USDOJ Sniffing Google Antitrust Suit, Hires Ex-Disney Lawyer 241
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."
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Same with me. My idea is that M$ is starting an international campaign against Google. Hint: Just a few days ago, the TAGESSCHAU (dominant news-show here in Germany) warned against using Chrome on the basis of an 'official' statement of some gov institution describing Chrome as an immature product, at the same time mentioning that no one company should have a monopoly on data. I do not recall a similar incident regarding M$.
CC.
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
Re: (Score:2)
Its worth noting as others have that Microsoft may be behind it. I think there is a tradition of the last big target of the trust busters fingering the next one. Att -> IBM-> Microsoft (and now) -> Google
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that Microsoft got off on the anti-trust charges after the bushies came in.
It wasn't necessarily the bushies, it was that Microsoft figured out how to play the game and then played it better than even Enron. [zdnet.com]
So it may not be that Google has failed to pay off the appropriate parties, just that MS has paid the appropriate parties even more than Google did.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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....
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's probably pretty much the same thing. Careers get made in big antitrust suits (not to mention a lot of billable hours.)
Wierd theory here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wierd theory here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to speak, people keep demolishing the same strawman. If google has a monopoly it is in the search industry, NOT the online advertising industry. The barrier to entry to look at is in building a search engine that can compete with Google.
Personally, I do not think there is any form of vendor lockin with google and therefore competition is wide open. But building a google class search engine would require millions of dollars worth of networking and data warehousing, and that is ignoring the talent requ
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.
Just a thankyou notice (Score:2, Insightful)
Ta muchly.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that you're not Google's customer, you're Google's product.
The real customers are those who pay for online advertisements and they are likely to see increases in prices if there is less competition.
That's the basis for the investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be confusing "innovation" with "competition." They're not the same, and one does not imply the other.
True enough, although the intent of the Sherman Antitrust Act and similar laws are to prevent harm to the consumer. Stifling innovation or competition does exactly that, harm the consumer.
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:2)
It does not require active malice to do harm
Unfortunately, an anti-trust suit does. A monopoly is only illegal if you leverage it. Simply having one isn't sufficient to run afoul of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
It has surprised me with all the vitriol that Microsoft received for using their desktop dominance to drive IE installs that no one has taken Google to task for using their web dominance to drive Chrome installs.
Re: (Score:2)
It has surprised me with all the vitriol that Microsoft received for using their desktop dominance to drive IE installs that no one has taken Google to task for using their web dominance to drive Chrome installs.
Thats because you don't have to install Chrome to use the Google website. You do have to install IE to use Windows,
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
More Precisely (Score:2)
If you want to start a business today, you have to have some idea why Google won't just Beta you into the ground.
Nope, that's only if you want other peoples' money.
Google thus prevents innovation through the *possibility* of actions it might not ever take, or might take with only good intentions.
I'll grant you that there's a risk there, but there's also a reward. Google tends to buy products that mesh well with theirs when they want to enter a market. None of it is for the risk-adverse.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, we'll probably go through this about once every decade or so. Last decade it was MS, this one it is Google.
It's not obtaining a monopoly that subjects you to anti-trust actions. It evading competition.
So, if you win a monopoly fair and square, bully for you. If you get a monopoly by getting together with your biggest rival and agreeing to cooperate to keep new competitors out ... bad. Using your unique monopoly clout to block entry of new competitors by punishing vendors that work with them ... ba
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.
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:2)
This is different from microsoft setting the price of their product at what the market can bear, but making sure it comes free bundled with every
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 $1 to the cost of every purchase they made because they used the debit system to pay for things
Re: (Score:2)
And THAT is the reason that the suit against Google will move far swifter and with more tenacity than the Microsoft suit could have ever garnered.
Microsoft Suit: Relax, we've got plenty of time. They're only hurting individual consumers.
Google Suit: My GOD! They could be hurting COMPANIES! Something has to be done RIGHT N
yeah, ok. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about they fix the M$ problem first? How many companies were destroyed before Linux got a foothold back in the late 90's?
