MS Urges Antitrust Scuttling of DoubleClick Deal

Microsoft contends that Google's $3.1 billion deal to buy DoubleClick would hurt competition in the online advertising market. And Microsoft expects AT&T, Yahoo, and other companies to join them next week in protesting the proposed sale.

Wait... wasn't Microsoft..

[lordsilence]

one of the bidders for Doubleclick?

Unhappy loser?

Re:MS knows what it is talking about

[catwh0re]

Google buying double click is no worst than Microsoft buying it.. after all MSN & Messenger alone is an elaborate portal of advertising.

eBay & PayPal

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a pairing that could use some looking at before Google & Double Click.

Hard to argue

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to argue in support of this now. Overture or whatever Yahoo's advertising arm calls themselves these days is hardly a competitor, and even Microsoft have admitted their own advertising offering is stillborn at the moment. If Google does get hold of DoubleClick, it means they're literally the only game in town.

When they can afford to lower costs for advertisers, having no competition means they don't have to bother. When they can afford to pay more to webmasters, no competition means they don't have to bother. Even a consumer can get screwed by this, since it'll be all but impossible to visit a site that isn't covered with DoogleClick ads, making 'voting with your feet' impossible. Very rarely does a corporate merger get to screw two sets of customers *and* the general public in one swoop.

For those who say "But they did it with YouTube, so no problem, right?"... YouTube isn't really comparable, since there's a lot of other video sharing sites. YouTube was the biggest, but it's by no means unassailable and it's users arent waiting on a cheque.

Regards,
-Steve Gray
-Cobalt Software

Re:Wait... wasn't Microsoft..

[MoonFog]

Let's be fair here, Google is substantially larger in the online ad area than Microsoft, so if Microsoft had won the bid Google would just be a bit smaller. Off course Microsoft wouldn't say "it's unfair", because it wouldn't have been. Now Google is more like the Microsoft of the online ads world. The irony is not lost, but you cannot just turn it around and say it would've been the same thing if MS had won the bid.

If there ever was...

[bmo]

...a justification of using the "sourgrapes" tag, this is it.

I trust Google about as much as I trust any other corp (not much at all) but to see Microsoft crying in its oatmeal is just poetic.

--
BMO

I have a very bad feeling about this

[MichaelSmith]

Google is not an OSS company. Little of what they do has been released as free software. How much have they changed linux to optimise their operations? Who would benefit from the same patches? Nobody knows.

Doubleclick was worth more to google because they could multiply it against the adsense data they already own. Microsoft didn't have as much to gain.

Search is the new DNS. Anybody who owned and controlled all of DNS would control the internet. Most of the search market is controlled by google.

Google is only limited in size by the fact that they are an internet company, and the internet is finite. But if they wind up owning much of the internet its not going to be good for the rest of us.

I would love to be able to look forward 10 years and see exactly where this is heading. The don't be evil bit may just be ironic by then.

Obligatory reality check regarding Google

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

Google is a publicly traded company and as such here's what's important to them.....

Making money for their stockholders.

There's a fluffy bunny love for Google that everyone has but they may as well change their motto from "Do no evil" to "We do less evil than everyone else". A monopolist Google is no better than Microsoft. I'm not a fan of Microsoft, but giving too much control to any company, much less a publicly traded one, is a horrific idea.

Google is going to do what is best in their corporate interest.
Surprised? Don't be. It's business

Re:$3.1B in gif ads?

[TheSpoom]

You're comparing the Slashdot population to the rest of the internet. There's a difference; we know most of those ads lead to spyware or just don't appeal to us, while many people outside think "ooh, downloadable smileys" and click right through.

Re:MS knows what it is talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not ask your power company? After all, they are the ultimate monopolists -- their market share is enforced by law.

Re:MS knows what it is talking about

[WindBourne]

Actually, MS is in that space. The problem is that MS is not very sophisticated and they are WAY behind. They are hoping that by buying double click that they can compete head-on with google. Not sure that I really want Google to buy them, but I KNOW that MS buying them will be a far worse event.

