German Official Says It May Be Time To Break Up Google... Just Because

from the huh? dept

Mon, May 19th 2014 12:40pm — Mike Masnick

Having already gone through antitrust investigations in both the US and in Europe, without facing any serious penalties (and having regulators more or less recognize that Google wasn't doing anything anti-competitive), it appears that Google's angry competitors are still going to keep trying. The latest is that a bunch of publishers in Europe demanded that the European Commission try again, while a top official in Germany, economy minister Sigmar Gabriel, announced that it was time to "break up" Google. Then, over the weekend, another top European politician, Martin Schulz, the center-left's candidate to lead the European Commission after the EU parliamentary elections coming up shortly, argued that there need to be many more regulations on Google, because... well... because he doesn't seem to like the company very much.

As always, when a company gets big, there are reasonable concerns about whether or not it may be abusing market power. But the problem here is that every time anyone actually looks into Google's activities, they find no evidence of it abusing its market power in any way that harms consumers. Some companies tend to get upset that they're not ranked high enough, or that consumers prefer Google's competing services to their own. But there's no evidence of consumer harm at all. The entirety of the antitrust argument against Google seems to be "well, the company is big." And, for some in Europe, it seems to be "the company is big, and based in the US." Again, that's something worth watching, to make sure that Google doesn't abuse its position, but for all the complaints, there never seems to be any evidence showing any actual consumer harm.

As for the argument about breaking up Google... well, good luck with that. I'm curious how Germany breaks up an American company. In fact Gabriel's own spokesperson more or less admitted that Germany had no way to enforce a breakup, but that didn't seem to be worth reconsidering the idea:

"With a breakup of Google the global dimension would naturally raise questions of enforceability," Rouenhoff told reporters in Berlin. "Such a procedure would take a certain amount of time."

There are times you think that Google might just be better off saying "okay, fine," and blocking German IPs from reaching its services, just to see how the public would react. To date, Google has always made it clear that it would like to avoid that kind of gamesmanship. But, at times, you wonder if people realize what exactly they're complaining about.

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, europe, germany, martin schulz, search, sigmar gabriel
Companies: google

109 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

bob, 19 May 2014 @ 12:51pm

OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
GOOG may be run by billionaires and it may be a defacto monopoly with almost all of the marketshare. That doesn't matter around here. TechDirt has never shirked from a finding a defense for anything Google does.

Why? I don't know. I think some competition would be great for the web. It would be neat to have more ad networks and more search engines. I'm sure everyone around here is all for competition and against monopolies. Heck, Mike constantly inveighs against copyright "monopolies" even though the term is not correct. But that's different. Giving control to artists is bad for GOOG and so it must be fought with any rhetorical tricks. GOOG's monopoly is good and so we must sneer at anyone who questions it.

Oh, BTW, and I love your suggestion that GOOG should just censor all of Germany to show who's boss. Talk about power corrupting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 12:53pm
  
  Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
  https://www.google.com/#q=search+engines
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 19 May 2014 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
  Hmm...let's see if there is any competition for Google as a search engine:
  https://www.google.com/search?q=search+engine&oq=search+engine&gs_l=serp.3..0i67l10.7 012.7012.0.7318.1.1.0.0.0.0.121.121.0j1.1.0.ekp%2Ckpns%3D1000%2Ckpnss%3D100...0...1.1.43.serp..0.1.1 20.3sn2LQ15V8w
  
  Look! Google will even help me find umm...652 million results looking for another search engine? There may, in fact, be some competition in this market.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    bob, 19 May 2014 @ 1:16pm
    
    Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
    You actually believe that GOOG has 652 million results waiting for you? That's just another of their fibs. The last time I clicked through, the list of results stopped after 75 pages. This is why intersections or long lists of terms yield so little. It's just part of their Potemkin game.
    
