One Problem With FTC/Google Settlement: Implies Fair Use Scraping Is An Antitrust Issue

from the not-good dept

While we've already covered the "settlement" between the FTC and Google, noting that it's basically a complete win for Google, there are some areas to be concerned about. In particular, Ed Black, from CCIA, calls out the agreement from Google to allow companies to opt out of being scraped and having snippets shown in vertical search results. While the details on this are fairly limited, and no one would have complained if Google had decided to do this on its own, by including it as part of the settlement, it can be read to imply, without any legal basis, that showing snippets of content from another site is an antitrust violation.

The wider impact of this could be serious, in that it could scare off other companies from doing this kind of activity, which is clearly protected under fair use laws. Of course, the FTC's official release on this issue didn't do much to clarify the thinking here, which is a part of the problem. Two FTC commissioners dissented on this particular bit, showing their concerns. Thomas Rosch's dissent (pdf) on this particular issue states he's worried about the implications, whether intended or not:

I am concerned that the majority's apparent position that scraping is a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act will put the FTC in the position of becoming the enforcer of the copyright laws on the Internet—a task for which it has neither the resources nor expertise, and was surely not envisioned by Congress. As any casual user of the Internet knows, many websites make use of other websites' content; indeed, the business model for many popular websites is based on aggregating or summarizing the content of other websites. As a result of the majority's apparent condemnation of scraping, the legality of these aggregators may be called into question, and the Commission may be inundated with rent-seeking complaints from firms like the alleged 'victims' here.

In other words, in part due to the FTC's own refusal to clarify the thinking here, expect plenty of companies upset about scraping and the use of snippets to now go running to the FTC, using the Google settlement as "evidence" that the fair use aggregation and display of snippets is an antitrust violation. Elsewhere, Rosch points out that the whole issue of scraping seems silly since Google has no "monopoly" on scraping, so it's not even an antitrust issue -- and also that there had been no demonstration of any harm from Google's actions.

Similarly, Commissioner Ohlhausen, while not directly commenting on the copyright issues apparent in this decision, notes that scraping and displaying of snippets -- a key bit of fair use that is central to large parts of the internet -- seems like a bizarre thing to complain about since there is no legal basis for a complaint (pdf) and because the actions appeared to help, not hurt, the companies complaining:

Based on the evidence gathered in this investigation, I saw no factual or legal basis for pursuing... a standalone FTC Act Section 5 claim premised on the so-called scraping conduct.... In particular, there is no viable theory of harm ... for bringing a case....

I am not aware of any evidence that the alleged scraping resulted in either a decline in traffic from Google to the parties complaining about the scraping or any reduction in innovation by existing or potential rivals of Google. In fact, some of the complainants in this matter demonstrated significant growth both during and after the alleged scraping took place. Further, the investigation revealed that most websites appear to approve of Google's use of their content in Google's vertical properties because it leads to increased traffic to their sites. Moreover, the likelihood of possible future harm to competition or consumers from such conduct appears highly remote, particularly given the enormous growth of the use of apps to access rivals' sites or services directly.

In other words, the evidence seemed to show that such fair use of aggregating content and displaying of snippets actually drives innovation and consumer benefit forward.

Furthermore, in a press briefing after the FTC announcement, law professor Eric Goldman made a significant point. For many "review sites" that the settlement applied to, the sites themselves don't even hold the copyright on the reviews in question (the authors do), but the settlement seems to presume that the sites hold the rights.

Unfortunately, because of the nature of the settlement, and Google's willingness to allow companies to opt-out of parts of its aggregation efforts in vertical search, it's going to falsely lead some to believe that anyone else doing this may, in fact, be in violation of antitrust laws. The end result may scare companies off from doing useful innovation, relying on fair use to aggregate content online, and may also increase the burden on the FTC in dealing with similar claims from companies. That would be an unfortunate end result.

Filed Under: antitrust, copyright, fair use, ftc, snippets
Companies: google

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.

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.

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.

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.

Filed Under: antitrust, attorneys general, competition, eu commission, ftc, gary reback, texas
Companies: fairsearch, google

As Expected, FTC Announces Close Of Google Investigation With No Antitrust Charges, But Minor Tweaks To Biz Practices

from the no-surprise dept

It appears that the rumors from last month were entirely accurate. The FTC more or less has admitted that it can't find any real antitrust problems with Google, but did get Google to agree to a few minor tweaks in how it operates -- which lets the FTC declare victory. On the big question of antitrust, however, which Microsoft and other sites led the charge on, the FTC came up completely empty, noting that the goal Google's practices was, in fact, to offer a better consumer experience, rather than to be anti-competitive.

