Once Again: Making Search Results Better Isn't An Antitrust Violation

from the at-least-it-better-not-be dept

And, here we go with more ridiculous antitrust lawsuits -- this time against Google. You may recall last fall, the NY Times ran a silly article focusing on one small company supposedly as evidence of Google's monopoly power. But that was hard to support when you looked at the details. Basically, this company was a pure search arbitrage player. It was buying ads on Google, sending people to a page full of links... and a bunch of Google ads. These pages are often considered spam by users for good reason: they don't provide value. They're a pass-through on the way to where you actually want to go. Because of that, people began to indicate to Google that such links were poor uses of their time, and Google's algorithm properly corrected for that, lowering the prominence of those ads. That's all about making the product better for end users.

However, the company in that NY Times profile, TradeComet, still isn't satisfied, and has now sued Google for antitrust violations claiming that it purposely tried to destroy its SourceTool site (and, of course, it should come as no surprise that there's a Microsoft connection for all you conspiracy buffs). There are numerous problems with this argument. First, it was TradeComet that made the decision to rely almost entirely on Google to send it traffic. That was a strategic decision (and a bad one). Second, Google has every right to make its search results better, and getting spam-like pages out of sight is one clear way to do so. Third, it's almost laughable that Google would "target" SourceTool as a site to be "harmed." It's not like SourceTool was a threat to Google in any way. Fourth, even more ridiculous: since this was a search arbitrage play using Google's ads on the results page as well, Google was making money from sending traffic to SourceTool. All in all, it seems unlikely that TradeComet will get anywhere with this, other than making people think that it picked a really bad business model, almost entirely reliant on one channel partner, and then performed poorly for that channel partner. So Google isn't violating antitrust laws -- it's just doing business.

Filed Under: advertising, antitrust, monopolies, search
Companies: google, tradecomet

Next, Microsoft Will Release An Even Worse Operating System To Jack Up The Prices On Vista...

from the not-sure-I-see-it dept

While it is rather amusing to see customers so interested in sticking with Windows XP rather than the supposedly more advanced Windows Vista that they're willing to pay a fee for the downgrade, it's tough to see much merit in the claim that such a charge is an antitrust violation. But, of course, that won't stop the lawyers from trying to convince a court that it most certainly is an abuse of a monopoly position. There's nothing monopolistic about charging more for a product that people want more. It certainly is ridiculous to claim that this is all a plan by Microsoft to squeeze extra money out of people by use of its monopoly position. Microsoft, by all accounts, would like nothing more than for folks to stop wanting to buy XP. The launch of Vista has been a massive disappointment for the company, not a part of a nefarious strategy to jack up the prices on XP.

Filed Under: antitrust, class action, vista, xp
Companies: microsoft

Disappointing: Mozilla Siding With Bogus EU Antitrust Action Against Microsoft

from the just-go-out-and-compete dept

Last month, it seemed silly that EU regulators were pursuing Microsoft for antitrust violations in the browser market for bundling IE. It was clear that some of the initial complaints had come from Opera -- an also-ran in the browser market. However, it seemed silly because there is vibrant and growing competition in the marketplace. Firefox has continued to grow its market share, and in the past few years we've seen new entrants in the browser market from Apple and Google -- both of whom have established small, but significant footholds.

So, it's especially disappointing to read that the Mozilla Foundation appears to be siding with the regulators, complaining about Microsoft's actions. Obviously, Mozilla is competing with Microsoft in this space, so at a first pass it may seem in their best interests to lobby the EU to punish Microsoft. But it's disingenuous to say the least. Mozilla got where it did because it competed effectively. It built a better, more secure browser that many people made the choice to support over IE. In fact, Firefox's chief architect, apparently unaware of what his "bosses" were cooking up, seems to have recently contradicted the Mozilla Foundation's new position, where he admitted that he couldn't see how anyone with a straight face could claim that Microsoft's ability to bundle created a monopoly, noting that Firefox's success in growing marketshare showed that making yourself "demonstrably better" worked. Oops.

