Google And Yahoo Negotiating With Justice Department Over Antitrust
from the trying-to-avoid-a-lawsuit dept
With the Justice Department making it clear that it wanted to go after Google for possible antitrust violations, it appears that Google has recognized the time isn't right to be defiant, but to get a seat at the negotiating table. The company, along with Yahoo, is apparently in talks with the Justice Department to see what it can do to avoid getting sued for antitrust violations. While it's obviously way too early to see whether or not this works, it must be better than waiting until the whole thing gets hashed out in court. It's still difficult to see what sort of antitrust violation there really is here, but that wouldn't stop the government from bringing a costly lawsuit if some sort of deal isn't worked out quickly.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, negotiating
Companies: google, yahoo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Can't see a potential violation?
Try Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't see a potential violation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't see a potential violation?
"No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or tend to create a monopoly."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't see a potential violation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't see a potential violation?
You don't have to prevent competition in order to run afoul of Section 7. You merely have to lessen it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't see a potential violation?
What a crock, with that definition you could go after just about any business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't see a potential violation?
You don't have a serious problem with that definition? How is it a monopoly if competition is still there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't see a potential violation?
I am not stating my opinion of the Act. I am merely stating that it is there, and that the Google-Yahoo deal potentially violates it. Given that, I don't see how "[i]t's still difficult to see what sort of antitrust violation there really is here."
That said, one does not need to have a full-blown monopoly in order to act like a monopolist. One need only have and exert market power, usually by raising prices and reducing output, to do so. Section 7 of the Clayton Act was designed to nip horizontal mergers that have this potential in the proverbial bud.
Perhaps you need to brush up on your antitrust law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't see a potential violation?
and with that remark, you are claiming to be an expert in the field ?
Your claim is weak, simply because it could be applied across most any portion of the business landscape.
Oh look, antitrust everywhere ! Run !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't see a potential violation?
No, but I do claim to know a bit in the field, which is apparently more than you.
Your claim is weak, simply because it could be applied across most any portion of the business landscape.
Hardly. First, this is not my claim; it is the law. Second, this law only applies to mergers, not to companies by themselves. Third, many mergers have the potential to increase competition, as they would allow the resultant firm to increase efficiencies and lower costs, thus giving it an increased ability to compete with others in the market. So I fail to see how this law "could be applied across most any portion of the business landscape."
As for Google and Yahoo, again, one would have to explain to me how the merger of two giants in the field, the result of which would produce an 89% market share in one firm, would have the potential to do anything but lessen competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't see a potential violation?
Show me something google is doing that is impacting the search engine market negatively and it'd probably be a false report.
Claiming that it's because of the law is not a critical understanding. It neither creates a monopoly, nor does it stifle or lessen competition. Lessening competition is like claiming felony interference of a business model and I'm sure Mike or anyone (as clearly techdirt readers are pretty smart) could vouch for how that one doesn't exist.
You could create a search engine and compete today if you want. There is no artificial barriers for any company to create one, not even bandwidth. You could reasonably start with a single PC and go from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't see a potential violation?
I never thought so, but I suspect that a number of posters defending Google did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't see a potential violation?
Perhaps you should direct your question to the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice.
The fact of the matter is that Wilton is correct and the DOJ will have a major say in a Google/Yahoo deal moving forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't see a potential violation?
If a merger of those two does not have a substantial potential to "lessen competition" or "tend to create a monopoly," then you're going to have to explain to me how.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't see a potential violation?
Said mentioned section = Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. =
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000018----000-.html
(copy onto one line)
All that says is, you can't create a monopoly. Google is not a monopoly, even if they own yahoo. What the hell are you talking about? Also, unless Microsoft sues them for this(which they will lose on a variety of levels) what is the FTC going to do? google and yahoo are by far not the only folks in the SEO business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't see a potential violation?
No, it says that you can't enter into an acquisition of stocks or assets that would "tend to create a monopoly" or "lessen competition." By no means must there be a certain monopoly. The case law says so plainly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THINK
Ugh, and these are the people who will be voting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]