Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th May 2008 11:11 UTC
Last week, when Microsoft's attempt at buying Yahoo stranded, Steve Ballmer specifically mentioned Google, and how a possible deal between Google and Yahoo would limit choice and competition in the marketplace. Google explained yesterday how it would fend off possible antritrust concerns following an ad-sharing deal with Yahoo. In addtion, Google noted the irony in Microsoft's complaints.
Permalink for comment 313591
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-24
Thom,
I suspect that you are misunderstanding me. The definition of monopoly which I find most useful regards barrier to entry to other players and other things relevant to preservation of competition. (These, more than market share, seemed to be the things that Thomas Penfield Jackson was interested in duing DOJ et.al. vs Microsoft.) If you prefer another definition, that is fine with me. I don't really care that much about hammering out the definition of monopoly. I do care about whether Google's position is anti-competitive or not. I do not see evidence that it is.
It is possible that I am reading too much into google_ninja's post. But I read it as implying that Google has employed anti-competitive practices in the search market, and/or abused its market position. Those would be positions with which I would disagree.
Edited 2008-05-09 13:56 UTC