Google Competitors Spitting Mad About FTC Closing Case; Promise That Europe & Texas Will Get It Right
from the we'll-see-about-that dept
With the FTC closing its antitrust case against Google, the group of Google's competitors who were the main instigators behind the effort aren't giving up easily. Gary Reback, the lawyer whose entire persona is wrapped up in being "the lawyer who gets the FTC to attack big companies" (he also led the charge against Microsoft a decade and a half ago) issued an incredibly combative statement:“I've been doing this almost 40 years, and I've done dozens if not scores of government investigations on both sides, and I have never seen a more unprofessional, incomplete, incompetent investigation,” said Gary Reback, a Silicon Valley lawyer who represented some of Google's complainants before the FTC.Really, now? In the briefing the FTC gave about the situation, FTC boss, Jon Liebowitz, indicated that the Google competitors' strategy of attacking the FTC when it was suggested that there might not be enough evidence for antitrust didn't help convince the FTC to suddenly create evidence out of thin air. Apparently, Reback would prefer that the FTC do stuff just because he says so, even as the evidence for Reback's claims are completely lacking.
Meanwhile, the laughably named "FairSearch" group -- a collection of Google competitors, who teamed up to create a publicity campaign solely with the goal of attacking Google over antitrust claims, came out with its own hilarious statement, which could be summarized as "it's not over yet! There's still Europe! And Texas!"
“The FTC's decision to close its investigation with only voluntary commitments from Google is disappointing and premature, coming just weeks before the company is expected to make a formal and detailed proposal to resolve the four abuses of dominance identified by the European Commission, first among them biased display of its own properties in search results.It is true that the EU Commission is still doing its own investigation, and given the EU's general feelings that "big" (and "American") must somehow be "bad," it's likely that they'll come down a bit more harshly on Google, as they did on Microsoft. Similarly, some state Attorneys General (mainly Texas) who have been grandstanding against Google and other tech companies for years will likely grouse about this -- but their ability to do anything about it may be fairly limited, given the lack of any actual evidence of harm.
The FTC’s settlement is by no means the last word in this case, leaving the FTC without a major role in the final resolution to the investigations of Google's anti-competitive practices by state attorneys general and the European Commission. The FTC’s inaction on the core question of search bias will only embolden Google to act more aggressively to misuse its monopoly power to harm other innovators.
State attorneys general who reportedly disagreed with today's announcement by the FTC have an important role to play in ensuring both that Google is not allowed to continue practices that hurt every American business through artificially high advertising costs, and to demand that whatever changes Google is forced to make in Europe also apply for U.S. consumers who risk losing innovation because of Google's aggressive abuse of its dominance.
In the end, this is coming off as even more sour grapes from companies who chose to focus on whining to government, rather than competing in the marketplace. In the future, instead of spending so much on lobbyists and lawyers, perhaps they could focus on building better products that the market wants.
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, attorneys general, competition, eu commission, ftc, gary reback, texas
Companies: fairsearch, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What!!!
Google 'Search Engine' google is comes in 8th, after duckduckgo, bing, altavista (that really still exists???), etc.
They are doing nothing wrong as the FTC found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What!!!
Google 'Search Engine' google is comes in 8th, after duckduckgo, bing, altavista (that really still exists???), etc.
They are doing nothing wrong as the FTC found.
and in so much that you don't find that at all suspicious might make one think you have a possible conflict of interest here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Antitrust Absurdity"
A group of not so good looking men (Google's competitors), instead of working to make themselves more attractive in innovative ways, run to the government in an attempt to use State law to force some of the women, that would have voluntarily gone home with Google Man to have consensual sex, to instead have sex with them.
Or they may force Google Man to make himself uglier in an attempt to have less woman as attracted to him (Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" comes to mind).
It is never morally legitimate to initiate force against another individual, no matter what the excuse.
Either engage in consensual relationships/voluntary exchange or don't engage at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Antitrust Absurdity"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google, no anti-trust issues?
Why would that be? May it be because Youtube gets it's fair share of DMCA notices and Google pledged to downrate sites based on that?
Is Google going to apply it's own rules on their sites as it should and as would be fair? I doubt that. But they should, otherwise it really smells of monopoly abuse to favor their own services.
Also their censoring of "pirate related" terms in auto-complete, while probably less direct, could be construed as anticompetitive - suppressing competition, as it lacks any objective rules and is apparently completely left to Google's discretion what they censor.
Or what about compelling users to install their own browser (Chrome) in their search? Wasn't MS sanctioned for doing something similar in bundling IE in Win?
