WebProNews

Tag: Antitrust

  • Google: Here’s Who Doesn’t Think We’re Anticompetitive

    Google: Here’s Who Doesn’t Think We’re Anticompetitive

    The DoJ has been scrutinizing Google’s proposed acquisition of ad optimization firm AdMeld for over a month, and has now requested further information from Google.

    Google has put out a response to this via its Public Policy blog, which basically boils down to: this is pretty standard, we don’t expect any problems, and here are some people that don’t think we’re being anticompetitive.

    VP of Display Advertising Neal Mohan wrote, “We’ve been discussing this deal with the Department of Justice, who are obliged to review the transaction because of its purchase price. As they do for many acquisitions, they have sent us a ‘second request’, which means that they are asking for more information in order to complete their review of this particular acquisition. This doesn’t surprise us, as today’s display advertising industry is very new and highly complex. But we’ll work to enable this review to be concluded as quickly as possible – display advertising is highly competitive and fast moving, and we don’t want our efforts to bring better services to our clients to be delayed.”

    Mohan also attached a pdf of some quotes from various people, including:

    • This one from PubMatic CEO Rajeev Goel: “I see this development as very positive for PubMatic for a variety of reasons.”
    • This one from Cadreon CEO Brendan Moorcroft: “Admeld has developed a comprehensive suite of services and established strong relationships with premier media companies, allowing them to provision premium inventory into the biddable media environment in a meaningful way. Their offering embodies the perfect complement to Google’s DoubleClick Ad Exchange, which has created an efficient mechanism for advanced digital media transactions…As a result, through Google we now have even greater access to a wider and more diverse set of inventory, resulting in a richer array of opportunities for digital campaigns to take advantage of. This acquisition is great news for the industry and is proof that our space will continue to have aggressive, compound growth for the next several years.”
    • And this one from VivaKi Nerve Center Kurt Unkel: “From a publisher’s perspective, I have to believe this will address several of the challenges related to transparency and tighter inventory controls that were frustrating to AdX and [DoubleClick for Publishers] publishers. And this in turn should drive up adoption of the solution amongst Publishers who to date have held back. Kudos to Google for listening to their customers.”

    Meanwhile, FairSearch, the organization most hellbent on seeing Google feel the wrath of antitrust regulation, has been blasting the company through things like a recently launched “Searchville” site, and a report accusing the company of misrepresenting its positive impact on the economy.

    Google says until the DoJ finishes its review of AdMeld, it will be business as usual. The DoJ did approve the ITA Software acquisition – the one that FairSearch was formed to prevent in the first place.

  • FairSearch Blasts Google with “Searchville” Site

    The FairSearch Coalition, the organization started last year to try (unsuccessfully) and see Google’s acquisition of ITA Software blocked, has launched a new site called Searchville with videos, comic strips and other interactive content, as well as a white paper, designed to illustrate what it considers to be “Google’s anti-competitive business practices,” and how they “harm consumers and advertisers and curb innovation.”

    As you’re welcomed to Searchville, FairSearch tells you:

    Searchville is like a lot of towns where one company dominates.

    Visit Searchville’s local businesses to learn more about the impact that Google’s anticompetitive behavior has on search, companies who advertise and ultimately consumers.

    A trip to the Searchville Lemonade Stand tells the story of Google’s practice of scraping content from other websites.

    Visit Club Droid to learn about Google’s exclusive deals which harm partners and block the introduction of new innovations for consumers.

    The Searchville Travel Agent demonstrates the negative impact of Google’s acquisitions of competitive threats on competition and innovation.

    Searchville

    Searchville

    Searchville

    Searchville

    Searchville

    The Federal Trade Commission recently launched an investigation into Google’s business practices, while the Department of Justice is currently scrutinizing the company’s proposed acquisition of ad optimization firm AdMeld.

    View our past coverage of FairSearch here.

  • Google to FTC: These 5 Principles Will Stand Up To Your Scrutiny

    “These are the principles that guide us, and we know they’ll stand up to scrutiny,” Google said today in a post to the Official Google Blog, in response to scrutiny from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

    So it’s official now. Google says it has received formal notification from the FTC that it has begun its review. Those principles Google (or more specifically, Google Fellow Amit Singal) mentioned, are outlined as follows:

    • Do what’s best for the user. We make hundreds of changes to our algorithms every year to improve your search experience. Not every website can come out at the top of the page, or even appear on the first page of our search results.
    • Provide the most relevant answers as quickly as possible. Today, when you type “weather in Chicago” or “how many feet in a mile” into our search box, you get the answers directly—often before you hit “enter”. And we’re always trying to figure out new ways to answer even more complicated questions just as clearly and quickly. Advertisements offer useful information, too, which is why we also work hard to ensure that our ads are relevant to you.
    • Label advertisements clearly. Google always distinguishes advertisements from our organic search results. As we experiment with new ad formats and new types of content, we will continue to be transparent about what is an ad and what isn’t.
    • Loyalty, not lock-in. We firmly believe you control your data, so we have a team of engineers whose only goal is to help you take your information with you. We want you to stay with us because we’re innovating and making our products better—not because you’re locked in.