    And why aren't they top? Oh wait. They're probably ginning up these results too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 4:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
      Are you just shitting out your mouth or do you have a legitimate need for 652 million (or even 75 pages worth of) search engines?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 5:59pm
    
    Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
    But that's no good, there are no google alternatives to google, that's the problem.
    Google needs to do more to compete with itself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 7:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
      Like AT&T?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_advertising_networks
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
  " TechDirt has never shirked from a finding a defense for anything Google does."
  
  this is demonstratively untrue. techdirt was against Google's no poaching agreement for example
  
  keep repeating the lie Bob Goebbels and maybe someone will believe you
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 20 May 2014 @ 2:03am
    
    Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
    Lies are all these people have.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2014 @ 2:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
      Great rebuttal, Sergey.
      
      Go count your money, you raging assbag.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 20 May 2014 @ 3:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
        So, your rebuttal to my claim that your kind are liars is to create an obvious fiction so that you can attack me?
        
        OK, I was wrong - foolish, childish *and* liars. Better?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 12:58pm
  
  Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
  Do I need to post alternatives to steaming video, email, cloud storage, mobile operating systems, and web browsers too?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 1:01pm
  
  Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
  Microsoft is the only one who is allowed to produce windows and derivatives because of copyright, how is that not a monopoly?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 1:08pm
    
    Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
    Because there are other OSes you can use besides Windows.
    
    Also, in the US, there is no legal problem with being a monopoly in the first place. There is only a legal issue when that monopoly power is abused.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 1:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
      A monopoly on bananas doesn't stop being a monopoly on oranges just because you can buy steak instead
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 1:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
        lol me
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 2:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
        Huh?
        
        The commenter was talking about Microsoft's monopoly on Windows. That's nonsense talk -- every company has a monopoly on their own product, rather by definition. The important question is -- are there other competing products in the same space? With Windows, the answer is "yes". This is a direct bananas to bananas comparison.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
        fashion companies don't have that kind of monopoly
        
        and as I've said elsewhere operating systems for the most part cannot substitute for each other where apps are concerned. maybe if they someday unify the abis like browsers have done with scripting and markup
        
        but for now there's not a real substitute for windows
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Bob, 19 May 2014 @ 1:18pm
    
    Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
    Yup, that's the standard crap around here. Artists are bad because copyright gives them a "monopoly". But that's a misuse of the term. Anyone can create another work of art and compete. Anyone can create another OS and people do. So they don't have a monopoly.
    
    Not that TechDirt has shied away from criticizing MS.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 1:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
      Being able to produce an entirely different product in a market does not mean there aren't monopolies in that space. a monopoly on cars would still be a monopoly if horse and buggies were readily available.
      
      so too is a monopoly on Mickey mouse still a monopoly even if Warner bros can make looney toons
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AricTheRed (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 1:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
      We don't think Artists are bad becase of copyright, We think they are bad because they went to art school.
      
      At art school they had group sex, looked at naked people all day and took drugs and drank and partied while their parents paid for it all.
      
      That is why we hate artists.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 2:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
      "Artists are bad because copyright gives them a "monopoly"."
      
      You really should see someone about your severe reading comprehension problem.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Roger Strong (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 1:28pm
    
    Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
    I'm posting this message from ReactOS, a non-Microsoft OS that runs Windows apps. I've also run Windows apps on OS/2 and Lindows.
    
    I've also run versions of Linux that attempted to attract Windows users by looking and acting just like Windows.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PlagueSD (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 1:42pm
    
    Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
    Because there is MacOS, ChromeOS, and about 50 flavors of Unix/Linux.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 2:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
      operating systems generally cannot be used in place of each other when it comes to apps. even wine only gets you so far.
      
      again a monopoly that only covers one operating system out of X number of operating systems is still a monopoly
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 2:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
        "again a monopoly that only covers one operating system out of X number of operating systems is still a monopoly"
        
        That's just not what "monopoly" means. If it were, then "monopoly" wouldn't be a very useful term. I think what you're talking about is "lock-in" -- also a bad thing, but different in nature.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 2:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
        the lock in wouldn't be possible if the monopoly didn't exist
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 7:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
        Untrue. There's mutually exclusive lock-in with iOS and Android apps for smart phones with no monopoly, and it's still just as bad a thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 1:09pm
  
  Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
  bob, May 19th, 2014 @ 12:51pm
  OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
  
  GOOG may be run by billionaires and it may be a defacto monopoly with almost all of the marketshare. That doesn't matter around here. TechDirt has never shirked from a finding a defense for anything Google does.
  