MS will have the ability to control it all via windows and MSIE (whereas Google does not have the ability to control except via natural). And while Google is tied in with firefox, MSIE still occupies 85% of the market. And with MS's past history, it should be obvious that they will tie all this together and kill off google. So what if they have to pay a later fine of 10-20 Billion? They will have created another monopolistic market that will earn them 2-10x that amount each year.

Re:MS knows what it is talking about

[nine-times]

It strikes me, however, that even if this would constitute some sort of monopoly, it doesn't touch Microsoft in terms of harm to the consumer. First, I'm still not sure how Google can really abuse the market, even if they do control a large portion of it. People will still be able to use different search engines and different ad services. Plus, if Google somehow ruins the online ad market, it harms... well.... the online ad market. Am I the only one who's not entirely scared by that? I guess I don't buy the idea that, absent of ads, people would simply stop putting content on the web.

Maybe I'm screwy, but I care much more about the OS and Office Suite markets. I'm not expert enough to know whether they should take action to stop this deal with Doubleclick, but Microsoft appealing to anti-trust laws means they accept the validity of the principle.

Re:Wait... wasn't Microsoft..

[WindBourne]

Probably not. But they do understand the concept of owning politicians. And since politicians gravitate towards those with money, like mosquitoes to CO2, there is a MONSTER crowd around MS without them even need to buy them. I would have to argue that MS does understand the law, all to well.

scary cookies

[AdrianZ]

"Ad-serving networks like DoubleClick place tiny programs on personal computers, called cookies, that monitor where an individual user goes online."

That's the scariest part of the article... that a publication like the NY Times still hasn't figured out what a cookie is, or worse, has but yet misrepresents it to scare people over to their POV.

Re:MS knows what it is talking about

[init100]

They are hoping that by buying double click that they can compete head-on with google.

So they want to stop Google from buying DoubleClick so that they could buy it themselves? Will they ensure that competition will remain vibrant if they buy it, or is competition just important when Microsoft is not involved?

Re:MS knows what it is talking about

[WindBourne]

I did another post elsewhere where I suggest that MS, Google, AND yahoo should be prevented from buying Double Click. There is too much ability to tie all this together. But by far, MS is the worse one.

Re:I have a very bad feeling about this

[asninn]

Most of the search market is controlled by google.

Is it really? According to Alexa, the top three websites in the world are, in order, 1) Yahoo, 2) msn and 3) Google. Maybe all the people who visit the former two do so for the news, or the groups, or the mail, but I'm not sure your hypothesis is automatically valid. Google sure seems to be the search engine of choice among geeks, but what about Joe Random and Suzie Sixpack? I don't think you can just extrapolate without doing any actual research here.

But if they wind up owning much of the internet its not going to be good for the rest of us.

I would love to be able to look forward 10 years and see exactly where this is heading. The don't be evil bit may just be ironic by then.

Wow, talk about ominous gloom-and-doom prophecies. I'd love to be able to look forward ten years to see where everything's heading, too, but neither of us can. I think the term "FUD" is quite appropriate here: what you're trying to create is fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the absence of any actual arguments.

Oh yeah, and since I just read your comment again, let me give another example:

How much have they changed linux to optimise their operations? Who would benefit from the same patches? Nobody knows.

I'm sorry, but that's FUD, too, although some rather underhanded one. The reason is simple: while the question "how much have they changed Linux" is a valid one, your second question and the answer you give to that not only already implies that the answer to the first one is "a lot" but also implies that others would not only benefit from those alleged patches but also that Google is holding them back for the sole purpose of not contributing back to the community - being evil, in essence.

And while Google's contributions to the kernel are indeed much smaller than those made by other companies, that's still just FUD until you actually come up with some solid evidence to back up your claims. But then, the fact that you don't actually go ahead and *openly* accuse Google of doing anything unethical is probably evidence that you do not, in fact, have any.

Just wondering

[matt328]

Is there anyone here who actually allows content from *.doubleclick.* to their PCs?

Re:Hard to argue

[Aladrin]

http://www.google.com/search?q=online%20advertisem ent [google.com]

Hmm... Yeah, no competition. I'm going to say it. "But they did it with YouTube, so no problem, right?"