    @google
    A Googler    Supporting choice, ensuring economic opportunity: http://t.co/Kk1w2kb 2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    “It’s still unclear exactly what the FTC’s concerns are, but we’re clear about where we stand,” Singhal says. He also sprinkled in a bit at the end about Google “ensuring that businesses can grow and create jobs.”

    Will Google’s principles stand up to scrutiny? Time will tell. It’s expected to be a lengthy process. What do you think?

  • Senate Antitrust Subcommittee Wants to Question Larry Page or Eric Schmidt

    As earlier reported, the FTC is said to be planning a broad antitrust investigation into Google’s business practices, and according to the Wall Street Journal, they’re getting ready to serve Google with subpoenas, as well as requests for information from other companies about their dealings with Google.

    The FairSearch Coalition, the organization made up mainly of travel sites (including Microsoft’s Bing), gave WebProNews the following statement:

    “The members of FairSearch.org are encouraged by reports that the FTC is preparing to launch a broad antitrust investigation into Google’s business practices. Google engages in anti-competitive behavior across many vertical categories of search that harms consumers by restricting the ability of other companies to compete to put the best products and services in front of Internet users, who should be allowed to pick winners and losers online, not Google. The result of Google’s anti-competitive practices is to curb innovation and investment in new technologies by other companies. These anti-competitive practices include scraping and using other companies’ content without their permission, deceptive display of search results, manipulation of search results to favor Google’s products, and the acquisition of competitive threats to Google’s dominance. Google’s practices are deserving of full-scale investigations by U.S. antitrust authorities, and are already the subject of reviews by the European Commission, and the Texas Attorney General.”

    Bloomberg put out a report indicating that Google may get subpoenaed by the Senat Antitrust Subcommittee, as it seeks testimony from either CEO Larry Page or former CEO and current Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt about the company’s business operations. According to the report, which quotes letters and emails from the subcommittee and Google, Google only wants to provide its Chief Legal Officer David Drummond, who it has deemed “the executive who can best answer their questions”. Drummond also serves as SVP of corporate development at Google.

    They don’t want Drummond, however. They want Page or Schmidt. It’s interesting that the company is allegedly resisting offering one of these two.

    From Drummond’s official bio:

    David Drummond joined Google in 2002, initially as vice president of corporate development. Today as senior vice president and chief legal officer, he leads Google’s global teams for legal, government relations, corporate development (M&A and investment projects) and new business development (strategic partnerships and licensing opportunities).

    David was first introduced to Google in 1998 as a partner in the corporate transactions group at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, one of the nation’s leading law firms representing technology businesses. He served as Google’s first outside counsel and worked with Larry Page and Sergey Brin to incorporate the company and secure its initial rounds of financing. During his tenure at Wilson Sonsini, David worked with a wide variety of technology companies to help them manage complex transactions such as mergers, acquisitions and initial public offerings.

    Either way, it would appear that the company is really in for some major scrutiny, between this and the FTC ordeal, which Bloomberg has said may take years to complete. The company is also undergoing regulatory scrutiny from the Department of Justice with relation to its proposed acquisition of AdMeld, an ad optimization company.

    The DoJ had no problem approving the company’s acquisition of ITA Software, however, which was the catalyst to the formation of the FairSearch Coalition to begin with, though the organization continues to pursue continued obstacles for Google’s search dominance, and the DoJ didn’t let that ITA deal go by without some stipulations.

  • Report: FTC Ready to Serve Google Subpoenas

    Mutterings of a a broad antitrust investigation of Google by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have been heard for a few months now, and there is still nothing official yet. Neither the FTC nor Google has commented on this.

    The mutterings continue, however. Now, the Wall Street Journal is reporting (citing “people familiar with the matter”) that the FTC is getting ready to serve Google subpoenas and other companies official requests for info about their dealings with Google.

    Sounds like it’s getting close. Such a probe would hardly be surprising, given the plethora of complaints that have arisen, surrounding Google’s search dominance and numerous (and I do mean numerous) acquisitions. Although, the fact that competitors continue to grow their share of the search market, might actually help Google’s case, even if they are the largest web property on the web, having surpassed a billion unique monthly visitors worldwide.

    The WSJ says the probe would examine “fundamental issues relating to Google’s core search advertising business, which still accounts for the overwhelming majority of its revenues.”

    The FairSearch Coalition, an organization comprised of Google competitors (mainly in the travel sector – as it was originally formed to push for the blocking of Google’s acquisition of ITA Software – an unsuccessful campaign on FairSearch’s part), recently pointed to a Bloomberg article indicating that the FTC investigation could take years to complete. If Bing continues to its pace of growth from month to month, one has to wonder if the case against Google (if their truly is one) will diminish as time progresses.