  Why? I don't know. I think some competition would be great for the web. It would be neat to have more ad networks and more search engines. I'm sure everyone around here is all for competition and against monopolies. Heck, Mike constantly inveighs against copyright "monopolies" even though the term is not correct. But that's different. Giving control to artists is bad for GOOG and so it must be fought with any rhetorical tricks. GOOG's monopoly is good and so we must sneer at anyone who questions it.
  
  Oh, BTW, and I love your suggestion that GOOG should just censor all of Germany to show who's boss. Talk about power corrupting.
  
  I wonder if any of the sheep will take notice of Masnick's hypocrisy?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 1:17pm
    
    Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
    show me where Mike said that companies don't have the right to refuse service entirely
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      bob, 19 May 2014 @ 1:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
      Uh, that's probably not what he's referring to. He's probably noting that Mr. Masnick constantly complains that artists are given "monopolies", even though they're really only given control over their own work. Other artists can compete and they do.
      
      But let's see Mr. Masnick go after GOOG's monopoly with the same fervor. It ain't gonna happen.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 1:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
        except any complaints over artists being granted copyright (which Mike hasn't actually complained about) would naturally apply to Google.
        
        aside from IP, Google doesn't really have a monopoly. there's other search engines and ad services you could use, if not as good
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 1:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
        He's probably noting that Mr. Masnick constantly complains that artists are given "monopolies",
        
        Have I? I don't think so. I question the wisdom of handing out *gov't-granted* monopolies.
        
        I similarly am worried about any monopolistic power that harms consumers and consumer rights. I think legitimate harm has and can easily be shown from copyright monopolies (such as how it's used to hold back innovation and to enable censorship).
        
        I'd be equally concerned if there were evidence of Google having a true monopoly, and it then abusing that power. The problem is the lack of such evidence, either of it being a true monopoly or of it abusing it.
        
        Either way, creating a monopoly through building a better product that everyone wants to use is quite different than being handed a gov't granted monopoly.
        
        And, of course, I have no problem criticizing Google when I believe they're abusing their position, such as with the initial Google books settlement, the employee poaching ban and Motorola's patent policies -- all of which I thought were anti-innovation moves by Google, and all of which I wrote about here.
        
        But, you know, feel free to live in your own world where the best you can do is smear with me lies. Must be fun.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 1:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
        Google doesn't have a monopoly. Everyone of Google's services can be found elsewhere.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pragmatic, 22 May 2014 @ 6:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
        These include search engine, blogging, online document editing and storage, video streaming and hosting, browser...
        
        "Big" =/= "monopoly."
        
        "Monopoly" = sole control of supply to market of particular goods and services.
        
        That Google is the best at what it does suggests that the other companies aren't trying hard enough. Hell, they even let Bing away with copying their search algorithms.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 1:19pm
    
    Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
    Irrational hatred apparently impairs reading and comprehension. This is not a story about Google--it's about the stupidity of a German official. Google is just the object, not the subject.
    
    Just like the statement "bob hates Google" is about bob, not Google.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      bob, 19 May 2014 @ 1:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
      Wow. That's the spirit. It takes real chutzpah to claim that the story is "not about Google", the kind that only the loons around here could muster. But you did. Congrats!
      
      Nothing to see here. Move along. Pay no attention to the billionaires behind those curtains.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 1:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
        The point is, if the official had targeted MS, IBM, Apple, or any other US company, or for that matter any company not based in Germany, the story would be the same. While the article correctly pointed out that Google has not been found guilty, that's not the point of the article.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 5:37pm
  
  Re: OMG!!! Scramble the Defenses
  "I think some competition would be great for the web. It would be neat to have more ad networks and more search engines."
  