The biggest "change" to Google's business practices is really from an issue they inherited: the handling of Motorola's standards essential patents. We were among those confused by Google's decision a year ago to continue Motorola's more aggressive practices with its standards essential patents, basically trying to get injunctions to block competitors who don't license at the (way too high) rates that Motorola was offering. This made no sense to us at the time, given Google's previous statements about the problems of the patent system. Here was a case where they had a chance to put their words into further action, and they didn't. And that became the biggest part of the FTC settlement. Seems like Google could have avoided a headache just by backing down initially. Either way, even the "settlement" aspect here is really small. Google has agreed that before seeking an injunction, it'll go to arbitration to determine what is a "fair and reasonable" royalty on those patents. To be honest, this seems like the kind of thing that Google was probably perfectly happy to "cave" on -- and it almost makes you wonder if they kept up Motorola's practices just to give the FTC some "red meat" to make FTC boss Jon Liebowitz happy.

There were a few other small changes, such as allowing sites to opt out of just Google News if they don't like traffic. In the past, sites had to opt out of all Google search if they didn't want to appear in Google News -- and some incredibly shortsighted news publications didn't like that. So, basically, now Google is giving them the ability to hurt their own traffic from Google News if they so choose. Also, Google will allow companies to more easily manage ad campaigns across multiple platforms, rather than effectively making them repeat the process for multiple platforms.

The end result here, even as the FTC declares victory, has to be seen as a big victory for Google. It made a few tweaks to its business practices -- most of which it probably should have done anyway (and some of which I think it should go even further on). And on the big question of "antitrust" and "search bias" the FTC came up totally empty -- even as FTC boss Liebowitz made it clear that he would have loved it if breaking up Google's monopoly was his legacy. As the FTC announcement notes, try as hard as they could, they just couldn't make the claim stick. I love the begrudging language they use here:

The FTC conducted an extensive investigation into allegations that Google had manipulated its search algorithms to harm vertical websites and unfairly promote its own competing vertical properties, a practice commonly known as “search bias.” In particular, the FTC evaluated Google’s introduction of “Universal Search” – a product that prominently displays targeted Google properties in response to specific categories of searches, such as shopping and local – to determine whether Google used that product to reduce or eliminate a nascent competitive threat. Similarly, the investigation focused on the allegation that Google altered its search algorithms to demote certain vertical websites in an effort to reduce or eliminate a nascent competitive threat. According to the Commission statement, however, the FTC concluded that the introduction of Universal Search, as well as additional changes made to Google’s search algorithms – even those that may have had the effect of harming individual competitors – could be plausibly justified as innovations that improved Google’s product and the experience of its users. It therefore has chosen to close the investigation.

In the end, this seems like a massive waste of taxpayer money and the FTC's time and resources. While the announcement claims they got Google to agree to "significant" changes in its business practices, that's a laughable claim when you look at the details.

Filed Under: antitrust, bias, ftc, injunctions, jon liebowitz, patents, search, search bias, search neutrality, standards essential patents
Companies: google

FTC Now Likely To Admit That Google Does Not, In Fact, Violate Antitrust

from the could-have-done-that-early-on-and-saved-a-lot-of-effort dept

A few months ago, there were rumors that the FTC was ready to go after Google with antitrust charges, though we couldn't figure out how this made sense. At first the story was that it was abusing its search position, but there was little evidence to support it. Then there was talk of using its new ownership of Motorola to go after Google for abusing standards essential patents. But... that seemed like a really tangential way to attack Google. And, as more and more details came out, it increasingly looked like this was an effort by the FTC's chair, Jon Liebowitz, to cement a legacy. Along those lines, there were rumors that Google wasn't willing to just cave to demands for a settlement. The latest is that the FTC is likely to come out next week and say that there's no evidence that Google violated antitrust rules with favoring its own sites in search. The Justice Department could conceivably still go after Google, but it's unclear if there's real appetite there. As the report notes, Europe may be a different story. As we saw with the Microsoft antitrust effort, Europe defines "monopoly power" over markets much more loosely than the US does -- and often seems to use antitrust enforcement to punish successful US companies, rather than look at whether there's actual consumer harm. So, in that venue, it wouldn't be surprising to see Google pressured into a settlement of some sort.