Re: (Score:2)
It is NO co-incidence that Microsoft is one of hte top corporate donors to the Republican party. They scratch each others backs regularly.
If Obama wins expect the DNC contributions to step up as well (I'm trusting you've already researched that they aren't). Bill Gates figured out the real reason Clinton went DOJ on his ass, and it wasn't because he was playing the Republican game, it was because he wasn't playing the game.
Hmmmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
I am absolutely not a fan of MS, but you must know something that others do not. [opensecrets.org]
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
Re: (Score:2)
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
{catches breath}
You really think /that/ would get him impeached, after all the worse stuff he's done hasn't? I want whatever you're smoking; it must be good!
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.
"less than evil"? (Score:2)
Is that like an evil wannabe? Are you talking about Google or Dr Horrible?
What I really don't like (Score:2)
is how I can't get on the google party plane [gmailtools.com]
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing a monopoly is illegal. The only thing I can see here is that Google holds a monopoly on online advertising (i.e., >81% of the market or whatever the standard is), and someone's been whining about their practices. It's unlikely to be about anything people normally use, unless they're accused of product dumping (by not charging for services) and stifling competition in the area, but this seems unlikely because really, like TV, users are the product
Re: (Score:2)
So, in essence, it is simply a backdoor/insider means of using the DOJ as a tool to stifle free-market forces, in favor of Googles competition.
Sheesh.
I assumed there was more to it then that, but I have not seen any replies to my post stating otherwise.
So, who investigates impropriety/corruption within the DOJ? Maybe that is who everyone needs to be emailing.
Re: (Score:2)
MS apologists used the same argument to defend Microsoft Windows' position in the market.
Having a monopoly in and of itself is not a crime. Microsoft wasn't guilt of anything by virtue of making a product that most people wanted (or at least purchased anyhow).
What is a crime is obtaining or maintaining that monopoly with underhanded means. MS did this through their dealings with OEMs, among other ways.
It is also a crime to use that monopoly to hurt competition in other sectors. The big part of the MS cas
Re: (Score:2)
You're only allowed to do this, if you're Microsoft.
Then again saying Microsoft is providing customer with a good product is stretching it.... :-)
I used Vista for 3 months. I happily upgraded to XP, and here I'll stay. Work laptop... no Linux allowed. Home has a Fedora and an Ubuntu box...
Re: (Score:2)
Since when does "providing customer with a good product" equate with a monopoly?
Google pretty much holds a monopoly in the web marketing segment for pay-per-click advertising. Most web marketing firms will only use Google because their market share is too large it would be stupid not to. The gains from moving on to #2 and #3 players are so small that Yahoo and Microsoft are only thought of if the client has deep pockets for marketing. If Google successfully can maintain the Yahoo deal, they will grab and even large chunk of market share. They are already in snowball mode, it is only a
Big deal (Score:2, Offtopic)
I'm going to block ads no matter where they come from, as can any "consumer". All of a sudden the DoJ is concerned about anti-trust violations. This is bad because it means, within the halls of Justice, they see online advertising as "a big deal" while most online denizens detest all forms of online advertising. OK, some of us allow Google's unobtrusive text-only ads through because they're not too annoying, but if that should change then they're blocked too.
So the "big business" of online ads - that eve
Monopolies are not illegal (Score:2, Informative)
... just the ABUSE of them. Think of all the niche markets where somebody has a monopoly on it. If there is evidence of Google abusing their "monopoly" in search and advertising to get a stranglehold on other markets, then having the DOJ look into it is a good thing. So they've got 80% of the online advertising market with the deal with Yahoo; good for them. Are they abusing it somehow? Artificially inflating advertising prices? Any examples?
Breaking up not all bad (Score:2)
However, one area that does concern me greatly is the concentration of all the user and advertiser data in one company. Maybe a break up wouldn't be a bad idea from that point of view. Also, having Google control 80
Follow the money (Score:2)
The government... (Score:2)
They are parasites whose only mission is to freeload and steal form the brilliant and ambitious. They are parasites, providing for the mobs that empower them, leeches they are. Death to them all.
