Ex-Google Exec Said Goal Was To 'Crush' Competition, Trial Evidence Shows (reuters.com) 27
A Google executive told colleagues the goal for the company's then-nascent online advertising business in 2009 was to "crush" rival advertising networks, according to evidence prosecutors presented at the tech titan's antitrust trial on Wednesday. From a report: The statements underscored the U.S. Department of Justice's claim that Google has sought to monopolize markets for publisher ad servers and advertiser ad networks, and tried to dominate the market for ad exchanges which sit in the middle. On the third day of the trial, prosecutors began to introduce evidence of how Google employees thought about the company's products at the time when the government alleges it set out to dominate the ad tech market.
"We'll be able to crush the other networks and that's our goal," David Rosenblatt, Google's former president of display advertising, said of the company's strategy in late 2008 or early 2009, according to notes shown in court. Google denies the allegations, saying it faces fierce competition from rival digital advertising companies. Rosenblatt came to Google in 2008 when it acquired his former ad tech company, DoubleClick, and left the following year. The notes of his talk showed him discussing the advantages of owning technology on both sides and the middle of the market. "We're both Goldman and NYSE," he said, he said, according to the notes, referring to one of the world's biggest stock exchanges at the time and one of its biggest market makers. "Google has created what's comparable to the NYSE or London Stock Exchange; in other words, we'll do to display what Google did to search," Rosenblatt said.
"We'll be able to crush the other networks and that's our goal," David Rosenblatt, Google's former president of display advertising, said of the company's strategy in late 2008 or early 2009, according to notes shown in court. Google denies the allegations, saying it faces fierce competition from rival digital advertising companies. Rosenblatt came to Google in 2008 when it acquired his former ad tech company, DoubleClick, and left the following year. The notes of his talk showed him discussing the advantages of owning technology on both sides and the middle of the market. "We're both Goldman and NYSE," he said, he said, according to the notes, referring to one of the world's biggest stock exchanges at the time and one of its biggest market makers. "Google has created what's comparable to the NYSE or London Stock Exchange; in other words, we'll do to display what Google did to search," Rosenblatt said.
It's what capitalists do (Score:3, Interesting)
Warren Buffett once was caught in a similar dustup because he purchased a newspaper in a two-paper town, then subsidized his paper until the other one folded (no pun intended). He once mentioned this technique in a speech that was more or less on how to get a monopoly.
The town sued him for "intent" to drive out the other paper. His response was that all businesses people want that, if the opportunity offers itself, and that he was simply being honest and being punished for free speech. He eventually won the court case, but it took a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting angle on the FP, but you didn't mention freedom. I think that's kind of important for this story. Since monopoly law was Borked to death, I think it needs to be rewritten around the idea of increasing freedom, whereas the current business games are completely focused on profit maximization. Loss of freedom measured in at least two ways: (1) Choices available to customers, and (2) Inability of wannabe competitors to offer new choices. (However the Paradox of Choices talks about the problems at
Re: It's what capitalists do (Score:2)
Bullshit, I think a pun was intended.
Re: (Score:3)
It is also what kills markets and, eventually, makes for a very bad and very inefficient economy. Hence any sane economic system outlaws this behavior and punishes it rather harshly.
Re: It's what capitalists do (Score:2)
It's legal to want to drive your competitor out of business, it's not legal to break the law to do it.
Proving they said 'crush' is not sufficient to convict.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is not legal to try to drive your competition out of business, unless there are plenty of other competitors.
Re: (Score:1)
To clarify, I'm against most big oligopolies and believe anti-trust should be applied.
The issue here is stated intent of the company. I don't think that should be a factor in anti-trust suits. If our legal system makes it a factor, management will just use code words or verbal-only for the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Actively planning criminal behavior serves to establish that criminal behavior was actively planned. What is the problem with that?
Re: It's what capitalists do (Score:2)
Exzactly. The only time I've heard of one company formally assisting a competitor was Microsoft supporting Apple by committing to offering their MS-Office software on Macintosh.
This is evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a real argument to be made for Google advertising being a monopoly, but this sure as hell isn't it. So long before they were even the number one is the space, some said they wanted to "crush" the competition? Find me a company that doesn't say things like that? Do they think companies big plan is to successfully coexist with the competition? To fairly split the market with the competition? This is the way all companies talk. IF this is the highlight of their evidence, they should really just stop now and save everyone the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Intent counts. [justice.gov]
Re:This is evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is evidence that this is how David Rosenblatt thought. These are his words.
The counter is that he came onboard when Google purchased his company (DoubleClick) in 2008 -and then was gone a year later as the integration of the business unit concluded. His vision was not compatible with the Google vision, otherwise they would have kept him around to lead things.
It is a pretty simple counterargument to make.
Re: (Score:2)
"Do they think companies big plan is to successfully coexist with the competition?"
If the company were run by actual capitalists, yes.
However, the median businessman has no idea how capitalism works and at the 90th percentile they are actively opposed.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. If you are a true capitalist, then a monopoly is where you want to go. All the rules about monopolies actually run counter to true capitalism. Pure capitalism a pure greed and doing anything to get ahead.
Re: This is evidence? (Score:2)
If Google partnered with its competitors to 'share the market' they would soon find themselves in court.
A company can choose to enter a market or not, and it can do it to either help or hurt their competition, but they can't coordinate with their competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Remember the Google "master plan" graphic [flickr.com] that was the darling of memes a hot minute ago? A joke business plan that included "orbital mind control", "robots enforce terms & conditions", "crop circles", takeover of "banks", "convenience stores", "airlines", "space travel", etc.
It was a joke back then. Now? Hard evidence in court.
"Let's do a mediocre job!" (Score:3)
This is not how things are supposed to be done in a free society. Setting out to be mediocre does not improve life for anyone.
If being mediocre is truly the goal, why bother?
Re: (Score:2)
Because setting out for perfection is just a huge unattainable goal, it requires immense resources to attain, mediocre or good enough is what most things should be. Sure you can improve things but at some point that extra bit of better comes a cost greater than the benefit.
There are plenty of things in society that are less than mediocre, like famine, war, climate change etc that we should be focusing on but we don't but instead we spend huge amount of resources on trivial things like improving Windows tha
Re: (Score:2)
You describe non-commercial goals. We're talking commercial stuff here.
Is excelling at a marathon a commercial goal? Usually, no, but participating in one has goals. Thousands participate with a goal to complete it. A select few, though, are doing it "to be the best". When a city or other organization puts on such a marathon, they aren't seeking the best in choosing the people allowed to participate, though. They're making an opportunity for people to "have fun".
War is (or used to be) something where winnin
Re: (Score:2)
Because setting out for perfection is just a huge unattainable goal
"Perfection" is unattainable, sure, but that doesn't mean that you don't strive for it, even if you can't attain it.
Don't all businesses say that? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes but (Score:5, Insightful)
...but quoting an exec saying "our goal is to crush the competition" is not evidence for that. This is simply the way companies work. It's legal if they're "crushing the competition" by producing a better product or a lower cost, it's illegal if they're crushing the competition by using their monopoly to give customers no choice other than a worse product at higher cost.
Google Training (Score:4, Interesting)
And if that *wasn't* the goal ... (Score:2)
... then you'd accuse them of "collusion".
Seriously, what businessman doesn't want to "crush" the competition??
So? (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with trying to "crush the competition." The only issue is whether you do it legally.