Filed Under: antitrust, browsers, bundling, eu, firefox, internet explorer, regulators
Companies: microsoft, mozilla

Behind Nearly Every Google Complaint? A Lobbyist And A Flailing Competitor

from the funny-how-the-system-works dept

Plenty of folks have been sending in links to Wired's article on The Plot to Kill Google, which basically shows how both Microsoft and AT&T -- two companies scared to death by Google, are now working hard not to build better products to beat Google in the marketplace -- but on hiring better lobbyists and marketers to try to destroy public perception of Google. Of course, Google has been doing a bit of the same thing in reverse... pointing out that every bit of critical information just so happens to come from companies or individuals working for (or at least funded by) AT&T or Microsoft. The whole thing has turned into a huge public relations nightmare, with little focus on providing actual value. This is unfortunate. It may be naive in this day and age, but wouldn't it be nice if companies actually focused on creating value, rather than crafting PR schemes directed at politicians and bureaucrats to tear down their competitors?

Filed Under: antitrust, competition, lobbying
Companies: at&t, google, microsoft

EU Regulators Can't Resist: Go After Microsoft For Antitrust Yet Again

from the punching-bag dept

Microsoft is becoming quite the antitrust punching bag over in Europe. After a years long fight concerning antitrust charges in Europe, Microsoft finally gave in and agreed to pay up. So, now the matter is over with, right? No, of course not. EU regulators are back at it, telling Microsoft that the company is probably violating antitrust laws by bundling Microsoft Internet Explorer with Windows. This seems like an odd issue to bring up now as there is increasing competition in the browser market. Firefox's marketshare has continued to climb. Google has entered the market with Chrome. Safari is gaining increasing life (in part due to the iPhone) and there are numerous other upstarts as well. The idea that Microsoft is somehow exerting undue influence on the browser market (a market that, for the most part, involves free software) seems rather odd. It seems to confirm the initial opinion that many had of the original antitrust lawsuit in the EU against Microsoft. It's more about a simple dislike for Microsoft than any actual antitrust violation.

Filed Under: antitrust, browsers, bundling, eu, internet explorer, regulators
Companies: microsoft

Today's Ridiculous Lawsuit: Wal-Mart, Netflix Sued Over Conspiracy To Create A Monopoly

from the ugh dept

Way back in 2002, Wal-Mart decided to enter the online DVD rental business, launching an almost exact replica of Netflix. Of course, Wal-Mart quickly discovered what almost every other player in that marker discovered: just offering a competing service to Netflix isn't enough to get anyone to use it. Wal-Mart had a lot of difficulty signing up customers (and keeping them once they signed up). The whole project was going nowhere fast, and eventually, Wal-Mart decided that it was a waste of time to throw more money into a project that was pretty far removed from its main business, and decided to simply let Netflix take over its online DVD rental service. This was a reasonable business move.

However, nearly four years later, a lawsuit has been filed claiming that Netflix and Wal-Mart "conspired to create a monopoly" in the online video rental market, and as a result of that monopoly, Blockbuster raised its prices. Read that sentence again. Netflix and Wal-Mart are being accused of creating a monopoly -- and because of that monopoly another major player in the space raised its prices.

If there's another major player in the space, there is no monopoly.

Besides, the folks bringing the lawsuit are going to have to convince a judge that the relevant market is online DVD subscription services, rather than any kind of home movie viewing service (which includes store rentals, purchases, internet downloads, subscription services and more). This seems like a random bogus lawsuit targeted at a company with deep, deep pockets (Wal-Mart), rather than anything serious.