YouTube IS comparable. DoubleClick is the biggest, just as YouTube was, and DC is NOT the only internet advertising out there. Here, lemme look through my adblock filters. These were all created BY ME, so they aren't just added randomly. I actually saw and was annoyed by these ad companies.

qksrv.net
atdmt.com
bns1.net
adquest.nl
atwola.com
tribalfusion.com
burstnet.com
falkag.net
viewpoint.com
imgehost.com
interclick.com
valueclick.com
maxserving.com
interpolis.com
belnk.com
zedo.com
advertserve.com
netshelter.net
intellitxt.com
contextweb.com

So tell me again how there's no competition in this market?

Re:Wait... wasn't Microsoft..

[MoonFog]

A monopoly is still a monopoly, whether or not you choose to call it a "natural monopoly" or not. Would it really be better if Google wiped Yahoo, MS et al off the online ads map? MS could use IE to wipe Google off, but why is it better to have only Google than only Microsoft serving us online ads? You can say "yes, but MS would do this and that", which would probably turn out to be true, but we have to face the fact that it's hypocrisy to cry foul whenever MS does something and just say "phew, at least it's not Microsoft" when Google does something almost just as bad. Remember, IBM was the big bad one during the 80's, not Microsoft, and see where we are now.

Re:As the say...

[Chyeld]

And Microsoft have been duly punished. Should we give another company the chance to do damage the market by abusing monopoly powers?

Since it isn't illegal to be a monopoly, just illegal to abuse the position. And since Google hasn't acted like Microsoft by ever using it's position to wipe out competitors. Yes, lets.

Those who act responsibly should be allowed positions of responsibility. Those who act selfishly, should be barred from those positions.

Re:Hard to argue

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google does get hold of DoubleClick, it means they're literally the only game in town.

So? Becoming and even being a monopoly has never been illegal. Abusing your monopoly position is. As Microsoft of all companies should be well aware of ;)

Advertising Monopoly?

[RepCentral]

I doubt that anyone can be a monopoly in advertising.
Ads aren't like fuel oil, precious metals, telephone communication,
business computers or operating systems. A customer's lack of choice
in consuming advertisements means less sales for the advertiser.
The advertiser would then be unwise to continue allocating money towards
a loosing advertising channel and the problem would correct itself.

It's hard enough to imagine a monopoly on search with 3 giant companies in
the market but a monopoly on advertising is just a silly concept to me.

Re:Wait... wasn't Microsoft..

[MoonFog]

So your entire defense for Google is actually "it would've been much worse with Microsoft"? I'm fully aware of the history behind MS, and I don't dispute the fact that it would perhaps BE worse with MS getting the deal instead of Google, at least for now, but think about all the information Google has on you and think about them being in complete control over most information that flows over the net. I would rather have MS, Yahoo and Google compete in the ad arena instead of having a monopoly, even if that monopoly is Google. Having one company knowing that much about a person is somewhat scary, even if the company has a "Do no evil" motto.

Re:Pot kettle black.

[neersign]

I wouldn't call this "the pot calling the kettle black", it's more like "the kettle calling the pot a kettle."

Re:Hard to argue

[maxume]

There are basically no barriers to entry in the online ad brokering business. "Want to trade linkz dood?" Is a request to show advertising in exchange for compensation. In terms of pricing, it doesn't matter much what Google charges because they have to be a better deal to control the market(because I can go ahead and spend some money on Overture to see how effective it is). There is some possible danger that they become so large that not being allowed to advertise on their network becomes harmful but this deal isn't going to do that.

Not a good reader? Last line it all.

[WindBourne]

But it would be better if MS, Yahoo, and Google were prevented from buying DC.

Google is a natural monopoly and has earned their position. Until they tie it to something or pull an illegal act, they should not be regulated (but should be watched to make sure that they do not do a MS). But it is in the consumer's best interest to not allow this.

MS, OTH, has shown that they are an illegal monopolists (multiple times) and will obviously continue their actions. Always. Why? Because it is FAR cheaper to cheat and pay the trivial penalties that govs. apply, then it is to have to compete fairly. They should also be banned.

Differences

[weston]

Microsoft would immediately turn it into an abusive monopoly and Google won't. What's the difference between the two?

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and serial abuser of said monopoly power with an operational philosophy/culture that encourages this. Google isn't.

