Google Was 3 Hours Away From DOJ Antitrust Charges 221
turnkeylinux writes "Google Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. called off their joint advertising agreement just three hours before the Department of Justice planned to file antitrust charges to block the pact, according to the lawyer who would have been lead counsel for the government. 'We were going to file the complaint at a certain time during the day,' says Litvack, who rejoins Hogan & Hartson today. 'We told them we were going to file the complaint at that time of day. Three hours before, they told us they were abandoning the agreement.'"
Could be fun (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't help but think you could make a game of this.
Announce something to get the government's back up, wait until they've done loads and loads of preparation then rip their opportunity from under them just before they get chance.
The only downside is it's a waste of tax payers cash, not that most public sector jobs aren't a waste of tax payers cash anyway though.
Re:Could be fun (Score:5, Insightful)
The only downside is it's a waste of tax payers cash, not that most public sector jobs aren't a waste of tax payers cash anyway though.
On the contrary, breaking up formed monopolies is a lot more expensive than preventing monopolies from forming in the first place.
(on a side note: for those who thought Google was any less predatory than Microsoft, think again...)
Re:Could be fun (Score:5, Funny)
The only downside is it's a waste of tax payers cash
That does not appear to be a concern of anyone in Washington these days.
Re:Could be fun (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For him to use "these days" in that way evidently indicates that he meant it as opposed to the "good old days when dinosaurs ruled the world". So I guess he's been around for a while :)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Could be fun (Score:5, Insightful)
A healthy industry is one where two or three (or more!) participants share equal or near equal mind-share (and market-share). A dominated (but not monopolistic) industry is where the #1 supplier has nearly 2/3rds marketshare, the #2 supplier is nearly 1/3rd, and a bunch of niche players round up the rest. A monopolistic industry is where the #1 supplier has 80%+ (or 90%+) of the market, and there is no widely-recognised #2 player (which is why Microsoft was so insistent that Macs were real competition). That doesn't mean that you're alone in the industry (though when you are, it's more obviously a monopoly), just that practically speaking, you are.
Is there a widely-recognised #2 in the search market? If that's Yahoo! (and especially if there is no widely-recognised #3), the marketing campaign would treat the industry as a monopoly - using their combined power monopolistically, and, so alleges the Justice Department, illegally.
Google is not a monopoly (yet). But it is close. However, if you combine Google and Yahoo! into a single marketing campaign, their combined power probably is monopolistic. All the other search engines are niche players that probably don't generate noticable amounts of traffic (relative to Google and Yahoo! combined). The Justice Department merely is saying, it seems, that, no, you two can't gang up and demolish the niche players.
By keeping #1 and #2 at each others' throats, the niche players can be ignored by the big guys and thrive, albeit at a smaller scale. If #1 and #2 play nice with each other, they can turn on the niche players and destroy them. That changes from capitalism/competition to monopoly, and that's what the Justice Department was trying to prevent.
Re: (Score:2)
Please show me a monopoly that has lasted longer than one generation (25 years). In every case the monopoly was only a temporary one, and eventually was superceded by the growth of new technology, or the arrival of new companies to add competition. Take as example the CD. Sony/Philips held a monopoly on CDs as method of music distribution, eventually forcing phonographs/cassettes out of the marketplace. However the monopoly was short lived (about five years) as other companies quickly developed new meth
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The other assumption is that there is a defined circle outside of which no competition takes place. Competition does not just exist within an industry; it exists across industries. The airlines have to compete with Webex. Google has to compete with NBC.
Re:Could be fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, that is assuming that there is some need to break up a 'monopoly' in the first place.
The sad thing is the proof of the need for antitrust laws has been staring us in the face for months now. Since the bailout of AIG how many times have we heard the phrase, "too big to fail." How many companies are now trying to convince us that they also are too big to fail? In effect these companies are telling us that they represent a single point of failure for the entire US economy.
The leftist view that we need to prop up these companies is completely wrong. The righties' hands-off approach to all things private inevitably leads to wild fluctuations as companies consolidate and dominate government and individual roles followed by epic collapses and rebuilding periods.
Those that worship at the alter of the free market either don't understand: 1. That competition is the heart of capitalism, or 2. Companies hate, and will suppress, competition because it cuts into profits.