  And there is absolutely nothing stopping that from happening. If you think otherwise, please explain why.
  
  "Giving control to artists is bad for GOOG and so it must be fought with any rhetorical tricks."
  
  Techdirt has consistently and repeatedly supported giving more control to artists. To argue otherwise is monumentally stupid. And how is that bad for Google anyway? Do you have any rational explanations for these wild claims of yours?
  
  "Oh, BTW, and I love your suggestion that GOOG should just censor all of Germany to show who's boss."
  
  It's like you learnt the word 'censorship' yesterday, and have no idea what it means. If Germany was blocked from Google, how exactly are they censored? They would still have unlimited access to the entire web including multiple other search engines. I'm sure Germans would be pissed (which would be the point)but they certainly wouldn't be censored.
  
  "Talk about power corrupting."
  
  Wait, who's corrupted? Do you even understand what you're typing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 12:51pm

Google helps consumers. Governments want to break it up.
Comcast harms consumers. Governments want to solidify its ability to do so.

I'm curious to see the correlation of money siphoned into the governments from those two corporations.

I'd do it myself but, well to be honest I'm lazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 1:05pm
  
  Re:
  It seems like governments harm consumers. Maybe someone should break them up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 1:18pm
  
  Ask and ye shall receive
  Comcast
  
  LOBBYING(2013): $18,810,000
  
  REVOLVING DOOR
  107 out of 130 Comcast Corp lobbyists in 2013 have previously held government jobs
  
  TOP ISSUES LOBBIED, 2013
  
  1. Telecommunications
  2. Radio & TV Broadcasting
  3. Taxes
  4. Copyright, Patent & Trademark
  5. Fed Budget & Appropriations
  
  Google
  
  LOBBYING(2013): $15,800,000
  
  89 out of 111 Google Inc lobbyists in 2013 have previously held government jobs
  
  TOP ISSUES LOBBIED, 2013
  
  1. Copyright, Patent & Trademark
  2. Telecommunications
  3. Labor, Antitrust & Workplace
  4. Homeland Security
  5. Science & Technology
  
  Pretty similar on the 'donations' front right? Well...
  
  Comcast - Market Cap $130.01 B As of May 2014
  Google - Market Cap $382.47 B As of May 2014
  
  So, despite being worth almost three times as much, Google still spends less money lobbying than Comcast does.
  
  Sources:
  https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?cycle=2014&id=D000000461
  https://www.op ensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?cycle=2014&type=P&id=D000022008
  http://www.forbes.com/companie s/google/
  http://www.forbes.com/companies/comcast/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 2:14pm
    
    Re: Ask and ye shall receive
    This sort of comparison doesn't work very well anymore, as Google spends so much money on non-registered lobbying-type activity. For example, it took a court order to reveal Mike Masnick's role as Google propagandist, something that was previously only assumed, due to the content of his daily writings.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 2:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
      his daily writing include shaming Google for the anti poaching agreement so if he's a propagandist Google should demand their money back
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 2:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        also, Google could easily thrown that out there just to get the courts off their back. taking shit tossed out in court at face value is just dumb
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 2:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        Don't worry, his benign criticisms in no way dilute his incessant shilling and excuse-making. Say what you like, but Masnick was outted by Google as a shill.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 3:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        You do know that just saying something over and over doesn't make it true right, no matter how much you might wish it to be?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 3:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        It's all they've got. It's funny, I've seen a LOT of trolls over the years making various accusations about Mike and Techdirt -- but I have yet to see a single instance of those accusations being argued in a coherent way, let alone actually supported. In the end, the supporting arguments always boil down to "well, it's obvious, isn't it?".
        
        Which means they got nothing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 10:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        Say what you like, you're a clueless jackass full of sh!t.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 2:28pm
      
      'Look, a distraction!'
      Ah the classic response, presented with facts, you instead make citation-less accusations rather than address said facts.
      