Filed Under: antitrust, dvd, monopoly, online rental
Companies: blockbuster, netflix, wal-mart

MySpace Video Blocking Not An Antitrust Violation

from the well,-good dept

Brad Greenspan, who at one point was CEO of Intermix, the spyware/adware firm that originally created MySpace, has been complaining for years that News Corp. engaged in fraud when it purchased Intermix in order to get MySpace at a discounted price. A court found nothing to support this, pointing out (yet again) that the acquisition was agreed to by both parties. However, that hasn't stopped Greenspan, whose own competitive startup Live Universe filed an antitrust lawsuit against MySpace for blocking Live Universe videos from MySpace profiles.

How is this possibly an antitrust issue? Well, that wasn't clear to anyone... least of all to the courts apparently. After first losing at the district court level, an appeals court has now found no validity in the antitrust claims either, sending Greenspan back to the drawing board for attempts to find ways to suck some more money out of News Corp.

Filed Under: antitrust, brad greenspan, videos
Companies: live universe, myspace, news corp

DOJ Was Three Hours From Suing Google For Antitrust Violations

from the pick-your-fights dept

It was pretty clear back in September, when the Justice Department hired well-known antitrust litigator Sandy Litvack, that it had decided that it was going to file an antitrust lawsuit against Google, even if there were serious questions about what harm its ad deal with Yahoo would actually cause. Despite plenty of negotiation and totally rewriting the deal, the Justice Department was set on opposing it, leading Google to give up.

Now, that litigator, Sandy Litvack has admitted that the Justice Department was three hours away from filing its antitrust suit, which he was "looking forward to" and he's apparently disappointed he didn't get to go to court over it. That seems troublesome. If the purpose of antitrust activity is to protect consumers, then its litigators should be pretty happy that it avoided a (taxpayer-funded) legal battle.

Filed Under: antitrust, justice department
Companies: google, justice department, yahoo

Microsoft Realizes No One Wants To Pay Microsoft To Fix Its Own Security Flaws

from the that's-how-it-works dept

Back in 2005, when Microsoft was first mulling the idea of offering security software, we noted that the company was between something of a rock and a hard place. If it decided to charge for the software, people would accuse the company of trying to get people to pay to protect themselves from the security vulnerabilities in Microsoft's own software. Yet, if they went free, then they would face screams about antitrust violations for undercutting competitors in the security software market. We also suggested a third option: design better software that doesn't need security software. But, failing that, Microsoft chose what I think was the worst of the three options: selling security software. Perhaps not too surprisingly, not too many people took Microsoft up on the offer. It could be a combination of reasons why. First, Microsoft just doesn't have a good reputation when it comes to security. Second, that whole issue of paying the same company that created the security holes in the first place. Finally, it might just be inertia. People buy from McAfee or Symantec because they're two names that have been around forever and are recognized (and, most importantly, bundled on many brand-name computers).

So, after a couple years of failing to make much of a dent in the market, Microsoft has abruptly shifted to option number two. It will no longer be selling its OneCare security software and, instead, will be offering a free security suite for users, though with fewer features than the old OneCare offering. The various security software companies put out statements saying, of course, that this is no big deal, but you have to believe they're now doing whatever possible to stir up some complaints out of the Justice Department that this is an antitrust violation. Maybe a few years down the road Microsoft will simply move on to option three, and make software that doesn't require separate security software.

Filed Under: antitrust, free, security, software
Companies: mcafee, microsoft, symantec

Judge Rejects Psystar's Antitrust Claims Against Apple

from the not-looking-good-for-psystar dept

Back when Apple first sued Psystar, we were afraid that the smaller company wouldn't have much of a legal leg to stand on, even if it claimed antitrust violations by Apple -- which it did. However, the judge in the case is apparently unconvinced, dismissing Psystar's counterclaims, noting that Psystar did not do a very good job establishing that Apple has a monopoly, noting that the relevant market is not just the Macintosh operating system. Psystar can file an amended complaint, but it seems unlikely that the judge is going to buy any antitrust claims. That means the lawsuit, assuming it continues, will probably focus on the enforceability of certain end user license agreements, which could be more interesting anyway.

Filed Under: antitrust, clones, eula
Companies: apple, psystar