Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Jul 2011 21:38 UTC
Google So, Google has come under scrutiny by the US Federal Trade Commission for possible anti-competitive practices. While I would say the FTC has far larger threats to competition to worry about (the inevitable p-word), it would appear there's sufficient suspicion to take a gander at Google's business practices.
Thread beginning with comment 481456
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This doesn't help with oversight
by sonnyrao on Mon 18th Jul 2011 23:36 UTC
sonnyrao
Member since:
2011-07-18

IMHO, all this is really doing is forcing Google to hire more lawyers and lobbyists. So, I don't see it doing what Thom thinks it's doing, and as a US taxpayer, it seems like the govt is merely a pawn in a larger corporate struggle here, and is wasting money to help some corporations (and lawyers in general) at the expense of another. I don't think consumer choice is the real issue at all.

Edit: s/one corportation/some corporations/

Edited 2011-07-18 23:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

consumers chose... so I fail to see the problem.

besides that... it is not like Google is preventing other search companies from indexing the web, or preventing those same companies from selling advertising space.

Heck... Google is all about openness on the web and builds platforms with the intention of allowing everyone to build services that can inter-operate with the one Google is building.

If commercial success becomes the standard for anti-competitive behavior, then the US is in a more serious situation than I have been thinking for the last decade.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

consumers chose... so I fail to see the problem. besides that... it is not like Google is preventing other search companies from indexing the web, or preventing those same companies from selling advertising space. Heck... Google is all about openness on the web and builds platforms with the intention of allowing everyone to build services that can inter-operate with the one Google is building. If commercial success becomes the standard for anti-competitive behavior, then the US is in a more serious situation than I have been thinking for the last decade.


Exactly.

Personally, I think it seems to me that lobbying of government (rather than the actual law) has come to define the standard for so-called "anti-competitive behavior".

To this end, there was a story recently where Google has begun to hire more lobbying firms. It remains to be seen if that is enough for Google to now do adequate couter-lobbying, becase there is apparently now a quite large gang lined up against it.

Edited 2011-07-19 01:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

consumers chose... so I fail to see the problem.


No, just as Microsoft got OEMs to offer its operating system and browser, so, too, has Google leveraged its way to being default search engine on most PCs. This wasn't illegal or immoral. It was good business. But we're now at a point where Google wants to push its way into countless other markets -- using its strength in search.

besides that... it is not like Google is preventing other search companies from indexing the web, or preventing those same companies from selling advertising space.


That's not true. Google has lots of exclusive arrangements with content owners which aren't available to other search providers.

Heck... Google is all about openness on the web and builds platforms with the intention of allowing everyone to build services that can inter-operate with the one Google is building.


That has nothing to do with openness on the web. It's about strengthening Google's own platform.

If commercial success becomes the standard for anti-competitive behavior, then the US is in a more serious situation than I have been thinking for the last decade.


No, commercial success isn't the differentiator. It's monopoly power. There's a huge difference between the two.

Reply Parent Score: 2