For the most part, their 'product' is invisible.

Maybe to the average consumer. Not to those buying online advertising.

While Google has many competitors in that marketplace, none of them get a lot of press. Or any press at all, aside from trade journals.

It's because none of Google's competitors have managed to duplicate both sides of their business:

(a) online advertising
(b) interesting, useful, highly usable information technology services

Google has good stuff on both sides of the equation. They sell ads on websites. They create websites that are premeire destinations on the web and sell ads on them. Nobody else really does both of them as well.

There are many competitors that do online advertising pretty well. And those are invisible to Joe Consumer, but not to those buying online advertising (hence the trade journals).

Re:Wait... wasn't Microsoft..

[Chyeld]

Having one company knowing that much about a person is somewhat scary, even if the company has a "Do no evil" motto.

What Google has on me, it has legitimately through my consent. And contrary to your fears, they don't have "complete control over most the information that flows over the net". They don't have ANY control over what flows over the net. If there were two companies that could claim that it'd be MS and AT&T.

Fears over what is out there on you are pointless, not because what is out there isn't dangerous. But because Google is not alone in having it, and is far more responsible in handling what they have than anyone else. Google isn't Equifax, the NSA, or even AT&T. They don't have your life in a file. At best, the know where you've been, and what you've told them explicitly about yourself. And frankly, I have NO clue why you are even bringing that up in the context of a monopoly on ads.

And as far as "it would have been much worse with Microsoft", there is no PERHAPS about it. Microsoft has proven time and again their inability to act ethically in the bounds of the law when it comes to their monopoly powers. There is absolutely NO reason to expect their behavior to be any differnt this time.

As far as 'prevent them all from getting their hand on Doubleclick'... Yeah that would have been nice. But there is a reason why Doubleclick had a line of people bidding on them, and that isn't going to go away until they go under or are bought up. And guess what, that'll be happening soon one way or another. So my preference is the company that hasn't had a track record of screwing over their customers (and hint, it isn't MS, AT&T, or Yahoo) gets their chance to prove themselves as opposed to the three that already have proven something about their willingness to play dirty to us.

Re:maket leader, yes, monopoly, no

[maxume]

But what does fair mean in this instance? The owners of DoubleClick no doubt think that the deal is quite fair, and presumably Google does also, so that leaves competitors, customers and content providers(the people that Google and DoubleClick buy ad space from). Ad buyers want the most eyeballs per dollar, and content providers want the most dollars per eyeball. No one can control what prices those people find acceptable, and thus what they are either willing to pay or willing to accept for a given ad or advertising space. So Google gains another chunk of the eyeball-dollar matching market in this deal, but they do not gain any ability to keep other people out of this market(because all I have to do to compete with Google, no matter how big they are, is match space dealers and buyers up more efficiently than they do). There is some danger that they get so big that it is hard for competitors to gain attention, but they can't buy up 100% of what they are selling, since all you have to do to make more of it is start up a website.

Re:MS knows what it is talking about

[InsaneProcessor]

None of this really matters if you block all of the ads anyway. Does anyone see an ad at the top of this page? I don't.

Re:MS knows what it is talking about

[visualight]

For the record, Microsoft doesn't really have anything to compete with Google in the advertising space right now.

That's the best argument there is for not allowing MS to purchase Doubleclick. Microsofts can leverage it's monopoly on the desktop to then control the online advertising business and then have monopoly on that as well. The way they used the same monopoly to gain monopoly control of the browser market.

Re:MS knows what it is talking about

[Locklin]

Gooogle's customers are not web users. Thier customers are the purchasers of add space.

If you are looking to purchase advertising space and there is only one main company you can go to on the internet to see large numbers of hits, then yes, they can abuse you royally.

As much as I like to see Google do well, and detest MS buisiness strategy, I have to agree with them on this. They should not be allowed to develop a monopoly by purchasing major compeditors.

Re:Differences

[RockClimbingFool]

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist...

Seriously... What the hell does that line mean? There is nothing illegal about being a monopoly. It is illegal to abuse monopoly status, but being a monopoly is not illegal.