    FairSearch gave us this statement: “The members of FairSearch.org are encouraged by reports that the FTC is preparing to launch a broad antitrust investigation into Google’s business practices. Google engages in anti-competitive behavior across many vertical categories of search that harms consumers by restricting the ability of other companies to compete to put the best products and services in front of Internet users, who should be allowed to pick winners and losers online, not Google. The result of Google’s anti-competitive practices is to curb innovation and investment in new technologies by other companies. These anti-competitive practices include scraping and using other companies’ content without their permission, deceptive display of search results, manipulation of search results to favor Google’s products, and the acquisition of competitive threats to Google’s dominance. Google’s practices are deserving of full-scale investigations by U.S. antitrust authorities, and are already the subject of reviews by the European Commission, and the Texas Attorney General.”

    It will be very interesting to see which companies the FTC is looking for information from, and if collectively, they present a strong enough argument against Google’s competitive practices.

    While Google is no stranger to antitrust regulatory proceedings, this could be the biggest, most significant yet.

    While the company has not commented on the prospect of this new investigation, Google has always maintained that “competition is always a click away.”

  • Google AdMeld Deal Draws DoJ Scrutiny

    Google AdMeld Deal Draws DoJ Scrutiny

    Earlier this week, Google officially announced that it has agreed to acquire ad optimization firm AdMeld, and now, as expected it appears it will draw government scrutiny. Pretty standard really.

    Bloomberg is reporting that the $400 million deal will be reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice, citing two people familiar with the matter. Since all transactions over $63 million have to be reported for review by authorities, and this one in particular involves Google and advertising, this hardly comes as a shock.

    The publication shares a statement from Google spokesperson Rob Shilkin, who says that the deal won’t hurt competition, and “The acquisition is designed to help publishers get the most from the rapidly growing display advertising industry, which is both complicated and incredibly competitive — the emergence in recent years of a huge variety of technologies for publishers, like Admeld’s, is great evidence of that.”

    Earlier this week, on the Official Google Blog, Neal Mohan VP of Display Advertising wrote:

    By combining Admeld’s services, expertise and technology with Google’s offerings, we’re investing in what we hope will be an improved era of flexible ad management tools for major publishers. Together with Admeld, we hope to make display advertising simpler, more efficient and more valuable, provide improved support and services, and enable publishers to make more informed decisions across all their ad space. These are all things our publisher partners have been asking us to further invest in. Of course, Admeld will continue to support other ad networks, demand side platforms, exchanges and ad servers, to yield the best possible results for publishers.

    We believe that this investment will be an important step to help online publishers, and will further improve and grow the display advertising industry as a whole.

    The investigation will reportedly aim to determine if Google’s dominance in search advertising could make this an anticompetitive buy, and will examine Google’s plans for expansion strategies related to the acquisition. The DoJ has not commented.

    Meanwhile, an FTC investigation into Google’s broader search dominance and competitive practices is also expected to take place.

    The DoJ recently approved Google’s $700 million acquisition of ITA Software.

  • Apple iCloud Draws Antitrust Complaints Before It’s Even Unveiled

    Apple iCloud Draws Antitrust Complaints Before It’s Even Unveiled

    Apple’s iCloud service hasn’t even been formally introduced yet (it will be today sometime after 1PM Eastern), but it is already drawing antitrust complaints.

    iCloud is expected to add a music storage element to Apple’s current digital music offerings (the largely successful iTunes), and Berlin’s Simfy, another music service, says Apple has been withholding approval of its iPad app from the App Store. According to a report from The Next Web, Simfy has filed an antitrust complaint in Germany. Simfy CEO Gerrit Schumann is quoted as saying:

    “We believe there is a connection between Apple’s iCloud development and their blocking our application. As we offer a true triple play streaming service (mobile, Web, desktop) – it seems Apple is worried about competition.”

    “We have always considered Apple an important partner, but it is unacceptable for Apple to be able to control the market in this way. The App Store is a key marketplace we use to reach our customers. In the meanwhile,Simfy users are rightfully complaining about the lack of this app for the iPad. Of course, we ourselves are true fans of Apple and its products. That is why it was so disappointing and incomprehensible to us that we have apparently been blocked intentionally for months now.”

    Apple has allowed its app for the iPhone and iPod Touch in the App Store, which does make any alleged withholding of the iPad app seem somewhat questionable.

    Simfy

    Apple, according to an investor in Simfy, has not responded to the company’s inquiries (including those from lawyers).

    So far, little is actually known about iCloud, as Apple has yet to introduce it beyond an announcement that it would be discussed in today’s keynote. It wouldn’t be fair to either party to rush to any conclusions about what is going on here before we even know the full extent of iCloud’s functionality.

