How Do You Claim Antitrust Against Someone Who Has A Smaller Marketshare?

from the ah,-the-internets dept

Last week, we noted that Italian investigators were looking into Google News for alleged antitrust violations in not telling newspapers how it ranks stories. As ridiculous as that assertion is in the first place, it looks even more ridiculous when you realize (as Erick Schonfeld figured out) that Google News is actually a much smaller presence online than Italy's two largest newspapers online. It makes you wonder how you claim an antitrust violation against someone, when your own marketshare is larger and you control the established brand names in the market.
Hide this

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, italy, journalism, news
Companies: google


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2009 @ 12:29am

    because competition is sin

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    No thank you, 1 Sep 2009 @ 12:36am

    It's called Berlusconi, right? The laughing stock of all politians (ever? could he be worse than Bush?)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3k9pMtrccQ

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    slander (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 12:58am

    Because...

    One should never let facts get in the way of a good whine

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Griff (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 1:40am

    Market share ?

    This is like comparing Ford's market share with Avis.

    Google does not originate content like (presumably) the newspapers do, so comparing market share seems a bit misplaced. Online eyeball share perhaps.

    But that said, it's ridiculous to complain about its rankings. It's like suing a trade journal for demoting your press releases. (Which they are running for free). At least with Google there is (probably) a dispassionate formula, rather than an arbitrary editorial bias like in "old" media.

    Is there an equivalent for Adwords specifically for placing links to news stories ?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2009 @ 9:12am

      Re: Market share ?

      "At least with Google there is (probably) a dispassionate formula, rather than an arbitrary editorial bias like in "old" media."

      I think this is the problem, they don't appreciate that they have to compete with everyone else and they want a government granted disproportionally unlevel playing field.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2009 @ 4:29am

    because it's not the same market. The newspapers are in the 'news reporting' market, Google news is in the aggregator market.
    So yes, it could be a monopoly if no-one does the same in Italy.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Luci, 1 Sep 2009 @ 5:05am

      Re:

      Ah, yes. I see. Because they provide useful links directly /to/ the newspapers instead of printing the news up, themselves...

      You do realize how stupid that sounds, right?

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 6:39am

      Re:

      If it's not the same market as you say, then how can the two largest newspapers in Italy claim that Google is pushing them out of the market? I think that's the general point. The newspapers don't have a case because Google can't use it's size to push them out of a market that Google doesn't even occupy.

      It's just that much more inane when we see that the two newspapers have more viewers than Google.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      dorp, 1 Sep 2009 @ 8:23am

      Re:

      because it's not the same market. The newspapers are in the 'news reporting' market, Google news is in the aggregator market.
      So yes, it could be a monopoly if no-one does the same in Italy.


      So if it is not the same market as newspapers, how are they threatened by it? You make zero sense, fred.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Chuck (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 5:22am

    DEBAR!

    New rule: Any lawyer that files an extremely frivolous lawsuit gets debarred. We save tax dollars, job opportunities in the legal field is opened, and the lawyers don't need to worry about losing their source of income as they are already filthy rich.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jrosen (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 7:16am

      Re: DEBAR!

      Gods that would be nice, the problem is, that wouldn't really fix anything. It would just breed more lawyers, because just think of how much more law-sh!t there would be about 'yes this is frivolous' or not, taking up even more money, time and wasting it all.

      But yes, we do need to do something about the moronically frivolous lawsuits

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    NullOp, 1 Sep 2009 @ 6:26am

    Smoke & Mirrors

    You claim antitrust in hopes that whoever hears the case will see your, nonexistent, point. Its a mind game. It has to be the answer as all other solutions simply make the originator of the complaint look stupid.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2009 @ 9:34am

    Unfair competition not antitrust

    Markets are drawn by competitive lines. If newspaper sites and Google are serving the same market need, they are in the same market. Monopoly requires about 70% share, so Google doesn't have a monopoly.

    However, they might have an unfair competition claim, while doesn't require a monopoly. At least here in the US, you do have competitive rights to facts even if the facts are not copyrightable.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 10:48am

    Whisper Campaign?

    Hmmm. Wonder if this kind of thing is related to an organized effort to discredit Google in government circles.

    See this story for the kind of conspiracy theory that is now being rumored:

    http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/08/28/microsofts-secret-screw-google-meetings-in-d-c/

    Whethe r its a conspiracy or not, there is no doubt many of Google's (perceived) competitors are well-entrenched businesses with long-standing ties to government, fear of change, and lobbying experience. Think newspapers, portals, TV, telecom, MSFT, and more. Of course these companies will try to paint Google as the bogeyman to government, and gullible/bribable elected officials will listen.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    hegemon13, 1 Sep 2009 @ 11:03am

    Hmmm

    This article makes no sense. I have no opinion on whether or not the Italian newspapers actually have a claim, as I have not done the research.

    However, there are certainly activities that are illegal by antitrust law no matter how large or small your market share is. Just because Google News is smaller does not make it impossible that they are using illegal business practices (again - not saying they are, just what's possible). For example, say there are 4 significant companies in a given market, and one controls 75% of the market. If the three comprising the other 25% decided to collude and price-fix in order to attack the larger company's market share, it's illegal. Small or not, collusion is an antitrust practice.

    Again, I don't know everything this particular case entails, but it doesn't matter. The argument presented, that they shouldn't be able to go after Google because Google is smaller, holds no weight.

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.