The government should play a role in enforcing competition in a healthy market place. Too much government intervention leads to inefficiency and no government intervention leads to corruption. It is through the involvement of an INFORMED electorate that WE THE PEOPLE control how our government interacts with the private sector.
I say use the bailout money to break these companies up into more manageable and competitive pieces that, once established, will be made into private companies again.
Boiling your opinions down to oversimplifications like, "no government intervention ever!" is an excuse to remain uninformed and ignorant of what the problems actually are and will lead us away from any real solutions.
Both parties spend large sums of money on propaganda campaigns through right and left wing media outlets to convince us of the correctness of their oversimplified slogans and misrepresentations of the other side. If you believe them, know that you are being used.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The government leaders of both left and right want to prop the companies up. It's everyone else who opposes this. As soon as the e
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, the left has lots of union backing, and unions like the idea of preserving jobs even if that means giving companies a Taxpayer bailout.
Re:Could be fun (Score:4, Interesting)
I would argue that the AIG support has nothing to do with a monopoly. They don't have a monopoly, and their competitors are at least as viable as they are, they've just been able to convince politicians that it'll hurt too many of their counterparties should they fail. This behavior can certainly encourage monopolies to form, though.
no government intervention leads to corruption
I'm not sure what would lead you to this conclusion. Government is a party in corruption, and in the absense of government there can't be corruption. If you look at a corporation as a quasi-government, then yes, that corporation can have corrupt people in power, but that will be in the interests of the shareholders to prevent (if the executives weren't given special legal protection from shareholders). Governments and corporations operate more or less the same way, except corporations actually have a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders.
More pragmatically, though, there are good reasons for regulation, but those regulations should be designed to provide (a) transparency and (b) accountability. Free markets require, in addition to competition, correct information in order to operate correctly, so you can't have corporations blatantly lying about their financial data.
Re:Could be fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies like GM and AIG were allowed to grow to the point where their possible failure threatens the entire national (world?) economy -- no questions from DOJ lawyers.
But Google and Yahoo want to pool their advertising resources, and suddenly the republic is threatened.
Mmm hmmm.
Re:Could be fun (Score:4, Funny)
Shit's going to hit the fan when Google releases their own OS with drivers compatible with Windows drivers.
I'm calling it. I have no proof but I'm calling it anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You think that Microsoft would've backed down?
This is not predatory behaviour; they wanted to something, were told they shouldn't, and then backed down.
That's how I expect a good corporate citizen to behave.
Re:Could be fun (Score:4, Interesting)
It's amazing the stupidity of the average slashdotter. That's why I love this place, I guess.
Just to remind you, Microsoft bundled IE with Windows when it had a monopoly on Windows. And, just to remind you in case you forgot, there's nothing illegal about having a monopoly. It just means you outcompeted everyone else. What is illegal is abusing that monopoly.
Let's look at TFA:
So they were basing this on the idea that this would restrain and monopolize trade, so it sounds like all Google did was to make a bigger monopoly and there's a law against that. They didn't abuse any monopoly, which is what Microsoft did.
But let's look closer. Google's deal with Yahoo was actually proposed as a joint venture whereby Yahoo was supposed to profit as well, and furthermore, Yahoo had the option to back out of the deal and use Google only to the extent they wished.
So, if you want to compare Google to Microsoft, let's try to come up with an analogy that would, maybe, make your complaint not sound like the ramblings of a 4 year old. Perhaps if Microsoft and Apple penned a deal to put Windows on the Mac because Apple wasn't selling as many Macs as they wanted because the market preferred Windows.
Anyway, my point is simply this: There's a clear difference between what Google did and what Microsoft did. Google offered to sell its products to its competitors at a rate that was apparently fair enough that they considered it. Microsoft tried to destroy its competitors by abusing an existing monopoly in an unrelated space.
Personally, I think it might be a good thing that the DOJ stopped this (though maybe not if MS now buys Yahoo and guts them), but if you can't see there's a difference between getting a monopoly by being better than your competition and abusing a monopoly because you can't compete in a space, then maybe you should avoid posting things like the above that make you sound like an idiot.
Anyway, let me leave you with one final tidbit from the article:
Sure, I believe that.
Re:Could be fun (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what Google and Yahoo were planning to do was to stop competing with each other and from a joint venture. That is specifically prohibited under the anti-trust laws. Obtaining a monopoly through fair competition is legal in the US. Obtaining a monopoly or dominant market position by forming a cartel with competitors is not.