    In terms of competition, Apple’s iCloud should be competing with a lot more players than just Simfy. This includes recently unveiled offerings from major web companies Google and Amazon, not to mention whatever Facebook has up its sleeve.

    In addition to iCloud, Apple will also discuss new versions of its iOS and Mac OS X operating systems today.

  • Google Facing More Competition-Related Scrutiny, This Time from the FTC

    It seems like just yesterday that Google won the approval of the Justice Department to go forward with its acquisition of ITA Software, a deal Google’s competitors tried aggressively (but unsuccessfully) to see blocked. In fact, it was only last month.

    Now, Google may be headed for further investigation from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Over what you ask? Well, over the company’s dominance in search of course.

    Bloomberg, citing “people familiar with the matter,” reports that the FTC is prepping an investigation by alerting companies to gather info for the probe. Jeff Bliss and Sara Forden report:

    The agency told the companies that it plans to issue so- called civil investigative demands for the information, said the people, who requested anonymity because the FTC hasn’t made the matter public. The demands are similar to subpoenas.

    The FTC, which has been considering a broad investigation, waited until the Justice Department concluded its own review of Mountain View, California-based Google’s acquisition of ITA Software Inc., two people familiar with the matter said earlier this month. The Justice Department on April 9 approved Google’s $700 million purchase of ITA on the condition it makes travel data available to search-engine rivals and lets the government review complaints that it’s acting unfairly.

    Of course Google has not commented on the matter.

    Upon the DoJ’s decision on the ITA deal, FairSearch spun story as a win for itself and consumers, given the stipulations Google was to adhere to to gain approval. The organization also implied that it was far from done.

    “Consumers won this round, but we must remain vigilant,” FairSearch said in a statement. “Online competition remains at risk across travel and other economically-significant vertical markets of search, information and online and mobile commerce. The Internet has been a powerful source of innovation, consumer benefits, jobs, and economic growth, and we need to ensure that it continues to live up to its full potential. Google has shown a healthy appetite to expand and exclude competition. Given its past behavior, ongoing scrutiny is essential to ensure that Google adheres to its judicial obligations under the decree and to ensure more generally that consumers and competitive markets are protected.”

    One thing that about this that is particularly interesting is that Microsoft is part of FairSearch, which has actually teamed up with the only other major competitor to Google (in terms of search), and that Microsoft itself has long been the target of such anti-competitive matters.

  • Google Responds to South Korean Antitrust Claims Related to Android

    Google had to clear a few hurdles to close its acquisition of ITA Software, which it did last week. This was finally accomplished after numerous anti-competition cries from competitors, but provided Google made good on certain stipulations, the Department of Justice ultimately gave Google its blessings.

    Last week more Google-related antitrust allegations erupted, this time out of South Korea, where the country’s top Internet portals made claims about an Android/Google lock-in.

    As previously reported, NHN Corp and Daum Communications filed a complaint with the country’s Fair Trade Commission, saying Google was preventing competition, using the status of Android as a dominant mobile operaring system to make it hard for users to use search engines other than Google.

    Daum Speaks out on google

    Today, Google has responded, saying, “Android is an open platform, and carrier and [original equipment manufacturer] partners are free to decide which applications and services to include on their Android phones.” (per a statement obtained by PCWorld).

    That publication also has a statement from a Daum spokesperson, saying: “We filed complaints against Google, arguing that Google used direct and indirect influence over Android-based phone manufacturers to block other search engines or applications from being placed before Google’s search box.”

    As we pointed out in a previous article, Google has had legal issues in South Korean before. Specifically, police actually raided Google’s offices over its Street View data collection ordeal, which was later determined to be a violation of privacy laws.

  • Google Hit By Antitrust Complaints In South Korea

    Google Hit By Antitrust Complaints In South Korea

    Google’s antitrust lawyers – who were probably already working overtime to deal with threats in the U.S. and Europe – may soon need to brush up on South Korean law, as well.  Two large Korean Internet companies have filed a complaint with the country’s Fair Trade Commission.

    Miyoung Kim reported earlier today, “In their joint complaint . . . NHN Corp and Daum Communications Corp , South Korea’s top internet portals, said Google was unfairly impeding competition by using its status as a dominant smartphone operating system provider.”

    More specifically, the complaint centered on the way in which Android users might find it difficult to pick something other than Google as a search provider.

    Kim wrote, “Daum said the practice has helped Google enjoy a near 20 percent share of Korea’s mobile internet search market despite its market share remaining at around 2 percent in the country’s fixed-line internet segment, the smallest of major portals including NHN, Daum and Yahoo Inc.”

    That’s a little different from many of the other criticisms we’ve seen surface elsewhere.  They’ve tended to focus on issues related to search rankings, advertising, Google Books, and/or restricted access to YouTube.

    That doesn’t mean Google can in any way brush off the complaint, though.  Remember that South Korean police actually raided Google’s offices over its Street View data collection gaffe, and months later, determined the search giant had violated privacy laws.

