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.
Thread beginning with comment 313584
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: I note the irony of google complaining about com
by sbergman27 on Fri 9th May 2008 13:19
in reply to "RE[2]: I note the irony of google complaining about compla"
Member since:2005-07-24
That wholly depends on the definition you employ. I clearly remember my economics professor explaining that a company has a monopoly when it serves like 60% of the market
Rather than focusing on definitions, and whether Google is or is not a monopoly as a matter of academics, perhaps we should focus on the same thing that anti-trust laws are supposed to: protecting the consumer through preserving market competition. In what way does Google's success threaten competition, and thus the consumer? There are no artificial barriers to entry for other players, beyond having the resources to put an infrastructure into place which is massive and well designed enough to challenge Google for speed, ease of use, and quality. To me, that's just good competition, and not a violation of anti-trust laws, in either letter or spirit. Not just anyone could challenge them, of course, in the same way that you or I would have a problem challenging Ford Motor Co. But money and brand recognition are what it takes to try, and Microsoft, e.g., has plenty of both of those. Note that I say that those things are enough to try. If they are not backed up by a superior search service, they will not dislodge the #1 player. And that is what has been the case, thus far, in the search market.
RE[4]: I note the irony of google complaining about com
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 9th May 2008 13:29
in reply to "RE[3]: I note the irony of google complaining about com"
Member since:2005-06-29
Rather than focusing on definitions, and whether Google is or is not a monopoly as a matter of academics, perhaps we should focus on the same thing that anti-trust laws are supposed to: pr...
That's all great, fine, and dandy, but that's irrelevant. You said Google is not a monopoly, and I said that if their share of the market is large enough, they are a monopoly, whether they abuse that position or not. I just read their share is 53.6%, so I think that technically makes them a monopoly.
You may start talking about anti-trust and abuse and such, but that has nothing to do with being a monopoly or not. It has to do with abusing said monopoly.
Member since:
2005-06-29
That wholly depends on the definition you employ. I clearly remember my economics professor explaining that a company has a monopoly when it serves like 60% of the market or more (I forgot the exact percentage) - how a company uses that monopoly is irrelevant.
A monopoly does not imply malicious intent or abuse. It might, but it doesn't have to.