It is very different from what Microsoft was accused of which in turn was rather different from the anti-competitive behavior that they engaged in. David Boies botched the Microsoft anti-trust case from the start. He brought it on the basis of complaints from Sun and Netscape that were really more about providing an alibi for their own incompetence than justified compaints. Netscape's treatment of Spyglass was vastly more aggressive than Microsoft's treatment of Netscape. Sun could have partnered with Microsoft to establish itself as a viable alternative to Intel. Instead they tried to challenge Intel and Microsoft at the same time.
Netscape was giving the browser away so that they could sell a server that exploited exploit the latest essentially proprietary features of their client. By essentially proprietary I mean their habit of releasing a product and submitting the 'standards proposal' to W3C on the same day with no prior discussion whatsoever. That is how cookies were deployed, that is how SSL was deployed and that is how Javascript was deployed. And in every case the Netscape version was initially broken in ways that have taken years to fix afterwards. If you tried to use Javascript in 1995 it was much more likely to crash your browser than do what was intended.
Now if the DoJ had concentrated on the pricing of Windows they had a real argument. The unit pricing scheme was certainly anti-competitive. But giving away the browser with the O/S was not anticompetitive, the browser was originally intended to be free software that shipped with the O/S. tim Berners-Lee proposed the deep integration into the O/S.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO Google and Yahoo should have gone through with the deal, and face the DOJ head-on. "From time to time the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants." - Democratic Party founder Thomas Jefferson. IMHO in this case it was the U.S.-DOJ that was being tyrannical and threatening a lawsuit without cause.
Google PREDATORY? (Score:5, Informative)
Thought again... And again... Nothing... What predation are you talking about? Microsoft's is well known:
What has Google done to justify being called equally predatory?
Re:Could be fun (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Could be fun (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
4. Access their research through Freedom of Information policies.
5. Devise ways of sidestepping their arguments.
6. Profit!!!
Re: confusion (Score:2)
You're confusing Serge with billg .. :>
Re:Could be fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite the opposite. The authorities were on the ball, gathered info and told the parties they'd likely be filing a formal complaint. The result: the putative monopoly was broken up almost before it began, with no damage to the marketplace and no long, hugely expensive trial and appeals that would have sucked money and energy from the state and the corporate parties alike. And the way they did it, if Google and Yahoo really thought they would win such a process they were still free to go ahead and face the consequences.
Sounds like the state did a pretty good job in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
except for that piddly little matter of Yahoo's stock price
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my Deity. Did he just attack Obama?
Wow. I knew the Obama as President criticism would start eventually, but I didn't think it would happen before he was even sworn-into office.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on, this isn't a black and white crime like assault or robbery. They were going to do something "questionable", the gov't said they're going to look into it, and companies decided it wasn't worth the controversy.
Besides, the partnership had just formed, you can't prosecute them for something they haven't done yet. This is basically the equivalent of asking a lawyer if something has legal risk before you do it, only on a corporate scale.
Re: (Score:2)
A good step towards undoing the idiotic precedent that corps are people and have the same rights?
(And the shareholders bit is a red herring. No one said they can't own stock in both yahoo and google)
Re: (Score:2)
That, and the fact that there is no up side. Doesn't sound like a very fun (or responsible) game to me.
The DOJ won't help (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Google and Yahoo could partner, leading to a monopoly.
2. Yahoo will go out of business, leading to a monopoly.
There is no way to prevent a monopoly.
Re:The DOJ won't help (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So the third option is
3. Have Yahoo team up with an already convicted monopoly (MS) to help stop Google becoming an monopoly
Making MS stronger doesn't exactly help the consumer or do anything to weaken MS' already existing monopoly on the desktop (as found by the previous DoJ investigation).
Rock, Hard place, Alaska in February
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Google has a monopoly???
A monopoly is defined as a "single source", but Google is hardly the only search engine in existence. Just off the top of my head there's MSN Search, Ask Jeeves, Ask.com, Altavista, AOLsearch, About, MIVA, LookSmart and more. I think this is a case of people using a word contrary to its true meaning. i.e. Doublespeak.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If Google got hold of Yahoo a company with market dominance to form a Monopoly WILL be formed.