    Google hasn’t yet commented on the matter, and it’s hard to say when South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission might reach a decisions.

  • Google Faces More Antitrust Complaints In Europe

    Google’s antitrust troubles in Europe aren’t even close to being over, according to a man who would know.  Vice President of the European Commission Joaquin Almunia – who’s also the organization’s competition commissioner – indicated that more complaints are on the way, and he intends to take them seriously.

    Aoife White reported this morning after attending a competition law conference in Switzerland, “Joaquin Almunia . . . said a complaint about Google filed by Microsoft Corp. last week will ‘not be the last one’ and regulators had received more than 500 responses to questionnaires sent to Web companies, publishers, and advertisers earlier this year.”

    That’s bad news for Google, considering it indicates a veritable mob felt the need to express an opinion (and everyone knows people are more likely to complain than compliment).

    Then here’s one other piece of information execs at the company will find discouraging: White wrote, “The EU’s antitrust agency would be ‘as firm as possible in eliminating all kinds of barriers’ that may prevent rivals from challenging the world’s biggest search engine, Almunia said . . .”

    So it sounds like Larry Page may want to send a few more lawyers overseas to handle the paperwork and issue statements, with perhaps a few dozen standing by if the situation gets worse.

    On the bright side, this development hasn’t worried Google’s shareholders (assuming they’ve heard about it).  Google’s stock is up 0.21 percent at the moment, even though the Dow and the Nasdaq are down 0.04 percent and 0.07 percent, respectively.

  • Google Spared UK Antitrust Inquiry (For Now)

    Google Spared UK Antitrust Inquiry (For Now)

    Lately, it’s seemed like just about everyone is interested in investigating and/or prosecuting Google.  French courts, Swiss courts, and (perhaps) America’s own FTC have all been offended by different practices.  Google may be spared an antitrust probe in the UK, however, as a minister there has declined to pursue the matter.

    Ed Vaizey, the Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, indicated during a net neutrality debate yesterday that he does not intend to sic the Competition Commission or Office of Fair Trading on the search giant.

    According to a transcript, Vaizey instead said, “The EU anti-trust probe is, I think, an adequate remedy at the moment, and I gather that the OFT looked into the matter three or four years ago and does not feel the need to do so again at this time.”

    Vaizey also reiterated Google’s argument that competitors are just a click away, pointed out that the company’s stopped making piracy-related search suggestions, and highlighted Google’s willingness to pull ads from sites that promote pirated content.

    So it seems Google has something of an advocate in Vaizey when it comes to antitrust issues.  Vaizey even said, “[I]f I was a spokesman for Google, I might say that Google’s next threat was not necessarily from the European Commission, but from Facebook, which is now the dominant provider in social media services.”

    Google just has to hope that someone else in the UK doesn’t decide to go around Vaizey and train the OFT’s sights on it, since the organization is a non-ministerial government department.

  • Google Antitrust Investigation May Be On FTC’s Agenda

    Google’s proposed acquisition of ITA Software, and whether or not the Department of Justice approves it, may have additional ramifications for Google and government regulations.

    According to a report from Bloomberg, the company is being considered for a “broad antitrust investigation” by the Federal Trade Commission, but before moving forward, the FTC is waiting to see what the DoJ does.

    Is Google anti-competitive? Share your thoughts.

    The report suggests that such an investigation by the FTC could be on par with the famous Microsoft probe from a decade ago, which is widely thought to have greatly held Microsoft back in many areas of tech (which ironically, could have helped Google become the giant it has become).

    Microsoft is part of the FairSearch Coalition, an organization mainly made up of travel sites that have banded together to push for the ITA Software acquisition to be blocked.

    Last week, Microsoft SVP and General Counsel Brad Smith wrote on an official Microsoft Blog, a lengthy spiel about the company’s “concerns about search in Europe,” as it filed a complaint with the European Commission. He wrote:

    At the outset, we should be among the first to compliment Google for its genuine innovations, of which there have been many over the past decade.  As the only viable search competitor to Google in the U.S. and much of Europe, we respect their engineering prowess and competitive drive.  Google has done much to advance its laudable mission to “organize the world’s information,” but we’re concerned by a broadening pattern of conduct aimed at stopping anyone else from creating a competitive alternative.

    We’ve therefore decided to join a large and growing number of companies registering their concerns about the European search market. By the European Commission’s own reckoning, Google has about 95 percent of the search market in Europe.  This contrasts with the United States, where Microsoft serves about a quarter of Americans’ search needs either directly through Bing or through our partnership with Yahoo!.

