to begin with, along with the threat that this poses to free enterprise and democracy?