If they don't merge, and IF Yahoo go under, and IF Yahoo isn't bought out by Microsoft or a less obvious Internet competitor (News Corp? Facebook? etc) who continue it and finally IF all Yahoo users choose to migrate to Google, then you would have a Monopoly.
I accept it could be argued both situations may well lead to the same s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, Google doesn't provide a proprietary service by any means. You don't NEED www.google.com to do your job, open your documents, or run your applications. At least, not right now.
At any point in time, someone else could create a better search algorithm and steal users away from Google's search, ads, and possibly email. (Though I kind of wish some free services like Bigfoot.com would have stayed around as a mail redirector so you could change mail providers on a whim. [Disclaimer: I haven't checked in
Re: (Score:2)
GMail lets you forward all mail received to another account, with options to keep copies in your GMail account, archive copies in your GMail account (so they don't appear as new if you sign in to the web interface), or delete copies in your GMail account. They also don't forward spam messages.
It's a great way to have a consistent email account that gets forwarded to a more personal account. Of course, you can also get your GMail with POP or IMAP if that's your desire.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more popular in Asia than the US.
Re: (Score:2)
I use Yahoo mail and Yahoo messenger too every now and then.
I have a gmail account but I rarely use it.
As long as Yahoo and MS's search engines are around, Google search isn't a monopoly at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I use Yahoo Yellow Pages sometimes.
It's the only time I ever visit Yahoo, though, and that's maybe once a month or less.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't really call a Google + Yahoo collaboration a monopoly. There are still plenty of search engines out there, and nothing about using Google or Yahoo (or any of their numerous holdings) prevents people from easily switching to other sites' services, or dividing their time between multiple sites. It's not like either Google or Yahoo provide a unique, patented service that others can't imitate - it seems to me to be a matter of time before someone perfects a suite of online utilities/applications th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is. Come out with something better than Google. Not gonna happen? Tough. Suck it up, it's not like we even pay for the services Google provides (well, most of them).
The average consumer is a spoiled brat. Yeah, I just took a swing at the Middle Class, tar and feather me. In my world, you have no right to Google's servers or services, and if they are too good at providing it, then it's your own damn fault for letting it happen and for letting it continue to happen. Nobody wants responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
WHY do people continue to get it backwards?
It's about Google leveraging its monopoly on search and so forth, no matter how legitimately gained and maintained, in other markets -- in this case, advertising (where Google really is squeezing people, in many ways).
In a similar way, Microsoft was never actually legally found to have done anything wrong to gain its Windows monopoly. They were found to be illegally leveraging that monopoly in favour of Internet Explorer. And then that finding was overturned in a
There is a third option (Score:5, Funny)
I prefer a third option. Here goes:
Yahoo, in a desperate bid to get MS's attention, hires actress Natalie Portman to seduce me to enlist my help in the matter. After hours of outrageous sex, including several acts involving grits, she convinces me to help. I go over to Bill Gates' house to resell him on the idea of a Yahoo/MS merger. Gates, grateful for my help and insight in the matter, agrees to call Ballmer up and talk to him about it, gives me a $2 million tip, and lets me take hom the biggest TV in his house. The next day, after another night of crazy mad oily sex with Natalie Portman, I meet up with Ballmer and Yang at Yahoo HQ. I make them apologize to one another, secure the deal to create a new search engine giant to compete with Google (called "MiYahoo"), get a nice portfolio of stock in the new company, then leave to go rent a goat and a midget for another night of insane smelly filthy sex with Natalie Portman.
Problem solved.
Re:There is a third option (Score:5, Funny)
I read this as
After hours of pointless masturbation, I ate my body weight in grits
Then I reread it, and my mind babelfished it the same way.
Anyone else have that problem? :)
--Toll_Free
Re: (Score:2)
pointless masturbation
That, sir, is an oxymoron.
Re: (Score:2)
All I got was:
fnord fnord fnord desperate fnord fnord fnord help fnord fnord fnord grits frnord fnord fnord grateful fnord fnord fnord TV fnord fnord fnord oily fnord fnord fnord giant fnord fnord fnord nice fnord fnord fnord goat fnord fnord fnord.
Problem solved.
Yours makes a little more sense... I guess.
You can rent Midgets? (Score:2)
...and here I went out and bought one, damn! He just hangs around all day now, staring at me, judging me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that's pretty much Capitalism.