    At Microsoft we’ve shown that we’re prepared to work hard and invest literally billions of dollars annually to offer Bing, a search service that many now regard as the most innovative available.  But, hard work and innovation need a fair and competitive marketplace in which to thrive, and twice the Department of Justice has intervened to thwart Google’s unlawful conduct from impeding fair competition.  In 2008 the DOJ moved to file suit against Google for its unlawful attempt to tie up and set search advertising prices at Yahoo!, causing Google to back down.  And last year the DOJ formally objected to Google’s efforts to monopolize book content, a position affirmed by a federal district court in New York just last week.  Unfortunately, even this has not stopped the spread by Google of new and disconcerting practices in the United States.

    He went on to say that the situation is worse in Europe than it is in the U.S.

    Interestingly enough, Microsoft actually continues to gain search market share with each passing month. Bing has a ways to go before it gets to Google’s level, but Bing has said that its market share has actually grown every month since its launch. Bing also powers search on Yahoo and Facebook, two of Google’s other big competitors.

    A decision from the DoJ on Google’s acquisition of ITA Software is expected soon. Meanwhile, Google is hardly slowing down in its offerings.

    Last week, Google announced the +1 button, which would appear to be the company’s version of the Facebook “like” button. As you know, Facebook has basically managed to take over the web in some regards with this button and other social plugins. If the +1 button sees similar success, it could only help to keep people using Google for search.

    Of course it remains to be seen if the +1 button will be a success or a bust, but you have to wonder if Bing’s plotting a “Bing it” button or something.

    Is Google playing fair? Is Microsoft right? Tell us what you think.

  • Microsoft Confronts Google With Antitrust Complaint

    The phrase “wouldn’t wish it on your worst enemy” apparently doesn’t apply to Microsoft’s antitrust-related examinations at the hands of the European Commission.  Late yesterday, Microsoft announced that it’s filing a complaint about Google with the organization.

    Microsoft’s own experiences with the European Commission are well-documented.  Since 1993, it’s had several run-ins, and the European Commission has attempted to fine the corporation more than $1 billion over the years.

    These facts led Brad Smith, Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Microsoft, to acknowledge in an official blog post last night, “There of course will be some who will point out the irony in today’s filing.”

    But in the lengthy (1,500 words) post, Smith also wrote, “Having spent more than a decade wearing the shoe on the other foot with the European Commission, the filing of a formal antitrust complaint is not something we take lightly.  This is the first time Microsoft Corporation has ever taken this step.”

    Microsoft feels Google’s being anticompetitive for at least six different reasons.  The matter of restricted access to YouTube covers the first two.  Then there’s the Google Books deal to consider, along with the difficulty advertisers may experience when trying to move their data to different search advertising platforms.

    Microsoft is concerned about search box exclusivity terms, as well, and finally, there was an accusation about the cost of placement for competitors’ advertisements.

    This is all sure to give the European Commission something to think about.  The development isn’t likely to improve relations between Microsoft and Google, either.

  • Steve Jobs Ordered to Address iTunes Antitrust Concerns

    Bloomberg Businessweek got the scoop that Apple CEO Steve Jobs has been ordered to answer questions in an antitrust dispute by a federal magistrate judge.

    According to the publication, “Lawyers for consumers who filed the 2005 complaint won permission to conduct limited questioning of Jobs, under an order issued yesterday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd in San Jose, California. The deposition can’t exceed two hours and the only topic allowed is changes Apple made to its software in October 2004 that rendered digital music files engineered by RealNetworks Inc. (RNWK) inoperable with Apple’s iPod music player.”

    Steve Jobs To Answer Antitrust QuestionsThis is in reference to when RealNetworks launched service that enabled its music to be played through iTunes and on iPods, before Apple quickly updated its software to prevent that from happening.

    Apple wouldn’t comment, but the judge said, “The court finds that Jobs has unique, non-repetitive, firsthand knowledge about the issues at the center of the dispute over RealNetworks software.”

    A memo reportedly from Apple’s legal team earlier this year, posted by EdibleApple says:

    Unable to show that the testimony of Apple’s other witnesses was inadequate, Plaintiffs sifted through the more than one million pages of documents Apple produced in discovery and could point to only a small handful of documents – two articles by PC World and the Associated Press, five emails, and an essay entitled “Thoughts on Music” by Mr. Jobs – as putative support for their theory that Mr. Jobs “was likely the architect of the exclusionary policies that are at issue.” A review of these documents reveals that Plaintiffs have mischaracterized Mr. Jobs’ involvement in any relevant conduct. Plaintiffs inability to identify any meaningful evidence after six years of litigation rebuts their sweeping characterizations of Mr. Jobs as “central” to this case.

    The Bloomberg piece quotes Apple attorney David Kiernan as writing in a court filing in December:

    “Plaintiffs remaining claims rely on the allegation that Apple attempted to maintain a monopoly in the audio download and portable music player markets by issuing updates to FairPlay, Apple’s proprietary digital rights management software.”

    It’s worth noting that the order for Jobs comes at a time while he is on medical leave from Apple.