Looney Toons (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Toyota and Honda are rewarded by selling cars in this country. The others represent all that is left of the american automotive industry.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
'here are strategic reasons to not want a single source for a critical material. There are no such strategic reasons relating to Google.'
I'd rate data as pretty critical
Re: (Score:2)
Insightful? How the fuck is this insightful? NO company big or small should be getting ANY sort of help from the government.
Big companies should just have to pay more taxes, not get tax breaks from cities, counties or states to entice them to have a presence there.
Small shouldn't be getting any break or handouts from the government either. Either they make it or they don't.
I'm a small business owner and I see small businesses come and go all over the place. Guess what, the ones that go out of busi
Re: (Score:2)
'or they just plain had a bad business idea to begin with that was never going to fly.'
I suppose with a liberal interpretation this would work. Most businesses I see going out of business are going out because of increased fuel costs and less available business.
I suppose if you were starting a business today that went out due to those reasons then it wasn't a viable business idea but for existing businesses the fact that we are in a recession on the fast track to a depression is probably a bigger factor tha
Re: (Score:2)
Insightful? How the fuck is this insightful? NO company big or small should be getting ANY sort of help from the government.
I was going for Funny, but, eh, I guess some folks took it for real. Scarry.
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: (Score:2)
Yeah... this is a potential "dumping" issue.
The Feds might see it this way, but the trouble is it's also a new business model.
Did theatres go anti-trust on TV networks when they started giving away free teleplays with ads?
Re: (Score:2)
...and what monopolies were those TV networks abusing then?
What warchest built up from being the only player in a captive
market were they taking advantage of?
Re: (Score:2)
...and what monopolies were those TV networks abusing then?
Their FCC license?
What warchest built up from being the only player in a captive
market were they taking advantage of?
I think they were mostly 'radio empire' subsidiaries.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So much for Linux, then, which is funded by, among other companies, Redhat, Oracle, etc. Oh well, it was a fun ride...
Re: (Score:2)
So much for Linux, then, which is funded by, among other companies, Redhat, Oracle, etc.
This doesn't quite fall under the way of thinking I described, since there are many companies that contribute to Linux, not to mention the countless developers.
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't quite fall under the way of thinking I described, since there are many companies that contribute to Linux, not to mention the countless developers.
What does that have to do with anything? Either free software is dumping, because people are underpricing their product in order to drive out competition, or it's not. The same is true of Google's services.
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with anything? Either free software is dumping, because people are underpricing their product in order to drive out competition, or it's not.
It has everything to do with determining whether or not something is anti-competitive. Linux cannot be anti-competitive under U.S. law as more than one entity is contributing to the freely released product, and it also does not fall under the restrictions placed on joint ventures because a large chunk of the work is unpaid, voluntary, and not at all commissioned by the monetary contributors. Likewise, free software that is built like Linux is not dumping.
All I'm pointing out is that the vast majority of Goo
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.
Re: (Score:2)
A Mickey Mouse case if ever I heard of one.
Or at least a Goofy one.
Attorney: "So, Mr. Mouse, I understand that you're are divorcing Ms. Minnie Mouse because, she is crazy, insane?"
Mickey: "No (ha ha) I said she was fucking Goofy."
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".
Actually (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be more accurate to say that the original Microsoft antitrust case was brought under a Democratic administration whose second term ended while the case was in progress; Microsoft was left off the hook by the Bush Administration, not as a "please everyone" move by the Clinton Administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Because ads are about getting the attention of people and then getting those people to buy the advertised item or service.
Big sites generally go with the best price, and the best price goes to the outfit with the most competition for the spots. The people that are buying the space want their ads on the sites with the best traffic and the best shot at a sale.
By having a larger segment of the advertising market, they're able to get and keep the most popular sites more easily ensuring that the cycle continues.