Eventually, you end up with a monopoly, when one company provides a product an order of magnitudes better than another.
I was an ardent Yahoo user until about 2003, and then switched to Google. Pretty much when I got a :beta: email account on GMail. Yahoo = megabytes of storage and Google gave me a gig. Then, once I started using them, I found their search to be SO much better.
Yahoo had it in the early to late 90s. Now it's Googles game. And ANY Corp. entity MUST act l
They'll have problems from now on. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes and no -
Marketing a product that has so much brand recognition that you can spend/focus less on brand awareness and more on getting customers in the door is wonderful (and much more quantifiable).
But when your brand name or product becomes synonymous with the type of product itself, then, in the case of a Q-Tip, your product name no longer sells itself, but instead sells every cotton swab in the industry.
Why would Google acquire that dinosaur? (Score:4, Interesting)
Honestly, if I were Google, I would only be trying to buy Yahoo for Flickr, which seems extremely synergistic with Google's current offerings.
Yahoo's search tech is archaic and inferior, Yahoo's e-mail is not up to par with GMail, and most Yahoo site features are irrelevant and poorly executed on their site.
Both sites have a daily reach of about 30%, maybe they just want to make Yahoo.com redirect straight to Google. That would be good for a laugh and some ad revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
Google was never going to purchase Yahoo. Google was going to infuse Yahoo with money for a partnered search deal to protect Yahoo from Microsoft, but the DoJ thought that was practically a monopoly, while the DoJ thought it would be great if Microsoft BOUGHT Yahoo, and that wouldn't be a monopoly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the search market share to see why.
a combined Yahoo-google alliance would have control around 80% of the market. (google holds around 60-80%, yahoo around 10-15% depending on the source)
A Yahoo-Microsoft deal would only control around 20-30% of the market share, still short of what google already has and thus the DOJ would view MS in this area as making itself more competitive.
A very diverse company like MS is treated as though it was sepperate companies, their monopoly in one area does not impact o
Re: (Score:2)
Normally I never respond to ACs, but you bring up a point worth responding to.
Google's share is around 70% given September's reports. Microsoft and Yahoo make up basically 30%.
A partnership is not the same as one company controlling both. Yahoo wouldn't control Google's search market, and Google wouldn't fully control Yahoo's search market. It is a partnership.
Regardless, 90% market share, while appearing dominant is far less of a monopoly as Microsoft's monopoly for 20 plus years in a variety of markets.
re: why would Google acquire that dinosaur? (Score:2)
Foreign markets. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You should be assessed -5 pedantic for ignoring that the poster used the word correctly and that good usage overrides common parlance.
What's his name (Score:3, Interesting)
Who was the douche that threw his company under the bus, calling out Yang and saying Yahoo was stupid for not immediately selling out to Microsoft? He didn't care about the future of Yahoo as a company. He wanted a quick payout of his stock. He threw a fit, started a huge fight with the board, made Yahoo look bad, and not only is the future of Yahoo in question, but his own stock has plummeted. Now a Microsoft deal may happen, but for far less. The bitching caused the stockholders to lose their ass, and their company. I say that is a job well done.
Re:What's his name (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that would be him. Thanks.
Correction (Score:3, Funny)
DOJ Was 3 Hours Away From Violating Google's Rights
There, fixed that for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
antitrust .. (Score:2)
So when Microsoft eventually mops up Yahoos' 361 patent, that won't be an antitrust violation ?
Threats (Score:2)
To people who think antitrust law are not really harmful because they are used rarely, this should be a reminder.
(those who think they are helpful, I'm not even talking to you)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Free Market + Government Intervention & Punishment + Taxpayers Dollers = LOLFAILWHALE ECONOMY
Free Market + Government Suggestion & Aid + Taxpayer Dollers = Working Economy
A "hey, we're probably going to have to sue you if you do this" seems equally like "suggestion" to me. This is part of how the contours of what's permissible and what's not get drawn, and companies in the future will look at this and say "Google and Yahoo went this far, but got warned off. To what extent is our deal like that one?"
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't aid a form of intervention?
Re: (Score:2)
However, ending slavery, ending Company Towns, worker protection and safety laws are all government intervention and punishment that actually made things better.
I'm not sure if you live in free market fantasy land or are a shill for Bush policies, but either way the govern
Re: (Score:2)
The free market relies on companies not becoming monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
Monopolies happen if no one else can compete and is part of the free market system. Yahoo can't compete.