Filed Under: antitrust, ftc, jon liebowitz, search
Companies: google

First Amendment Concerns About Internet Radio Bill Not Just Overblown But Completely Backwards

from the let's-do-this-slowly dept

I've been tossing around a longish blog post about some of the controversy concerning the Internet Radio Fairness Act (IRFA) over the past month or so, but haven't had a chance to put it all down in a blog post. I did, however, wish to pick up on a small thread that got a brief spark of attention from some people who don't seem to understand legal stuff in the slightest. It started with musician David Lowery (you may remember him from past nonsensical rampages) claiming that Section 5 of the bill muzzled free speech and thus violated the First Amendment. This isn't just wrong. It's completely backwards. But the language and history here is a bit complex, so let's dig in a bit.

First off, you have to understand that the amounts that satellite and internet radio pay for a "performance right" for broadcasting songs is not (generally) an individually negotiated rate, but rather is set by the Copyright Royalty Board, using a variety of questionable standards. As we've noted in the past, the CRB is notoriously bad at setting reasonable rates -- and part of that is because part of its very charter is to block disruptive innovation if it has an impact on "generally prevailing industry practices." Thus, it tends to set rates super high. This is exceptionally bad for innovation, competition and for artists in the long run, though I'll get to that in another post. One thing that it more or less ensures is that these industries will be dominated by a very small number of super large players, because no one else will be able to afford the rates -- and this effectively locks in the top guys. That's what's happened, as you have Sirius dominating satellite radio and Pandora dominating internet radio. But the rates are so crazy that it's difficult to impossible for these companies to ever be profitable.

We'll get back to that in a moment. But, now, go ahead and read the full text of the bill if you'd like. For this discussion, jump over to Section 5, entitled "Promotion of a Competitive Marketplace." The section is relatively short.

SEC. 5. PROMOTION OF A COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE.

(a) Limitation of Antitrust Exemptions-

(1) EPHEMERAL RECORDINGS- Section 112(e)(2) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--

(A) by inserting ‘, on a nonexclusive basis,’ after ‘common agents’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following: ‘Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to permit any copyright owners of sound recordings acting jointly, or any common agent or collective representing such copyright owners, to take any action that would prohibit, interfere with, or impede direct licensing by copyright owners of sound recordings in competition with licensing by any common agent or collective, and any such action that affects interstate commerce shall be deemed a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1).’.

(2) DIGITAL SOUND RECORDING PERFORMANCES- Section 114(e) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit any copyright owners of sound recordings acting jointly, or any common agent or collective representing such copyright owners, to take any action that would prohibit, interfere with, or impede direct licensing by copyright owners of sound recordings in competition with licensing by any common agent or collective, and any such action that affects interstate commerce shall be deemed a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1).

‘(4) In order to obtain the benefits of paragraph (1), a common agent or collective representing copyright owners of sound recordings must make available at no charge through publicly accessible computer access through the Internet the most current available list of sound recording copyright owners represented by the organization and the most current list of sound recordings licensed by the organization.’.

The important thing to understand here is that there's currently an antitrust exemption for SoundExchange, the organization that collects money from internet and satellite radio offerings (and sometimes has difficulty finding artists to pay them). SoundExchange basically needs an antitrust exemption because it is, by definition, a monopoly. What the bill is doing is something simple which is actually beneficial for artists. It's saying that SoundExchange can't use that antitrust exemption to try to stop artists from having the option, if they want to go do direct deals with internet or satellite radio providers. The second part is similar, but not referencing an antitrust exemption. It's just saying that any group that is representing multiple artists can't seek to block other artists from choosing to do a direct deal.

Sirius XM, in particular, has been trying to negotiate direct deals that route around SoundExchange. Now, why would artists ever want to negotiate directly with a Sirius or Pandora when they've already got the Copyright Royalty Board forcing ridiculous high rates on those providers? It's not as if those sites will choose to pay more directly. However, what they can do is offer better service than SoundExchange. That is: they can pay faster, they can provide more data and details, better access to users, etc. And that's what both companies are attempting to do. Also, for artists who actually act as their own label, they can actually make more money because they're cutting out a lot of middlemen who take their cut (it's convoluted, but click that link to see the details).