  • Google Antitrust Review By Senate Commended By FairSearch Coalition

    Google Antitrust Review By Senate Commended By FairSearch Coalition

    Last week, Senator Mike Lee called for the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Subcommittee to conduct a hearing, with Google identified as the target.

    In a statement, Lee said, “Google’s position as the preeminent search engine may be abused so as to disadvantage competing vertical search sites to the detriment of advertisers and internet users.”

    “Google’s powerful position as an Internet gatekeeper reduces the company’s incentive to compete with other search engines by providing enhanced privacy protection for consumers,” he also said.

    Today, we received a statement from the FairSearch Coalition, an organization formed solely to push for the blocking of Google’s proposed acquisition of ITA Software. For more background on that, see our past coverage here.

    The statement says:

    FairSearch.org is working to promote competition, transparency and innovation in online search. We believe that Internet users should pick winners and losers – not search engines. Our members have been passionate advocates for competition in the travel search vertical, a dynamic space that has benefited consumers by, among other things, putting pressure on airlines to keep prices low.

    Senate Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Ranking Member Mike Lee (R-UT) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) have demonstrated great vision and leadership in the past week by calling for Congressional scrutiny of Google’s dominance of online search and allegations that it has abused that dominance to advantage its own services and harm competition.

    Congress is right to investigate these issues and examine the threats that Google’s unchecked dominance poses to the Internet ecosystem.  As Sen. Lee stated in his letter to Chairman Kohl, “Enforcement of the antitrust laws is especially important for sectors in which the United States has been a leader, such as the e-commerce and online advertising industries.”  The proper enforcement of antitrust laws is a critical linchpin in the Internet’s continued role as a driving force behind the U.S. economy.

    Google’s proposed acquisition of ITA Software, as Sen. Lee noted, “could potentially provide Google with the ability to control the travel search vertical market.”  We believe the American consumer deserves a better deal than that.  FairSearch is encouraged that Senators Kohl, Lee and Blumenthal agree that Google’s attempts to expand its dominance through acquisitions bear close examination.

    Examination is not an indictment, and of course there are two sides to every story. More on Google’s argument here.

    It’s worth noting that Google’s main competitor, Microsoft (no stranger itself to antitrust matters), is part of the FairSearch coalition.

    Last month, Bing introduced its own flight price suggestions right from the search box. While Google is often accused of favoring its own content over competitors, it’s interesting that Bing is going so far as to suggest its own content before users even get to the search results themselves.

    Earlier this month, Bing announced a partnership with travel site KAYAK.

  • Google Targeted (Again) For Antitrust Oversight Hearings

    Google Targeted (Again) For Antitrust Oversight Hearings

    Google’s best lawyers may want to start packing their bags for Washington, D.C. Today, Senator Mike Lee called for the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Subcommittee to conduct an oversight hearing, and Lee identified Google as the sole target.

    That means Lee, a Republican from Utah, joined Herb Kohl, a Democrat from Wisconsin, in expressing concern about Google’s dominance. Only where Kohl just mentioned Google three times in a press release that also touched on prescription drugs, agriculture, healthcare, and many other things, Lee’s statement was rather more aggressive.

    Without actually accusing the search giant of wrongdoing, Lee said, “Google’s position as the preeminent search engine may be abused so as to disadvantage competing vertical search sites to the detriment of advertisers and internet users.”

    Later, Lee also suggested, “Google’s powerful position as an Internet gatekeeper reduces the company’s incentive to compete with other search engines by providing enhanced privacy protection for consumers.”

    Those are some serious topics. That means Google’s reputation could be in real danger, since inquiries on a national stage could stir up all sorts of suspicions, regardless of the senators’ findings.

    Indeed, it’s possible the process has already started, considering Google’s stock fell 0.57 percent today while the Dow and Nasdaq rose 0.50 percent and 0.54 percent, respectively.

    We’ll be sure to report if any other major politicians take a stand on Google’s possible antitrust violations.

  • American Antitrust Institute Discusses Google ITA Deal

    American Antitrust Institute Discusses Google ITA Deal

    The American Antitrust Institute (AAI) has stated the proposed acquisition of ITA Software by Google may be "straining the boundaries of antitrust analysis, but serious consideration of a challenge is warranted."

    The organization has issued a White Paper discussing this.  

    "Apart from the very difficult analysis, this transaction raises broader questions of competition policy concerning Google’s rapid growth as a one-of-a-kind firm," said AAI President Bert Foer.

    The AAI says, "Governmental efforts to protect against manipulation of algorithms by Google are not only likely to be ineffective, but they will necessarily raise First Amendment questions as the government participates in decisions about the prioritization of information reaching the public. Maintaining competitive markets for both general and niche search may be the only alternative, ultimately, to an unregulatable monopoly. It is therefore appropriate for the Division, employing a statute intended to stop monopoly in its incipiency, to work within a public vision of longer-term developments and to place the present acquisition within such a context."