So if Yahoo goes, what happens then? Google's market share will only increase as a result. I don't see the difference here.
Re:Where did it go? (Score:5, Insightful)
The free market relies on companies not becoming monopolies.
Not quite. The free market relies on companies not *leveraging* their monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the "Free Market" doesn't care one way or another, by its very definition, about monopolies, or fairness, or the rights of consumers, or anything else like that.
Which is why I, and many other people, think that some intervention on the free market is a good thing so that the consumers don't get boned. The discussion then just becomes how much, when and where that intervention happens
Re:Where did it go? (Score:5, Insightful)
Something that is often forgotten is that the free market is NOT a natural phenomenon. When left to their own devices, the businesses will try to fuck the consumer, and the consumer who has virtually no individual power, will seek consumer rights via collective bargaining, eventually forming large concerted organizations that will act against the interests of the business. In other words, there are checks and balances in play, and the government's part in regulating the economy was created as a check against businesses seeking to overpower the public.
There are few if any free markets in the world for a good reason. They don't work. If you want to find a free market, you can look towards Somalia, no government interference there.
Re: (Score:2)
When left to their own devices, the businesses will try to fuck the consumer
That would be dumb of them. Don't those employees have any interest in keeping their jobs and putting food on the table? How can they stay in business if they screw over their customers. What stops a customer from switching to another service provider?
and the consumer who has virtually no individual power
Their wallets are all the power they need. Don't like a company? Pick another? If another doesn't exist, persuade everyone you know to demand better service and another company will come along to provide that service (if the demand is high enough, of course).
Re:Where did it go? (Score:5, Insightful)
You might think it would be dumb, but if you're providing something like an Operating System for computers everyone buys, who cares if you provide what the consumer wants or not when you can essentially force them to purchase it anyway?
People who believe in truly free markets often ignore the barrier to entry for competition. Competition is not a given, and competition may be essentially impossible under some circumstances (the local telco's owning all the copper and poles and rights thereto and new competition not having the right to erect new poles).
Re: (Score:2)
You might think it would be dumb, but if you're providing something like an Operating System for computers everyone buys, who cares if you provide what the consumer wants or not
Computers that everyone buys, but nobody wants???
when you can essentially force them to purchase it anyway?
How do you force (or "essentially force") someone to buy something, exactly? Does the computer manufacturer/dealer have no interest in maintaining its userbase, by providing what its customer wants? Does the OS maker have no interest in maintaining its relationship with the computer dealer, by providing what the dealer wants, in order to maintain their userbase?
People who believe in truly free markets often ignore the barrier to entry for competition.
Correction: people who oppose the free market often tout a barrier to entry for competition. Howev
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: people who oppose the free market often tout a barrier to entry for competition. However the largest restrictions (e.g. the local telco's you mention) are created and maintained by the government.
Bah, that's a bullshit libertarian fantasy. The largest barriers to entry are cost-related. Let's pretend that governments didn't get involved in providing easements for laying copper. Now, you go start an ISP. Okay, first, you gotta get rights to lay copper from all the property owners. Then you
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, first, you gotta get rights to lay copper from all the property owners. Then you have to outlay millions upon millions of dollars to dig up the ground and lay said infrastructure. And then you've gotta actually deploy the service.
That is chump change to existing large companies that provide similar services in other areas. The biggest hindrance now is not cost, but getting every local government to permit them to use their public property in the same way it is used by existing providers.
Yeah, I'm sure a little ol' startup can handle all that.
A "little ol' startup" would obviously supply to fewer customers. There goes your whole "millions upon millions" shock and awe argument. Please try to stay in context next time.
Verizon has blown enormous dollars to roll out fiber
That's because the huge demand for fiber is not a huge demand. Corn ethan
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You forget entirely about price collusion. When everyone is screwing the customer, what business can customers turn to?
The newly-created one that has the huge incentive of customer demand for cheaper products.
The problem with this whole debate is the pragmatic, unprincipled approach taken by everyone opposing the free market. According to this approach, nobody has a right to any of their products, services, or property - the customer instead has all those rights. Unfortunately for that argument, individuals have rights, regardless of how popular it has become to violate those rights. By promoting the violation of Google'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The newly-created one that has the huge incentive of customer demand for cheaper products. "
wow..simply..wow.
completly ignorant of reality to say that.