      Just a heads up, but if you want people to take you and what you claim seriously, accusations like those generally need to be linked to verifiable evidence, unless you want them to be dismissed out of hand as the desperate distractions that they are.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Archillies, 19 May 2014 @ 8:38pm
        
        Re: 'Look, a distraction!'
        I second that! Citations Please!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 2:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
      "For example, it took a court order to reveal Mike Masnick's role as Google propagandist"
      
      Oh? Then perhaps you can direct us to this damning document?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 2:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        If it's the one I'm thinking of, and I really hope it is, it should be worth quite a laugh if they actually link to it, as it's already been mentioned on TD before(a long time ago), and the 'And it proves Masnick works for Google!' argument based upon it pretty thoroughly debunked.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 3:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
      For example, it took a court order to reveal Mike Masnick's role as Google propagandist,
      
      This of course is untrue. You won't point to the document because it proves it's untrue, but you can't resist the bullshit narrative, because it's all you have.
      
      Anyway, since you won't link to the document in question, I will: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120824/12563220150/apparently-im-google-shill-i-didnt-even-know-i t.shtml
      
      Because there's nothing in there that remotely suggests what you pretend it suggests.
      
      something that was previously only assumed, due to the content of his daily writings
      
      The content of which regularly calls out Google for questionable behavior...
      
      Come on, dude, by now don't you have anything better than bogus claims like this that are so easily debunked?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 4:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        Well, at least Google regards you as a shill (calling them out notwithstanding) unless they pulled your name out of a hat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 4:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        You know people can actually click those links and read them, right?
        
        Google was ordered to '...disclose the names of any "authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in [the] case."
        
        So if reporting and commenting on the actions of someone makes you a 'shill' for them, then TD apparently shills for countless groups, from Google, to the *AA's, GEMA to the Pirate party.
        
        Or perhaps you're talking about this part?
        
        Earlier today, Google did its filing and apparently found some names... including mine! Yes, I know that we've had some haters declaring for years that I'm a Google shill, so this must be the confirmation of all their conspiracy theories, rumors and attacks, right? Well, no. I'm named in the section about CCIA -- the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Why? Because CCIA sponsored some research that we did.
        
        Aha, evidence at last!
        
        ... as long as you don't read past that anyway.
        
        I'm not sure how that has anything to do with Google. Google is a CCIA member, as are a bunch of other companies. And, honestly, if you'd asked me yesterday, I would have said that I thought Oracle was a CCIA member too, because it's an organization that represents a bunch of top tech companies, including Microsoft, eBay, Sprint, Facebook, AMD, Fujitsu, Dish Networks and more.
        
        Truly, the checks must just be coming out of the woodwork with all that shilling. /s
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2014 @ 2:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        Censorship is bad.
        Unless you're shaming Google on this blog.
        In that case, everyone get outta the way, cuz the censorship is strong with these corporate soldiers!
        Good lord
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 20 May 2014 @ 3:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        What censorship? I can read that moron's comment perfectly clearly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 4:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        How about a link to the court document?
        
        PDF here:
        
        http://musictechpolicy.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/google-shill-list-2.pdf
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 4:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        How about a link to the court document?
        
        Sure. That was linked to in my post as well. Note that nowhere does it say I am a Google shill or even that I had received any money from Google. As I noted, we actually received money from Oracle in the form of sponsorship, which Oracle did not disclose (though, of course, we did).
        
        I recognize this may cause problems with your narrative, but that's because your narrative is false. But go ahead, keep pushing it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 4:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        "My narrative"?
        
        I wasn't named in a court-ordered Google shill list. I don't have a blog where I write daily articles trying to back up Google's corporate agenda.
        
        Your narrative has been written by you, and you alone, via your own actions and decisions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 5:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        And neither was he, or does he, something you'd know had you actually read the article in question, as well as actually reading the articles posted on TD.
        
        I swear, it's like watching a child...
        
        'I want him to be a shill, I don't care what the actual evidence shows! I want, I want, I want!'
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 20 May 2014 @ 2:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        "I wasn't named in a court-ordered Google shill list."
        