So, short version: it's certainly not for everyone, but some artists might find it beneficial to go direct. If they choose not to, they can still have SoundExchange collect and distribute their money and that's fine as well.

Now, jump to March of this year... when Sirius sued SoundExchange and A2IM (the RIAA of indie labels) claiming antitrust violations. Sirius argues in its lawsuit that SoundExchange and A2IM conspired and colluded to effectively forbid artists from going direct. Because proving direct collusion is difficult, Sirius' lawsuit is filled with circumstantial evidence, which doesn't prove an antitrust violation, but infers that there might be fire behind the smoke. The goal, there, is to get to discovery to try to suss out some smoking guns of collusion. So, the lawsuit includes various bits of circumstantial evidence, including a number of artists and indie labels that Sirius reached out to who flat out told them that A2IM prevents direct licenses, or that they'd have to first ask A2IM for permission. As part of the circumstantial evidence, Sirius also points to this blog post from A2IM that argues against doing direct licenses.

That lawsuit is still crawling along, so it's unclear if it's going anywhere. Honestly, proving collusion is crazy difficult, and I doubt Sirius will succeed, but some of that circumstantial evidence is eye-opening.

And that leads us to Section 5 of IRFA. As you can read above, what it makes clear is that the existing antitrust exemption cannot be used to "prohibit, interfere with, or impede direct licensing" and similarly that any group acting for some artists could violate antitrust laws by blocking the free will of other artists to negotiate their own deals. In other words, the bill makes it clear that if A2IM or SoundExchange really are colluding to impede artists from choosing to do direct deals, that could be seen as an antitrust violation. This, then, is about protecting artists and indie labels from large organizations like SoundExchange or A2IM, should they try to block those artists and labels from voluntarily doing direct deals.

So you would think that self-declared, if often confused, "defender of artists rights," David Lowery, would like that. But he doesn't for reasons that suggest a serious misreading of the bill or misunderstanding of this background. He points to the language, and then at the text of the Sirius lawsuit, apparently not understanding the nature of circumstantial evidence, and argues that "This is the type of explanatory speech — not conduct — that Sirius XM thinks is illegal and IRFA definitely would outlaw." The only problem with this statement is, well, everything. It's wrong. Nothing in the bill would outlaw that kind of speech. At all. Nor does Sirius' lawsuit claim that such explanatory speech is illegal. Instead, it is arguing that that blog post, along with a host of other circumstantial evidence, is enough to suggest there's a fire somewhere providing all that smoke. Under IRFA, such blog posts would still be perfectly legal, so long as A2IM didn't also use those blog posts to collude and directly hinder copyright holders from doing direct deals.

All that Section 5 of the bill is saying is that the A2IMs and SoundExchanges of the world can't try to hide behind antitrust exemptions to argue that such coercion to block artists from doing direct deals is free from antitrust scrutiny. And, outside of the exemption, they also cannot restrict artists from doing direct deals.

And yet, Lowery (and some of his followers) have taken up the banner claiming that this is a First Amendment violation and that it censors free speech. What he seems to be missing is that the only speech it blocks is speech that is used to collude or to block artists from voluntarily making a deal. Under Lowery's interpretation of the bill, collusion by large companies to force independent artists and labels to do business their way only is legal... because it's free speech to collude..

That's kinda nutty. His argument is, basically: legalize collusion!

A few weeks ago, Lowery gleefully confronted supporters of the bill with this argument at the Future of Music Coalition Conference, which led bill sponsor, Senator Ron Wyden, to hit back and claim that, as one of the strongest defenders of the First Amendment, he'd never support a bill that took away free speech rights. He promised Lowery that he'd review the specific language of the bill, and if there were any interpretations that impacted free speech rights, he'd fix them.

And he followed through with that, asking the Congressional Research Service to look into the matter, which it did. In a note published last week, they make it quite clear that it is extremely unlikely that there would be a First Amendment issue raised by the bill:

... it seems unlikely that, in practice, Section 5 would impinge upon First Amendment rights for a few reasons.