I don't know what the actual claims were - I'm going to investigate that now but it's a far cry from such a ridiculous idea as you appear to make it out to be. I can imagine claims that appear credible and Google can be shown to abuse their monopoly position (depending on your definition of 'abuse')
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google, no anti-trust issues?
Where does this monopoly thing happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google, no anti-trust issues?
It's there, it just doesn't appear to get as many takedown requests as you might expect.
This is likely due to many of the measures they've implemented that bypass the need for using an official DMCA request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google, no anti-trust issues?
Auto-complete doesn't count as a trust issue as it doesn't actually effect their search at all nor are they blocking anything that could cause a trust issue. If they were blocking competitors's companies, then yes, it would be. But they're not.
Advertising their browser is different then forcing everyone to use their browser (as was the complaint with IE). I would also point out that if IE coming with Windows is a problem, then Safari coming with anything Apple is also a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google, no anti-trust issues?
The last area is copyright, where we all know how inconsistent and bad the laws are enforced.
EU anti-competition commissionairy is bureaucratic as beep and slow, but they are generally pretty strict on following the laws and has previously been hard to corrupt by threats from the companies.
On that note, a Google proposal for a settlement has been accepted by EU. The following are some of the commissioners statements on the matter:
"Since our preliminary talks with Google started in July, we have substantially reduced our differences.
...
On the basis of the progress made, I now expect Google to come forward with a detailed commitment text in January 2013"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20781530
Seems that Google is going to make a deal in Europe instead of going to court like FTC did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google, no anti-trust issues?
Charge them for things other branches of the government pressured them into? "I can imagine claims that appear credible" Congratulations you have a bright future at the DOJ ahead of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google, no anti-trust issues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google, no anti-trust issues?
There is no compelling going on here. It's merely a suggestion. It's as brazenly anticompetitive as the cute McDonald's dude asking "would you like fries with that?".
Maybe the FTC should force the McDonald's guy to ask "would you like Burger King fries with that?"
Nobody is forced to install Chrome. It is merely a suggestion by Google to try another Google product. (Like french fries)
If this is bad, then the reverse is just as bad: Microsoft should not be allowed to make Bing the default search engine in its browser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ehhh, yeah Texas....
"Promise That Europe & Texas Will Get It Right"
I was going to ask, not so sarcastically, "when was the last time Texas got something right"
However, I seem to recall ONE thing coming out of E.Texas lately that was appropriately rendered. I could be wrong.
The only thing good coming out of E.Texas was Lyle Lovett.
Poor guy.... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080711/1439371651.shtml
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Texas has considered itself to be its own nation for years now. The only hitch will be agreeing to work with "foreigners" who suffer from a lack of grazing land and oil reserves. (Also: several national flags will need to be redesigned to meet Texas' exacting standards of three colors and a prominent star. And under no circumstances will the Dallas Cowboys be renamed the Dallas Continentals.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yep this is what this is corporate whining about having to compete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EU and getting things right?
Google has has around a 90% market ratio around here (the EU).
What are considered monopoly practices is different between the EU and the USA.
Then there are the newspapers who want a piece of the Google pie.
Also the shenanigans with Streetview slurping WiFi data hasn't been forgotten.
And a few more of minor quibbles like those last two.
That said I do expect them to find that Google hasn't abused it's position if the commission decides to investigate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EU and getting things right?
Grabbing a small amount of WPA2 data isn't enough to do anything. You need a few sets of handshake data at least. This is unlikely to happen in the short time google was driving by.
By the way, no I don't care at all if google knows where my AP is, or has some encrypted data from it. Now if they park a van in my parking lot for a day or 2, and it turns out that they are harvesting data, then maybe I'll be concerned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple?
At least if I ever get tired of Google I don't need to buy another computer. Hell, if i get sick of Android I don't even need to buy another phone. If at anytime I am unsatisfied, I can get apps elsewhere, play music from bought from anywhere, search using any search engine, get email from wherever I choose, and so on. So, how is Google in potential anti-trust hot water but Apple isn't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where has it happened before? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laughablly complex
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laughablly complex
Since Google was actually late to the party, what made them successful?
Oh, yeah. It was that they had something radically better than their entrenched competitors.
Google is vulnerable to innovation. If someone comes up with something better, people will flock to it. Nobody is locked into Google. Nobody is forced to use Google.
You are free to not use any Google properties at all. So what are you complaining about? Oh, yeah. It's the fact that Google has worked hard which resulted in becoming very successful. You want the successful part without the work hard part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ill just re-phrase that
Please sir, Google shouldn't be allowed to out-market other companies that can't keep up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]