Google Says Microsoft Is Driving Antitrust Review 295
GovTechGuy writes "On Friday we discussed news that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott opened a probe into whether Google ranks its search listings with an eye toward nicking the competition. Google suggested the concerns have a major sponsor: Microsoft. In question is whether the world's biggest search engine could be unfairly disadvantaging some companies by giving them a low ranking in free search listings and in paid ads that appear at the top of the page. That could make it tough for users to find those sites and might violate antitrust laws. Abbott's office asked for information about three companies who have publicly complained about Google, according to blog post by Don Harrison, the company's deputy general counsel. Harrison linked each of the companies to Microsoft."
It's free (Score:3, Insightful)
Um .. it's a free service - if you don't like it use something else!
Once again Microsoft abandons innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Once again Microsoft abandons innovation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Once again Microsoft abandons innovation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Once again Microsoft abandons innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
A) No "default" lock-in, fire up a new OEM computer and chances are, Google isn't the default home page or search engine. Usually its one of MS's offerings.
B) No e-mail lock-in, Gmail supports forwarding and also standardized access via POP
C) No phone lock-in, Android is by far the most open of the popular Smartphone OSes beating both Windows Mobile and iOS.
The only thing Google should possibly get an Anti-trust suit is with Google Book Search but that is mostly because of how fucked-up the copyright situation is in the US and not because Google is trying to be evil.
Being good at something so people use your site is not a monopoly, it is competition.
Oh, come on. (Score:5, Insightful)
Try finding three major tech companies that aren't linked with Microsoft in some way.
And when the link is "the lawyers hired by TradeComet include some of the same lawyers Microsoft hired to do similar work in the past" and you're getting pretty close to playing "six degrees of Kevin Bacon".
If there's a smoking gun somewhere, this ain't it. If this is the best Google's general counsel can do, maybe there isn't a smoking gun anywhere.
Bollocks (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are ignoring the fact that Microsoft is actually flamingly guilty of such antitrust. What you are saying is equivalent to saying that if someone accuses a person of rape, who actually in fact commited said rape, then it is a case of "fair is fair" if the rapist then accuses you of raping them.
Re:Bollocks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, come on. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:1, Insightful)
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, Google are getting dangerously big and all-encompassing at a level which can and will affect us all personally. They deserve a little scrutiny even if they're totally innocent, if only to keep them on the straight and narrow.
Re:So what? (Score:2, Insightful)
These aren't comparable, in this case Microsoft is backing lawsuits with their own resources, your linked blog post is about their comment on the matter since they now had experience in the the browser market. Google didn't bring fourth any of the antitrust lawsuits or back them up of support them with their resources. And quoted from the blog "Google's perspective will be useful as the European Commission evaluates remedies to improve the user experience" meaning they will give their comment to the EC in an already in progress discussion on the Internet Explorer browser and it's integration in Windows.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay true. But in this case, what is being claimed is simply not likely to be true. While I trust google about as far as I can throw it (let it be known and repeated that I distrust ALL marketing/advertising companies) the claims against it are inconsistent with even the most casual observations.
The antitrust claims against Microsoft, on the other hand, were quite valid. And, as it turns out, the remedies against Microsoft were clearly not enough as they haven't yet changed their ways fully. (For example, OEM version of Microsoft Office is mysteriously cheaper when purchased through Dell than when purchased through other sources... perhaps this is "Dell's doing" but then again, to what advantage is it to offer MS Office at a perceived discount? Certainly not the user who doesn't get MS Office and still has to pay a partial price for it as that portion of the cost is rolled into the price of the computer.) And I am sure there are lots more examples of the games they play, but it's close to my bed time and the mind is shutting down.
I'm neither a Google fan nor one of Microsoft. But as someone from the outside, objectively I can't see where the case has merit and it just smells like more of Microsoft's dirty play. After all, this is not the first time we have heard of Microsoft's agenda being pushed by its partners and affiliates.
Re:Oh, come on. (Score:5, Insightful)
They managed since the reported connection between two of them and Microsoft is that their attorneys have also represented Microsoft on anti-trust issues.
Because you wouldn't want experienced counsel or anything like that, that's just as good as being a Microsoft subsidiary.
Re:Once again Microsoft abandons innovation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
[citation needed]
Too often this means [google search needed] *cough*
Re:Gov't killing the market system (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Monopolies are bad in the physical world because they take limited resources and monopolize them. There are only so many oil wells in the world, there are only so much (clean) water in the world, etc. when a single company takes control of them they can charge through the roof and make everyone else pay. But this isn't like that.
Barring government intervention in the form of software patents, there are no limited resources when it comes to ads on the web, and barring lock-in with physical things or a -huge- company taking all available IP addresses/bandwidth or something, a monopoly can't exist that harms consumers.