They then go on to detail those reasons -- which can be summed up as, Congress has the right under its authority to regulate interstate commerce, to create antitrust law that blocks collusion (as it applies to interstate commerce). Basically, since antitrust law is Constitutional, so is Section 5:

The antitrust laws are generally considered to comport with the First Amendment, because though the Sherman Act may restrain speech on occasion, the restraint is incidental to Congress's legitimate goal of maintaining a free market. In the case of Section 5, Congress would arguably be creating a similar prohibition, particularly since the bill specifically references the antitrust laws. As noted above, Section 5 would generally prohibit copyright owners acting jointly from taking any action to interfere with direct licensing negotiations. This provision appears to be intended to further the government's interest in preserving the rights of individual copyright owners to negotiate directly with potential licensees without interference from entities like member-based royalty collection organizations. It could be argued that this is similar to Congress's intent to preserve a free market by enacting the antitrust laws. Under Section 5 an individual copyright owner would have the option, as she always has, of negotiating royalty rates individually or collectively, but with an added protection from interference on the part of groups of copyright owners that might seek to prevent her from exercising her individual rights. If the provision is read to prohibit activity and speech similar to, and not broader than those prohibited by the Sherman Act, Section 5 likely would not violate the First Amendment for similar reasons that the antitrust laws do not violate the First Amendment. The restrictions on speech may be interpreted to be incidental to a valid exercise of Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

In other words, exactly what we were saying: unless you're arguing that collusion is legal because it's free speech, the argument that Section 5 violates free speech is quite unlikely.

Because the CRS is quite thorough, it also does work through some scenarios under which the bill might possibly have Free Speech implications. But the only thing it can come up with is that a court would have to somehow interpret Section 5 to restrict speech beyond what's in antitrust laws (i.e., beyond activity designed to restrain trade). Considering how vocal bill supporters have been about this clause not being intended to go beyond the law, it would be somewhat incredible for a court to have that interpretation.

Of course, to make things even more amusing, Lowery himself posted about this CRS destruction of his key argument... and declared victory. Why? Because the CRS report, in its typically even-handed manner, discusses Lowery's scenario, of a blog post potentially violating Section 5, and notes that "though this hypothetical presents a broad interpretation of the language of Section 5, it is not an implausible one." Lowery cuts off the text at that point and declares victory... conveniently leaving out the detailed explanation of why this isn't a First Amendment violation (as explained above).

The confusion, it appears, stems from yet another misreading by Lowery of the CRS report. He interprets the "not implausible" claim to refer to his overall argument that the bill restricts free speech rights. But that is not what it is saying. It is saying that he is right that if a blog post somehow interfered with someone else doing a direct licensing deal -- i.e., restricted interstate trade under existing laws -- then it could violate the Act... but as such would not likely violate the First Amendment. So, the conditions here are that the blog posts themselves would have to actually impede trade, which the CRS report itself notes would require a very broad interpretation of the bill, one that is quite unlikely.

In the end, this appears to be much ado about nothing. The original complaint was a misread, which the CRS report clearly corrects, and Lowery doubles down by then misunderstanding the report itself. Still, from this vantage point, it's been rather amusing to watch a somewhat confused David Lowery thinking that he's "protecting artists," while he's been arguing against a provision in the bill that is actually 100% designed to protect artists against collusion to block them from doing their own deals -- deals which (especially for truly independent artists) could be more lucrative. It would be almost comical, if it weren't that a bunch of artists who haven't understood all this have been parroting Lowery's claims, believing that they're arguing for their own self-interest, when the reality is that they're literally arguing that organizations like SoundExchange and A2IM should be able to collude and block their ability to negotiate favorable deals.

Filed Under: antitrust, collusion, david lowery, first amendment, free speech, internet radio fairness act, irfa, ron wyden
Companies: a2im, sirius xm, soundexchange

Can The FTC And DOJ Do What The USPTO Won't? Crack Down On Patent Trolls

from the that-would-be-something dept

While the US Patent Office has officially declared its desire to put its head in the sand concerning the problem of patent trolls, it appears that other parts of the government aren't necessarily going to ignore the problem. The FTC and the DOJ are planning explore the issue with patent trolls at a public workshop next month (they use the currently popular term "patent assertion entities" rather than "patent trolls" but it's clear what they mean). And the indications are that they may be looking to use their power to crackdown on bad behavior, potentially even using antitrust tools:

"There's a possibility of competitive harm here," said Joseph Wayland, who served as the Justice Department's acting antitrust chief until last week, when he stepped down to return to private practice. Mr. Wayland said officials are devoting "huge energy, particularly at a senior level" to this and other antitrust issues surrounding patents.