What your use of that phrase implies though is fairly obvious. Your just another MS bashing troll who thinks MS was magically granted all their success by the monopoly fairies.

Because all of their products have been crap since that first complier written by Bill Gates himself.

People like you need to wake up to the fact their is NO DIFFERENCE between Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc. They all do everything they can to improve their bottom lines.

A corporation is a emotionless entity with the sole purpose of creating a return on an investment by shareholders. PERIOD.

Google and Apple just haven't been caught yet...

Google will run into legal issues as it becomes a monopoly in the online advertising market.

I am not sure about Apple though. There may be something special about media. The media companies have abused their complete control over content creation, licensing, distribution, etc. for decades. I honestly can't understand how they have gotten away with it for so long.

Re:Hard to argue

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess, based on that you could argue that MS doesnt really have any chance of having a stranglehold on
operating systems either?

OpenBSD
Linux
BeOS
OSX
Mach
Minix
MyNOS
TinyOS
Osiris
GOS
Solaris
Desert Springtime

Re:Differences

[Ambidisastrous]

More specifically: Microsoft already has an infrastructure for creating an abusive lock-in situation, and the ability to leverage its monopoly status in one area to gain an unfair advantage in another area. Windows and Internet Explorer have huge market dominance and are completely proprietary, rather than borrowing existing standards -- not that that's evil by itself, but it allows the single vendor of these products to change the infrastructure at will and force the market to follow. Windows Live, Vista and IE7 are being marketed to function as a complete, closed unit controlled by Microsoft. Successfully buying a strong position in the online advertising industry adds another piece to this closed infrastructure and allows Microsoft to essentially force online advertisers to conform to this framework, or risk losing access to the majority of the market. A corporation's sole responsibility is to create value for its stockholders without getting nailed by the SEC, and Microsoft has created its business such that the best way to create this value is by using its monopoly position and lock-in tactics. So that's what they'll do. Google does not have this framework in place, and has no infrastructure to create vendor lock-in. Every one of Google's popular web apps allows an easy out -- Gmail is easy to export, using a different search engine is trivial, and web mapping services are now essentially a commodity. If you don't like AdSense, there are plenty of other ad networks to go with (including Microsoft's fledgling), and there's no significant barrier to joining or leaving. Google succeeds because its search is reliable, its mail client is simple and useful, and AdSense is dead simple to use. There was no passing of the monopoly torch in its early days, no set of proprietary protocols, and no long-time company strategy of creating lock-in as the basis for extracting profit. The strategy instead is to be useful, ubiquitous, and unimposing. The Google empire will collapse as soon as it starts to suck; right now it's far from sucking, and Google benefits most from easy access, open networks and standard protocols. So that's what they'll fight to maintain. And yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as corporate culture. Executives bring aboard managers who think like themselves, and so an organization does tend to resemble its leaders throughout -- at least on the upper half. These folks entrench themselves, and so companies rarely change once the culture's established, until their finances go to hell and they're dismanteled. Microsoft has a predatory leadership that believes very strongly in maintaining closed standards; Google managed to keep a tech-startup mentality in its leadership, so they'll push for easy access and a constant shuffling of other startups and new technologies. I think this recent media-sprawling we've seen of Google is the effect of trying to predict and block Microsoft's strategy of swooping into the content-ownership world and eventually owning all the distribution channels.

"Microsoft contends"

[l3v1]

Microsoft contends...

Geez, this is so freakin' stupid, I can smell it from the other side of the pond. It's a damn money game, if you want that dblclick so much, pay more, it's so easy ! Why come out in the light with "arguments" which smell so badly and rotten of piles of bullshit that it makes everyone and dog with at least as much brain as a chicken laugh out loud in pain ?

Of course they don't like the idea of Google taking something away from their nose. Of course they would want a bigger part of the online ad cake. Of course they would do anything to stop Google becoming more powerful in the area. And yet, instead of paying the price, they start antitrust accusations ? Now come on, this behavior is downright ridiculous. And of course they would want yahoo and co. on their part in this case, despite them knowing all too well what would happen to them if MS put their hands on a pig part of the online ad business. Right ?

It's easy to take away others' lunches while you're the big guy. Thing is, some things aren't meant to last forever. Go figure.