The idea that any company can monopolize infinite resources is laughable. Don't like Google? Use one of their thousands of competitors. Don't like DoubleClick, advertise elsewhere.
The internet allows for unlimited resources, you can't monopolize infinity. Just because the law says something doesn't mean its right, correct and not fucking stupid.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
That is stupid. Antitrust is not about your competitors complaining about you. Antitrust is when you are so economically powerful that you can destroy the free market and create a situation in which you economically destroy anybody who competes with you.
'What goes around comes around.' reveals a mindset in which antitrust is all part of the normal give-and-take of companies competing against each other. It isn't. Somebody has to engage in a specific set of behaviors deemed anticompetitive for it to be considered an antitrust problem. It's a market distortion, and companies accused of it aren't playing by rules in which capitalism can function properly.
It's possible this accusation against Google is true. But I suspect it's just smoke. If it is true, I will consider Google to have done something truly evil and deserving of this investigation. And it will not be a case of 'what goes around comes around'. It will be a case of a company doing something wrong that should be punished severely.
Google has the right to compute whatever they want (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody can dictate to you what the output should be when someone connects a browser to your server (or cloud) to retrieve a form, types something into a field and hits submit.
End of story.
Re:Once again Microsoft abandons innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, monopolies can be very much defacto situations. I mean technically, there is no barrier for entry to the search market. Just put up a website that does searches, people can use it if they like. No barrier at all...
Except how it really works is that Google has become the one and only place most people go. It is who they trust, who they seek out, etc. What this means is that effectively, there is a nearly insurmountable barrier to entry. You have to make people aware of your site, and convince them to use it. Very hard. Could potentially be harder still since of course people find sites through Google, and Google controls a large amount of online ads. They could black list you quite effectively if they wanted to.
These days, Google really does have control over what people see. If Google knows about it, people know about it. If it doesn't, they don't. That is very much a monopoly position. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but could be abused in many ways, and who knows may be is abused.
I think too many starry-eyed geeks forget that just because Google and Apple don't like MS, doesn't mean that they might not be like MS in many ways. They aren't underdogs anymore, they aren't the little company fighting against the giant. They are both massive, powerful, firms with a lot of control over the markets they are in. That doesn't make them bad or anything, but does mean they deserve the same scrutiny as MS.
Re:This is Texas we are talking about (Score:0, Insightful)
The DeclaratioN of Independence was of marginal importance? Jefferson's influence on post-American revolutions was of marginal importance? His belief in inalienable rights, the cornerstone concept of the founding of this nation, was of marginal importance?
Linux was influenced by Minix and Unix, so by your reasoning is only marginally important. You are the reason why homeschooling is a bad idea.
Gee, maybe if Bing didn't suck... (Score:3, Insightful)
Its ability to find porn in the video search is better than Google.
The way the roads are drawn on maps are a bit easier to read than Google (but Yahoo is better still).
Honorable mention: the new version of Google Images brings it almost down to Bing's level.
Re:Once again Microsoft abandons innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
It is exceedingly rare to find a true, 100%, monopoly. It is just difficult to control any field to that extent. People need to remember Microsoft never had 100% control. Back during the MS anti-trust days, Apple was still in business, and their ONLY market at the time was computers. 100% of their products were systems that didn't run Windows. That right there is proof MS didn't have 100% control. To have that, Apple would have had to sell no computers. Also while it wasn't popular, Linux was on the desktop then. Maybe you discount Linux because it was free but you can't discount Apple.
So you can't say MS was a monopoly despite Apple and then in the same breath say but Google can't be a monopoly because there are other search engines.
If we say that monopolies are only cases of 100% control, well then we might as well just stop worrying about anti-trust because that'll almost never be the case. A big company could always find some tiny competitor, maybe who only exists in a single town (and only because the company allows it) and say "See? There's competition, we don't own ALL the market!"
If we accept that it doesn't take 100% control to be a monopoly then you can't cry "But there's other search engines so Google CAN'T be a monopoly!" Sorry, but they can. If they are isn't up to us to decide, but they clearly can, despite other engines being out there.
Googling MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is not a person.
What they are though, is an organisation that has repeatedly attacked competitors via proxy - Sco, attempting to sell Linux-relevant patents to trolls, stacking ISO to block ODF, etc, etc.
This effort though, seems too minor and too transparently fallacious to be a direct attack on Google. It's more likley they are furthering another agenda - perhaps establishing precedednt for their own actions.
A simple search shows MS is full of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Even more obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bollocks (Score:3, Insightful)
Google gave up their mantra?
Why do people keep saying that? Anyone who knows technology well knows it isn't true. Sure they're a business and they operate for profit, that's a given, but they are a lot more open and non-evil then they have to be - a lot.
They make their own web browser (which is 99% open source), and still support Firefox.
They still support some apps on iPhone even though Apple has been dicks to them.