This seems like a much more reasonable use of antitrust resources than some other recent activity.

Of course, the real irony here is the idea that the government may need to use its antitrust rules to crack down on patent abuse, when the whole reason that there's a "trust" problem in the first place is that patents are a government granted monopoly. So no one should be shocked to then see it lead to antitrust problems. Want to not have monopolistic activity? Don't hand out monopolies.

Filed Under: antitrust, doj, ftc, patent trolls, patents, uspto

Google Staredown With FTC May Result In FTC Blinking

from the if-you-don't-have-a-case... dept

Back in October, we wrote about a report that the FTC was preparing to file antitrust charges against Google. In trying to find out more, the story kept shifting. First, we heard it was all about "search manipulation" in putting Google-related info on top of search results (i.e., search for a location and a Google Map shows at the top of the page). Then, there was some talk about how it was going to focus on how recently-purchased-by-Google Motorola Mobility was abusing standards-essential patents. If it was the latter, that seemed like a weird way to go, since it was so unrelated to Google's main business. Similarly, the whole "search manipulation" claim seemed odd. What kind of "harm" is it when someone searching on Google for an address is shown a Google map. It seems like it actually benefits consumers.

Also, for all the talk of Google hurting others, I just don't see it. I'm constantly surprised at how rarely it seems that Google-related results top the list of searches on relevant things. Every time we bring this up, we see people claim that Google should be taken down for favoring its own services when people do searches, but we so rarely see that. Just as an example, I just did a Google search on "browser" and this is what I see: An ad for IE and then Firefox... and then Wikipedia. Chrome doesn't check in until fourth.

How about airplane travel, since that's a key one (Expedia is one of the companies driving the case against Google): Google stuff seems nowhere to be found. Instead you have Expedia up top. In second place you have Kayak... the company that powers Microsoft's travel search. So... I'm at a loss.

So too, it appears, are some folks at the FTC. Despite all the bluster, there are growing indications that the FTC may blink, as it's realizing that perhaps it really doesn't have enough evidence to make the case.

Talking to a number of folks in DC concerning this, I keep hearing the same story over and over again. They're all variations on the following: FTC boss Jon Leibowitz is getting set to leave the job (and go into the private sector, of course), but would like a "defining moment." Somewhere in the last year or two, he decided that going after Google for anti-trust violations would be such a crowning moment. As such, he brought on a number of folks to help him do that, including Tim Wu, who had just written an entire book basically saying that big companies are bad. While I respect Tim, and agree with him on lots of things, I've never understood his argument here. It just makes no sense. Earlier this year, the FTC also brought on outside litigator Beth Wilkinson, which seemed like a clear statement of plans to sue.

And ever since then they've been trying to come up with something. And, from the sound of things, generally turning up nothing. So, if you're Liebowitz and have effectively made a big bet on going after Google, what do you do? One strategy might be to leak a bunch of stories about how the FTC is all set to sue Google... and then tell Google that it better "settle."

Yes, the FTC may have taken the patent troll technique: threaten to sue, but agree to "settle" at a price that is less than it would cost Google to defend, such that the FTC can claim a "victory." Over the last month or so, it's appeared that the FTC was really just hoping Google would play its assigned role and cough up some cash and Liebowitz could claim victory and ride off into the sunset (or cushy corporate job, whichever pays more). In fact, I'd guess there are still decent odds that this happens. Google may well decide that it's cheaper to just pay up and get this behind it. But, from the articles coming out this week, it appears that (1) Google may be willing to call the FTC's bluff and (2) the FTC may be realizing that Google knows it doesn't have the goods to bring a successful anti-trust case to completion.

Either way, it's pretty sad that we're reduced to this. If there was a clear case of consumer harm via unassailable market control, then antitrust activity could make sense. But there seems to be no evidence that we've seen to support that. Consumers, for the most part, seem pretty happy with Google. If they didn't like Google Maps popping up when they searched on an address, they could use any number of other search engines. Personally, I'd find it a lot more annoying if I was forced to see other mapping offerings. Google Maps works for me, and when I search on an address, it's what I want.

So, really, who is the FTC protecting? Consumers? Doesn't seem like it. Google competitors? Is that really the FTC's job? Jon Liebowitz's legacy? Is that what's become of the FTC these days? Really?