        Yes you were.
        
        If you wish to disprove this, please reveal your name. Else, if you're too cowardly to even provide your name, why should we believe that you're not employed by Google, or paid to spread lies about Mike by a competitor. Given zero evidence, I have to assume you're a paid lair rather than a mere simpleton, but I might be wrong.
        
        " I don't have a blog where I write daily articles trying to back up Google's corporate agenda."
        
        Neither does Mike Masnick. Won't stop you lying about him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2014 @ 5:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        What a truly embarrassing toady you are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 5:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        Thank you for that link. From the first paragraph:
        "Google again states that neither it nor its counsel has paid an author, journalist, commentator or blogger to report or comment on any issues in this case."
        
        And from the second paragraph:
        "Google did not pay for comments from any of the commenters listed in this disclosure. Nor did Google cite or rely on any of these commenters in its briefing in this case."
        
        I don't even think the NSA could come up with a twisted enough reading of that to conclude that anyone named in that list is a "Google propagandist".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 5:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        Google doesn't pay for these things directly; it's all done by front groups that it just happens to be a major donor to.
        Figuring out how propaganda peddling is done in Silicon Valley isn't exactly a big secret.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Whatever, 19 May 2014 @ 8:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        I want to suck your cock, please.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 8:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        So in other words you don't actually have any proof, it's just a case of 'trust me, they're doing X'.
        
        Here's a question though: Why? Why bother going through all the trouble of sneaking around and hiding it, something that would likely come back and bite any company that engaged in such when/if it was found out, when they could simply spend more money lobbying?
        
        (And if you want to talk about backroom deals, Silicon Valle has nothing on Hollywood, they've got government agencies dancing left and right to their tune, even though they contribute significantly less to US economy than the tech sector.)
        
        I mean, it's not like they're hurting for funds, and yet you're claiming that rather than just throw more money out buying politicians(because let's face it, that's what most lobbying amounts to), something they could easily manage without trouble, they're instead going the cloak and dagger route, hiring bloggers under the table to say good and bad things about them?
        
        Look, the facts of the matter here are pretty clear, Comcast spends more money lobbying than a company three times their size, claiming that the 'numbers aren't accurate' because they're not taking into account the shady deals you're sure are happening is, at best, a dodge to avoid addressing the facts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2014 @ 7:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/30/google-and-facebooks-new-tactic-in-the-tech-wars/
        
        You're a fucking idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2014 @ 8:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        Cocksuck, cocksuck, cocksuck. That's all you can do, clearly. Lowery trained you well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 10:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        And still you can't provide us with a shred of credibility. Funny that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2014 @ 3:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
        Mike Masnick must be super stoked he decided to write this today.
        
        Huge irony: all of this is googleable till they decide it's embarrassing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 4:53pm
    
    Re: Ask and ye shall receive
    I'd like to thank you for that information and effort put forth towards retrieving it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 9:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Ask and ye shall receive
      Glad to help. It's actually not overly hard to find, if you know where to look, and OpenSecrets is a very valuable source for info like that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 19 May 2014 @ 1:07pm

Germany has really turned into the crazy uncle of the EU lately, haven't they?

I always thought it would be France.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re:
  I think the US is really the crazy uncle. Germany is more like the crazy brother.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 19 May 2014 @ 1:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The US is clearly the creepy guy next door with the telescope that is never pointing up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 1:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The US is clearly the hypocritical, creepy guy next door with the telescope that is never pointing up, cameras everywhere, and windows blacked out.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey I know that guy!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The USG, 19 May 2014 @ 1:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I told you, I'm still working the bugs out of the thing, the fact that it's pointed directly at your bedroom window is a complete coincidence!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 2:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I stand corrected. :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2014 @ 12:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    No uncle. They are very clearly anti.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 1:23pm

One of the big differences between a comcast monopoly and a google monopoly is the cost for the consumer to switch to another provider. For comcast, the cost is infinitely high as, for most people in the US, there is no other provider they can switch to. For google, the cost is almost zero: type "duckduckgo.com" rather than "google.com" into the address bar. If google started being really evil, its users would leave, followed by its advertisers. Thus, to a large extent, google has a merit-based monopoly: they dominate because they do search the best without screwing their users.