They made their mobile phone OS open source.
They contribute lots of code back to Linux and other projects that they don't legally have to.
They allow end-users POP/IMAP/Exchange access to email even though it allows them to avoid viewing the ads.
They decided to use an open protocol for Messaging, and open up their servers for connecting with everyone's.
They provide a lot of internal operational details during their Google I/O conferences which they certainly don't have to, and which competitors could certainly use.
They have tried to negotiate with foreign governments to open things up a little more. (That's for the benefit of citizens there, not Google!).
They have prioritized Security in Chrome and many other products, even where it costs more money.
They take privacy seriously - Services like Latitude make it very clear what you are sharing, with who, and they remind you once a month.
And, they haven't abused (or used) their power thus far in any kind of systematic way.
The things people have complained about, if you look at them are very minor (Grabbing unencrypted publicly available WiFi data and taking pictures of public places) - and even those, Google didn't try to hide, but volunteered what they had done.
I am not saying they are a bunch of Angles, but I think they are actively trying to "not be evil" on multiple fronts.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is true that Google downranks or delists pages that they deem to be "spammers".
These spammer / SEO folks would very much like Google to be forced to not filter their sites out of search results or be allowed to adjust their algorithms to downrank them.
It would hurt Google and google users if Google were not allowed to do this.
It would also ultimately hurt all search engines, except ones that are protected by being the default.
As there would no longer be a reason to prefer Google or any other search engine (they would always be full of spam, and typing any 'search' would just get a bunch of keyword spammers and SEO pages on the 1st 10 pages of search results.)
Re:Even more obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
You misunderstand the concept of antitrust laws.
In order for antitrust laws to take effect a company does not need to be a monopoly. It needs to have significant market power. The definition depends on regulator and leeway depends on regulator as well.
For example regulators in the EU (except UK) and USA allow natural monopolies based around inventions and in new markets. If you invent something new and you use it to create a market or enter an existing market most regulators (except UK) will allow you to grow your company until you have SMP and sometimes even to a full monopoly provided that you stay within your market. However, if you try to leverage this monopoly to enter a new market you will get whacked on short order. Same if you try to leverage it to prevent other players from entering the market you have created.
Coming back to Google. Google has SMP (and is not in the UK) which is achieved by natural growth and this is one of the reasons why it does not get whacked straight away. Google also is clearly leveraging its SMP position in search space to enter other markets - applications, navigation, etc. This is a different story compared to search space. There, the regulators are obliged to investigate it by law. In fact it is surprising that it is under so little scrutiny. This says volumes about their lobbying and legal arm. Actually looking at the list of job ads they dump on linkedin around here and doing some stats on the ratio of lobby, pr, legal vs engineering makes this considerably less surprising. Not surprising at all in fact.
You have this backwards. (Score:1, Insightful)
The reason that all monopolies outside of niche markets are government creations is that monopolies are usually illegal without government permission. This is because monopolies were shown over the course of centuries to be an economic evil. They are allowed to exist only when they appear to create significantly more economic efficiency than breaking up the monopoly would. And even then, the monopoly is kept under strict control and monitoring.
In other words, you're seeing few non-government-allowed monopolies because the government stamps out monopolies it doesn't explicitly allow for the purposes of societal good (electric monopolies, for instance). Unregulated markets tend to create monopolies unless government intervention stops it from happening.
You've put the cart before the horse, and then argued that carts don't actually NEED horses because the yoke and traces in the front are empty and the horse is in back.
First time MS openly accused.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's free (Score:2, Insightful)
This comment is asinine, not insightful. Companies are complaining about being unfairly ranked (as they see it) when people search for their services on Google. The companies can't "use something else" because they aren't the ones doing the googling.
Government x doesn't like Wikileaks redistributing its documents to the general public? They should use something else!
Re:Once again Microsoft abandons innovation (Score:2, Insightful)
Google can not do this for internet search. People are always free to go to another search engine. Don't believe me? Click Here [bing.com]. Compare that to the ISP example where someone may want to go to another ISP, but can not because they don't live in that small town. Or people wanted to buy a mac but could not because their company was built around Windows only software.
Unless there is something Google is doing to specifically control your ability to freely choose what you type into the browser then it's not a monopoly in the search arena. Internet advertising however is a monopoly granted by the sheer volume of traffic that goes through Google. In this case if you wish to advertise online you almost have little other alternative due to a lack of market exposure provided by many other advertising agencies.
Re:Bollocks (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do people keep saying that?
Rampant cynicism, typical of slashdot. A large company that makes a profit cannot be good. No politician who is part of one of the two parties can ever have a good idea. That type of thing mostly. And maybe a little bit of the "Google signed a deal to kill net neutrality!!!" story that came out a week or two ago followed closely by the "Oh wait, no, that was a false rumor" that was less reported.