Filed Under: antitrust, ftc
Companies: google

Jared Polis Tells FTC To Back Off Google Antitrust Investigation

from the waste-of-government-resources dept

Colorado's Jared Polis is likely a familiar Congressman to our readers. He was one of the key voices in Congress against SOPA. He's also been one of the few members of government willing to speak out against all of the problems in the domain seizures that have occurred. Now we learn that his pro-tech stance over government-meddling continues with a strongly worded letter to the Federal Trade Commission over its investigation of Google for antitrust violations.

At a time when the national economy continues to stagnate, it's not clear to me why the FTC should be focusing on a product that consumers seem very happy with, search engines. While Google is surely a big company and an important service in peoples' lives, my constituents also use a variety of competing services, including Amazon.com for shopping, iTunes for music and movies, Facebook for social networking and recommendations, and mobile apps like Yelp for finding local businesses. Competition is only a click away and there are no barriers to competition; if I create a better search algorithm I could set up a server in my garage and compete globally with Google. To even discuss applying anti-trust in this kind of hyper-competitive environment defies all logic and the very underpinnigns of anti-trust law itself.

His admission, that Google is indeed a massive entity, likely is designed to push back against the FTC for targeting Google specifically in the search space, despite the relatively high level of competitive search engines on the market. Antitrust violations are not designed to punish really successful companies, and they're not supposed to just go after companies for being "big." Rather, they're designed to prevent anti-competitive practices for the benefit of a healthy marketplace and, most importantly, for the benefit of consumers. While the country is still waiting for the official charges against Google by the FTC over any kind of anti-competitive behavior, there can be little doubt that there is indeed a swath of competition and that the public is pleased with Google's product. It's not like Bing and Yahoo (or Blekko or DuckDuckGo) don't exist, after all, it's just that more people trust Google for their search results. None of this seems worth pursuing an antitrust suit over. As Polis notes:

I have never heard one of my constituents say that they don't feel like they have enough choices online, or that they feel locked in to using any one of these services. Competition among these services is leading to lots of great services for consumers -- and consumers aren't asking Congress or the FTC to protect them.

Indeed, it only seems to be Google competitors who are asking for help here. And that's not the purpose of antitrust law.

Having said all that, Polis went further in his letter, issuing a warning to the FTC that if screws this up, it risks being downsized.

The FTC should tread carefully when reviewing Google, Facebook, Twitter or any other tech company, given the dynamism of our tech industry and the potential for making things worse through regulation. Today's giants can be tomorrow's failures without any government intervention; market forces drive obsolescence at a break neck pace which should only further abrogated the need for government intervention. I believe that application of anti-trust against Google would be a woefully misguided step that would threaten the integrity of our anti-trust system, and could ultimately lead to Congressional action resulting in a reduction in the ability of the FTC to enforce critical anti-trust protections in industries where markets are being distorted by monopolies and oligopolies.

Critics of Google will point to this as some kind of hinted blackmail by Polis, but that isn't at all what he's saying. All he's saying in this instance is that if the FTC brings a poor case against Google and loses face over it, the representatives of the people (whom government is supposed to serve) will take action. It's a warning that the FTC had better have its ducks in a row when considering such a move against a huge member of the national business community.

In the end, we'll have to see if any actual anti-competitive practices by Google are really brought forth. Barring that, Google simply being really successful is no reason to bring an antitrust suit against them.

Filed Under: antitrust, ftc, jared polis
Companies: google

FTC Supposedly Getting Ready To Go After Google For Antitrust Violations

from the what-consumer-harm dept

Reuters is reporting that 4 out of 5 FTC Commissioners have decided they have enough evidence to go after Google for violating antitrust laws to "hurt its rivals." Details remain sparse, but it will be interesting to see any specifics once they're out, and how they show any kind of consumer harm. From what's been said in the past, it really feels like this is yet another case of going after a company because it's big, rather than because of any demonstrable problem. Tim Wu, who's been advising the FTC, has argued in the past that all you have to be is big to be a monopolist, but I don't see how that makes any sense. As we've discussed before, no one has provided a reasonable suggestion as to why Google should need to promote other search engines. Especially in this day and age when different services are eating away at Google from a variety of angles (Apple and Facebook have been quite successful), and considering that if the search results are bad, it's easy to switch to another search engine (I regularly use DuckDuckGo myself these days), I'm really curious as to what the harm here is. It sounds like we may find out soon.

Filed Under: antitrust, competition, consumer harm, ftc, search