Slashdot Log In
USDOJ Sniffing Google Antitrust Suit, Hires Ex-Disney Lawyer
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Sep 09, 2008 01:51 PM
from the only-the-government-can-run-monopolies dept.
from the only-the-government-can-run-monopolies dept.
Van Cutter Romney was one of several to write with the story that "The Justice department has secretly hired former Walt Disney lawyer Sanford Litvack for a possible antitrust suit against Google. As reported earlier, the Justice Department is investigating the deal between Google and Yahoo which accounts for 80% of online search advertising. The Wall Street Journal writes today that Justice Department lawyers have been deposing witnesses and issuing document subpoenas for weeks — but that doesn't necessarily mean a case will be brought."
Related Stories
[+]
News: Justice Dept To Investigate Google-Yahoo Deal 105 comments
Anonymous Oddity writes "The Washington Post is reporting that the Justice Department's investigating the Yahoo-Google advertising deal. Obviously the deal controls a massive portion of the internet advertising market. US Antitrust law isn't entirely intuitive, but it does tend to frown on large deals between companies that operate on the same level if those deals can be interpreted as restrictive of trade."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I thought Google is competing with Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not quite a Google fanboi, but I can't figure out how Google is stopping others from innovating.
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Be it military, with imminent threats of destruction from a nation that has no way to harm anyone but themselves, yet turning a blind eye to nations that could (Iraq vs. North Korea for example?)... or be it corporate, where anti-trust is thrown around at google, yet there isn't anything substantial while other companies like microsoft are clearly doing it and are ignored.
It's an upsetting pattern to watch unfold.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Americaaaa!! Fuck Yeah!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is it just me, or does everything in the US start with secret allegations that are insane, completely disproven before they're even made public, and yet still acted upon fiercly only to suffer humilation in the end?
It's just you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't baseless or in any way shape or form non-obvious, I've been expecting this to happen for months. It's a matter of history repeating itself. The same thing happened to MS at approximately this point in it's history. Google has enough power via information and access to information that it was only a matter of time before there was an investigation.
I wish I could have given you a +5 tinfoil hat, but seriously, the DoJ is supposed to look into these things. The DoJ happens to not have jurisdiction i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely there is a difference here in that Google's so called Monopoly is borne of natural migration. People use Google because its better than the other options. Yahoo had its opportunity in the 90s and even at the beginning of this decade and did nothing. They could even have *bought* PageRank when Page and Brin first made the sales pitch to them.
Microsoft is no different in that regard. If it hadn't been too busy looking at AOL and CompuServe and trying to reproduce it with the original MSN, the could hav
Re:I thought Google is competing with Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
My first reaction was that this has Microsoft written all over it (being that Yahoo refused to sell itself to them).
Microsoft learned a lesson about the DOJ when it went toe-to-toe with it: it's a tool to be used like any other.
Parent
Well, here's how (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, last time I read an analysis of the surrealistic attempt by MS to buy Yahoo, it apparently involved a patent actually. Some small company had come up with a ludicrious blanket patent on, basically, AdWords. If you automatically match keywords to serve an ad, congrats you infringe on it. Yahoo bought them. Yahoo apparently licensed it to Google, but refuses to license it to MS for any sum. So basically it's in a position to block anyone it wants to from entering the context-matched ads segment, and doe
So, lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Google proposes deal with Yahoo.
2) Federal Trade Commission, the government entity charged with regulating business activities vis a vis anti-trust regulations, gives the OK.
3) Google goes through with deal
4) Justice department investigates for anti-trust violations.
Why does this remind me of when the Big Three were getting sued for the type of airbags that the Feds REQUIRED they install, and not having switches to turn them off which they were prohibited from installing by the same regulations?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got it straight.
In many ways, it sucks to try to do business in this country, particularly if your company is big enough to plunder.
-jcr
Re:So, lemme get this straight... (Score:4, Informative)
Technically speaking on the air bag issue, the NHTSA required that driver and passenger 2nd generation airbags be mandatory in vehicles made after 1998. There was some specification on the airbags but where the Big Three were getting sued was that their airbags tended to be a bit more aggressive than airbags made by other manufacturers. There airbags did fall under the NHTSA specifications though. I think the Big Three modified their airbags with kill switches and sensors, etc. Also at the time, it was not recommended that children not be seated in the front seat.
So on the Google issue, the deal may have been approved by the FCC, but do we know if any laws were broken outside the deal? Remember, MS wasn't prosecuted for being a monopoly but rather for abusing its monopoly power over rivals and partners.
Parent
Re:So, lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Google proposes deal with Yahoo.
2) Federal Trade Commission, the government entity charged with regulating business activities vis a vis anti-trust regulations, gives the OK.