And no, I am not google shill. I've switched almost entirely to duckduckgo, dropped gmail, etc. because of privacy concerns. Which, anecdotally at least, supports my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 1:26pm

Isn't it time that Google bowed out of Europe?

Imagine not having to censor results due to "hate speech" and "right to be forgotten" laws. Run all business and serve all content from within the United States, relying on its Constitution to protect them against foreign judgments that, if decided by a US court, would be deemed unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 20 May 2014 @ 2:24am
  
  Re:
  Turnaround is fair play. Makes a change from you trying to force the rest of the world to comply with your laws just because someone might not be getting paid for something they didn't do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Oizo, 19 May 2014 @ 1:47pm

Something needs to be done. Just have a look at how many developers get fucked by google. No payouts, developer accounts terminated without even recourse to complain about this. This one sided termination (part of the contract google forces through your throat) should not be allowed. This is something the EU could enforce, which would be a good start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 2:38pm
  
  Re:
  Interesting. What developers are you talking about? I'm assuming Android... Why would any developers sign a contract with Google? It's entirely unnecessary. One of the wonderful things about Android is that you can create and distribute your work without having to have any kind of deal with Google at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 8:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    One of the wonderful things about Android is that you can create and distribute your work without having to have any kind of deal with Google at all.
    
    Hard to get your work to very many people without dealing with at least Google or Amazon, isn't it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 20 May 2014 @ 8:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not really. It's less convenient, but not difficult.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 1:49pm

I don't understand ppl's argument that Google is a monopoly, because yet u have a choice to use Google or not. There are other search engines, There are other advertising networks, There are other options for every type of service google offers. However, in most cases, there are no other options if you want to switch I SP or cable provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STJ, 19 May 2014 @ 1:55pm

monopoly?
I've always questioned this about Google. Don't like their search engine, use dogpile/bing/alta vista. Don't like them watching your mail, go to yahoo/hotmail/freemail. Don't want to use their maps, use yahoo/other mail.

It's true that other companies are not as convent as Google for their products, but there are plenty of alternatives, don't believe me, just Google it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
us0r (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 1:59pm

Um not really hard to see why.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jbiddy, 19 May 2014 @ 2:05pm

Advertising and publishing
Breaking up Google... just because? Yeah, right. Curious that there is absolutely no mention of click fraud, Google's settlements in the past, and the fact that the company is advertiser, operating of the ad network and publisher, a huge conflict of interest that gives them an advantage over all other ad networks and undeniably pads their bottom line in the short term.

What about Google suing other ad networks over patent infringement? This article is laughable in its lack of analysis and research.

No harm to consumers? Is not the fact that Google has changed their practices time and time again when threatened with antitrust investigations not evidence that there is grounds for such investigations?

Don't give Google a pass just because you hate M$ or Yahoo! more, that's silly. Point out abuse, wherever it may come from. Google should not be an exception. Tyranny is tyranny, let it come from whom it may.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re: Advertising and publishing
  source for Google lawsuit? all my searching got results of ad networks suing Google and not Google suing them
  
  admittedly, the search was using Google so maybe shenanigans are afoot there
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 2:39pm
  
  Re: Advertising and publishing
  All of your points are good ones, except for one thing -- none of them have anything to do with whether or not Google is a monopoly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 3:50pm
  
  Re: Advertising and publishing
  Yeah, right. Curious that there is absolutely no mention of click fraud, Google's settlements in the past, and the fact that the company is advertiser, operating of the ad network and publisher, a huge conflict of interest that gives them an advantage over all other ad networks and undeniably pads their bottom line in the short term.
  