OK, your create said company. Now you need to crack the monopoly. What's that, you look like you have a shot? ok, now the coluding companies drop there price below your, you go away, and they jack up there prices.
You should really study up an large company behavior during the beginning of the 20th century to see where this leads.
Ther was a time when there wa
Re: (Score:2)
The free market relies on companies not *leveraging* their monopolies.
Not quite. The free market relies on governments not propping up monopolies. Until politicians decide to stop heeding special interests, destructive monopolies (e.g. telecom) will continue to thrive. The free market does not guarantee that monopolies won't exist at any given time, but it does guarantee that if the monopoly's services are poor enough, the demand for better service will be so great that better service will be provided, by another company if necessary. Only when a force-backed entity comes in
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't agree more. :) I'm just saying that monopolies, in and of themselves, aren't evil (hence why, in this case, I think the DoJ was being overzealous... without evidence that Google was planning to leverage that monopoly, there was nothing actually wrong going on (yet)).
Also, Nothing Wrong With Loaded Guns (Score:2)
By that logic, if you load a gun and point it at someone's head, it's totally fine just so long as you have no plans to threaten, extort or shoot that person. Which means, of course, that if accidentally happens, can you be held responsible?
I'm not a super big fan of slippery slope arguments, but you have to pretty much assume that if you give someone an option, and based on their value system it will beat out any other option, you have to assume they'll take it.
Re:Where did it go? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The free market also relies on a voluntary exchange of goods or services - which requires government "regulation" to prevent theft and other involuntary exchange. Government is also needed to provide things such as tort resolution and contract enforcement.
Of course. A force-backed entity is always necessary in order to punish theft and other violations of individual rights. That is quite different from the discussion at hand however. These people imagine they have a right to Google's search engine, and if Google starts to voluntarily buy up other search engines (who ALSO voluntarily sell to Google), and then decides they want to flood their site with huge flash ads, and sell out the top 10 search results to the highest bidder, these people would demand the g
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The American idea of "Free Market" is kind of like "Free Software". Basically the goal is to have everyone play nice and have an equal chance to contribute and so on. Nothing about that precludes government regulations. SOME people insist you should have an "anarchic market" and then go around calling it "free".
Fact is, people need rules. They're a fundamental part of society once you go beyond a certain population size. Without them you get anarchy, which is only bad when there are bad people. If eve
Re: (Score:2)
This is
Since when did "monopoly" in any given field or industry mean "getting an even larger market share?"
Google is *already* a monopoly if you use this twisted, perverted definition. I can't wait until the left starts arguing that Google is too big, that we need search engine competition, and demands they be broken up for being too good at what they do.
The same people that say a free market needs an X amount of competition (where X is whatever appeals to their gut on that time of the day) betray a free m
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm sure government barriers are the reason monopolies form in a market system with limited resources.
*eye roll*
Re:Where did it go? (Score:5, Interesting)
The free market that is...
It has never existed, and hopefully never will. Its only advantage is doctrinal purity for some economists who don't like dealing with the messiness of the real world. There would be no advantages for any society that implemented it, and significant disadvantages because it has no effective way of managing the many cases where the cost of an action is not borne by those who benefit from the action. Mixed economies are the only pragmatic economies; the real debate is just over what the precise mix should be.
Re:Microsoft (Score:4, Informative)
And it isn't like Microsoft doesn't have a dog in the search business.
Re:Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
And actually, in the long run, that may bring out the best. The difference may be subtle, but I see a difference in how Google and Yahoo responded here in comparison to how Microsoft has historically responded to such moves. Google and Yahoo respectfully withdrew once it became certain that they were on a collision course with public authority. I believe the record is abundantly clear that in cases of conflict with public interest, Microsoft, historically, has pushed ahead with its agenda to the fullest extent possible, sometimes (as in the EU antitrust case for example) past the point where legal avenues have been exhausted.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and watch for changes in this distinction, but I'd like to think that in the long run a pattern will become evident in which corporations that play fair are rewarded and those which don't lose the advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
Why did the DOJ call off the attack on Microsoft, yet decide to go after Google and Yahoo on this...?
For the same reason the government does anything. Whim. Political pull. Don't try to make sense of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of who pays off the most federal employees of course.