3) Google goes through with deal
4) Justice department investigates for anti-trust violations.
Why does this remind me of when the Big Three were getting sued for the type of airbags that the Feds REQUIRED they install, and not having switches to turn them off which they were prohibited from installing by the same regulations?
Oh, I think it sounds more like Google not paying up to the appropriate parties, now here's the threat of something unfortunate happening to their business. Note that Microsoft got off on the anti-trust charges after the bushies came in.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So, lemme get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
This whole thing sounds like something out of an Ayn Rand book.
When do we get the Equalization of Opportunity Bill?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
5) Google makes money off deal.
6) US Gov't makes money from [winning the] antitrust case.
7) Lawyers on both side win. (cause lawyers ALWAYS win).
I see a win-win for both sides. Well, except for the consumer/taxpayer....
Wierd theory here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wierd theory here (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but it's rather ironic that in the end I felt forced to block google-analytics.com with Adblock Plus purely because I got tired to pages taking ages to load because of it...
Google's ahead because they're better (Score:5, Insightful)
Google became the dominant search engine for a couple of reasons - not only is it really fast and uncluttered, compared to some of its early competitors (remember Hotbot?), but PageRank did a good job of guessing what pages would be the most relevant and most interesting and displaying them first, and nobody's really caught up with them. On the other hand, they've still only got a bit more than 50% of the market - their two main competitors are staying in business.
In advertising, which is how Google makes most of their money, Google ads are uncluttered and fast, so they're not as annoying as other ads, making web site authors more willing to carry them, and apparently advertisers think Google does a good enough job of targeting ads to readers that they're more effective than their competitors or have a better price per result or something.
And unlike Microsoft, where the tight integration between the OS, device drivers, the mail system, the calendar, and Office makes it difficult to leave once you're addicted, it's easy for anybody to use another search engine instead of Google, or for an advertiser to use a different ad agency, and the reason Google stays on top is because they invest enough development money to keep their quality high.
Parent
This will mean nothing in the end (Score:4, Insightful)
FTFA:
Yes, and we all know how much that decade-old antitrust suit changed the world...
Re:This will mean nothing in the end (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it changed the world a lot.. The world used to believe that the US actually had shreds of decency and fairness left in its legal system, and hoped that perhaps the people had a say in their Government, rather than it being owned by the Corporates.
Parent
I don't understand antitrust suits (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason for an antitrust suit would be when the company stifles innovation. But if it does customers will automatically move away from them and move to others who have better services. That's simple economics. DOJ doesn't help the process in any way by suing Google.
Re:I don't understand antitrust suits (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be confusing "innovation" with "competition." They're not the same, and one does not imply the other.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Google, like Microsoft before it (and so forth to before my time) stifles innovation today simply through its existence. It does not require active malice to do harm. Anyone involved in the startup world will tell you that one of the major questions VC's will push you on is how you are Google-proof. I mean, they give away blogging, mapping, email, news, search, 3d visualization, online doc collaboration, etc, etc.
If you want to start a business today, you have to have some idea why Google won't just Beta
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's simply because they don't. They have a small, text-based advertisement for the Google Chrome beta on their front page, something which they are perfectly entitled to have, in my opinion. They do not bundle Chrome with their products; you are not required to have Chrome to use Google Search, Maps, Earth or anything at all. You are not constantly pestered to install Chrome or hampered by User-Agent restrictions.
Microsoft, on the other hand, bundle Internet Explorer with their operating system. You have
Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Lost touch with user base? (Score:5, Insightful)
MS on the other hand has a stranglehold on the desktop OS and therefore is an evil monopoly.
Let's face it folks here's the only difference:
* Google's monopoly will hurt businesses wanting to buy web ads.
* Microsoft's monopoly will hurt individuals who use desktop products.
It just depends on whether you are a business or an individual as to which monopoly you'll feel stung by.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Monopolies are not evil. They are not illegal. They aren't even unethical.
Hershey's has a monopoly on Hershey's branded candy. Apple has a monopoly on iPods. There are plenty of companies out there that make the only one of whatever they make.
Anti-trust (actually more appropriately titled 'anti-competitive') legislation isn't designed to prevent monopolies; it's designed to prevent someone using their monopoly in an anti-competitive manner.
For instance, if you or a group of companies working together contro
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
10 years ago, you could do a debit transaction to pay for things with a card at a store... but that was bad, because it costs you money.
Now, you can do a credit transaction to pay for things with a card at a store... but that is okay, because it costs businesses money.
People would be all upset if they had to add $1 to the cost of every purchase they made because they used the debit system to pay for things
yeah, ok. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about they fix the M$ problem first? How many companies were destroyed before Linux got a foothold back in the late 90's?
Hmmmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
I am absolutely not a fan of MS, but you must know something that others do not. [opensecrets.org]
Parent
Who didn't Google pay off? (Score:2)
It's well-known that Microsoft got off being punished much for monopolistic practices after Bush took office -- the experienced DoJ lawyers were pulled off the case.
So who did MS pay off but Google not get to?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So who did MS pay off but Google not get to?
Ah, but the case is young!
Re: (Score:2)
I think everyone is missing the real cloak and dagger. What would Bush&co's very own DoJ really really really want for christmas? Why, their very own search engine statistics and spying system.... did you hear that? Was that a shoe?
After the Google/Yahoo deal was approved, there is no need for the DoJ to be poking their noses into commercial issues unless there is some proof presented to them that harm is being done.... or, unless you can remember that the DoJ is involved with the Bush&co empire.
Cal
Google is not a monopoly. (Score:2, Insightful)
Unlike a certain large OS vendor whose business model revolves around finding new ways to lock customers in, turn open standards into proprietary, patented and licensed rip-offs, and threatening others with lawsuits whenever it feels the need. 235 patents, wasn't it?
Litvack is a former head of DoJ anti-trust section (Score:2, Informative)
Let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Bill Clinton's administration sues Microsoft for antitrust and wins. George Bush gets into office and pretty much slaps Microsoft on the wrist, calling the law suit a travesty of justice.
Microsoft gets all upset with Google for being #1 in the Internet search business and making all this money. So much so that they try a hostile takeover of Yahoo and lose.
So, now, all of the sudden, federal trust busters are snooping around trying to crush Microsoft's biggest competition.
Stay tuned next week when trust bu
They just can't take the madness (Score:2)
They're totally just jealous of Google actually being less than evil and still being successful.
What the hell? (Score:4, Interesting)
Since when does "providing customer with a good product" equate with a monopoly?
Does that mean that if I am TOO successful in the creation and marketing of my product, I have opened myself up to reprimand/repercussions from the government? Someone help me out here. I simply don't get it.
If I make something far superior to my nearest competitor, and the entire customer base switches to my product, I've done something wrong?
Can someone please explain why this is even an issue for Google?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have not heard of Google abusing its market position like Microsoft.
They're making it difficult for mediocre companies to compete, damn it! In fact, the Fed should step in and use tax dollars to help those companies compete. Or use legislation to make Google less competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, the Fed should step in and use tax dollars to help those companies compete.
Don't you follow the news? Bear Sterns, Fannie, and Freddie got rewarded for past greedy incompetence with buyouts for future greedy incompetence, and now GM, Ford, and Chrysler want $50B loan guarantees for their own future greedy incompetence. Meanwhile Toyota and Honda plan ahead and make cars people want, but you can bet your bottom tax dollar they won't get rewarded for competence.
Re:Big difference (Score:4, Interesting)
You jest, but this is essentially what happened to Alcoa back in the day - they were hit with an antitrust suit because they kept making aluminum more efficiently than anyone else and lowering their prices.
Note that the similarities end there. There are strategic reasons to not want a single source for a critical material. There are no such strategic reasons relating to Google. That I can think of.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because IE never locked its customers out of competitors' sites. Which is why all the legal wrangling over IE bundling was a big waste of time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Although one could argue that releasing products for free was akin to underselling the competition, driving other companies out of business by funding these products with alternate revenue streams. Not my opinion, but I can see where they are coming from.
I'm also getting the feeling that this is nothing more than a probe. I guess time will tell on that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... this is a potential "dumping" issue.
But who have they "victimized" with this.
Take maps as an example. I used a free service before I
switched to Google. I used this free service for perhaps
longer than 10 years. Then that free service decided to
suddenly get crappy (bad new version).
Now I use the Google product.
One free product displaces another.
Re:They didn't hire him. (Score:4, Funny)
A Mickey Mouse case if ever I heard of one.
Or at least a Goofy one.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Someone is finally doing something about this horrible monopoly! We can only hope Google is put in their place, just like Microsoft and AT&T.
Make up your mind, do you want to compare the Google case to the AT&T antitrust case or the Microsoft antitrust case? Microsoft is still around in essentially the same form as before the suit. AT&T was dismantled and the AT&T that exists today is one of the pieces broken off of the original that bought the name when the original AT&T went under(slight hyperbole on the last part).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To summarize: DOJ breaks AT&T up, FTC let's them get back together.
In this case, the FTC let's Google and Yahoo get together, now the DOJ is considering breaking them up.
Re: (Score:3)
"The Justice department has SECRETLY hired former Walt Disney lawyer Sanford Litvack for a possible antitrust suit against Google"
The original article states that the gov't quietly hired Litvack. The idiot journalist at InfoWorld converted that into "secretly".