  We linked to the stories of Google's settlements. Not sure what you'd like us to discuss concerning clickfraud or the supposed conflict of interest, but happy to explore them if you'd like.
  
  What about Google suing other ad networks over patent infringement? This article is laughable in its lack of analysis and research.
  
  Can you point to any such lawsuits. As far as I can tell, Google has never initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against an ad network, ever. It got sued by Overture for its ad patents, but not the other way around. The only patent lawsuit that Google appears to have initiated was via its Motoroloa subsidiary (since sold off), and I spoke out against that move.
  
  If Google was suing others for patent infringement, I'd be first in line to argue that they were doing something incredibly stupid.
  
  So, after saying that this article is laughable for a lack of research, can you provide a citation on the patent lawsuits against ad networks filed by Google?
  
  No harm to consumers? Is not the fact that Google has changed their practices time and time again when threatened with antitrust investigations not evidence that there is grounds for such investigations?
  
  Can you give an example of this?
  
  Don't give Google a pass just because you hate M$ or Yahoo! more, that's silly. Point out abuse, wherever it may come from. Google should not be an exception. Tyranny is tyranny, let it come from whom it may.
  
  I agree that Google shouldn't be an exception. And, as I've said from the beginning, if you can provide any evidence of it creating consumer harm, then it's worth considering. But I've yet to see any such evidence to date, and nothing in the arguments made above showed any such harm.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2014 @ 3:18am
    
    Re: Re: Advertising and publishing
    My favorite part of these threads is when you get freaked out and decide that by writing a laughable rebuttal, that your problem will disappear. It's like free advertising.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Almost Anonymous, 20 May 2014 @ 9:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Advertising and publishing
      And nobody's favorite part of these (or any) threads is your participation. Why don't you take your lies and bullshit and just go away?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2014 @ 11:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Advertising and publishing
      So... you can't provide any supporting citations, then. Of course we knew you wouldn't, because like most religions you expect everything to be taken on faith.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2014 @ 7:27pm

Wouldn't Google banning German users be the exact type of abuse/bullying you're talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Archillies, 19 May 2014 @ 8:47pm
  
  Re:
  No, it would be a business decision to not serve a locality.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
techflaws (profile), 19 May 2014 @ 10:24pm

Sigmar Gabriel is just a loudmouthed clown who lied to get data retention laws approved by claiming they helped in Norway to arrest Breyvik with the little problem that no such data retention was being done at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2014 @ 12:39am

>and blocking German IPs from reaching its services
wow collective punishment
Lets fuck everyone because one old politician doesnt understand google. Why not just drop a complete economic blockade on Germany? They sure deserve it for the holocaust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 20 May 2014 @ 2:27am
  
  Re:
  No, they deserve it for the stupid. I'm pretty sure that Google blanking out Germany even for a day would have politicians hiding in their bunkers, especially if all the blocks led to links to an explanation why and links to those politicians.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alex, 20 May 2014 @ 1:47am

why is techdirt always so pro goolge? won't or can't you see the evil in this company ...?
Maybe its a european thing (due to privacy regulations and consumer rights) that google is more and more seen as a very dangerous company ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 20 May 2014 @ 2:26am
  
  Re:
  "why is techdirt always so pro goolge?"
  
  Why do some people never notice the stories that aren't any such thing? Is it the same thing that stops some people from realising that criticising copyright is not the same as supporting piracy?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 20 May 2014 @ 4:57am
  
  Re:
  Nope, it's just a thing of clueless and corrupt politicians being in the pockets of the publishing industry who can't stand the fact it's not setting the trends anymore.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2014 @ 12:37pm

Under certain conditions, breaking up a company can actually harm competition. Case in point: Google is providing some degree of competition to Microsoft in the laptop market through its sale of Chromebooks. Microsoft has about a 90% market share in the laptop operating system market. If you were to weaken Google by breaking them up, they would have less resources to spend on pushing Chromebooks; this would harm consumers. I wouldn't care if Google was broken up as long as you looked at every market they're competing in to a meaningful degree and broke up their competition as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]