    Here’s a snippet from a press release from the AAI:

    The white paper explores both the narrow and broad competition issues that are raised by a Google/ITA combination. In the narrowest sense, the AAI says acquiring ITA would put Google in the business of supplying a technology input that powers downstream products in a vertical online search market. That is, Google would own what many consider to be the premier technology that online travel agents, travel meta-search websites, and airline websites license from ITA to afford Internet users the ability to search real-time pricing and seat availability data in the course of shopping for airline tickets online. Neither Google nor ITA currently competes in the provision of this data to Internet users by "online travel search" firms, but together they effectively have such firms surrounded.

    Foer said, "The Division must acknowledge the risk that Google may acquire market power in the online travel search market or the technology input market, along with the risk that Google’s control of ITA would lead to foreclosure or other exclusionary effects, whether directly or indirectly. The Division should also consider whether the transaction might have the effect of raising barriers to entry into the broader online search market, which Google already dominates."

    It’s worth noting that the announcement of the White Paper was sent to us by a representative for the FairSearch Coalition, which has made a mission out of having this Google-ITA deal blocked. 

    You can see both sides of the debate argued by Google and FairSearch here.

  • Apple Subscription Service Being Monitored By Antitrust Regulators

    Apple Subscription Service Being Monitored By Antitrust Regulators

    Earlier this week, Apple introduced its Subscription service for the App Store. Immediately, it was met with waves of criticism (though it’s certainly had its share of defenders). It didn’t take long at all for whispers of antitrust to start going around. The Wall Street Journal started that off, though nothing had been made of the situation by regulators at the time. 

    Now, the publication is reporting that regulators are keeping an eye on it:

    A spokeswoman for the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, said Thursday that the commission was aware of the new subscription service and was "carefully monitoring the situation."

    The Justice Department and the FTC are both interested in examining whether Apple is running afoul of U.S. antitrust laws by funneling media companies’ customers into the payment system for its iTunes store—and taking a 30% cut, the people familiar with the situation said. The agencies both enforce federal antitrust laws and would have to decide which one of them would take the lead in the matter.

    WebProNews spoke with Pam Horan, President of the Online Publishers Association, which represents a slew of major content providers (including the Wall Street Journal Digital Network).  

    Pam Horan of the OPA Talks Apple and subscription model"Right now, one the most audible reactions I’m hearing from publishers is: what does this mean for the consumer? The concern is that Apple’s latest subscription policy limits one of the major needs that all publishers look to address – seamlessly offering their content on whatever platform the consumer wants to access it on," she told us. 

    "Based on Apple’s policy, specifically, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app," she added. "Limiting the publisher to include links with offers or offering direct bundles through their own website, makes authenticating the consumer impossible. Apple’s one click access is great, but consumers have to realize that they are sacrificing portability." 

    "The second issue is that Apple’s doesn’t allow publishers access to any consumer information – from who is purchasing to what articles and tools that [they] are finding valuable based on their use," she said. "Consumer insights are paramount for publishers to be able to offer consumers the products they want. We would hope that Apple would take these issues into consideration to ensure that we are all serving their consumers’ best interest." 

    The Federal Trade Commission, the Justice Department, and Apple have all yet to comment on the matter. 

    Apple CEO Steve Jobs said upon announcement of the service, "Our philosophy is simple — when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing," said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. "All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app."

    Under Apple’s plan, publishers set the price and length of the subscription, users choose the length of the subscription and are charged based on how long they subscribe.

  • Apple Subscriptions Raise Antitrust Questions

    Apple Subscriptions Raise Antitrust Questions

    This week, Apple launched a subscription service for the app store. It enables all publishers of content-based apps (including magazines, newspapers, video, music, etc.) to follow the model of the recently launched The Daily from New Corp. 

    According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, the service has raised concerns about antitrust, though neither Apple nor the Justice Department has commented on the matter. 

    "Our philosophy is simple—when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing," said Apple CEO Steve Jobs upon the announcement. "All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app. We believe that this innovative subscription service will provide publishers with a brand new opportunity to expand digital access to their content onto the iPad, iPod touch and iPhone, delighting both new and existing subscribers."
    Steve Jobs talks Subscriptions on Apple App Store apps

     The WSJ reports: 

    Experts said that the first step in an antitrust analysis is to determine whether Apple is a dominant player in the market, which, in turn, requires an assessment of the relevant market at issue.

    Publishers, for example, might claim that Apple dominates the market for consumer tablet computers and that it has allegedly used that commanding position to restrict competition. Apple, in turn, might define the market to include all digital and print media, and counter that any publisher not happy with Apple’s terms is free to still reach its customers through many other print and digital outlets.

    It’s certainly worth noting that while iPad may have been dominating the tablet market since its launch of the iPad, it is now getting a great deal more competition from manufacturers using a variety of operating systems: Android, webOS, BlackBerry, and Windows.

  • Google, EU Said To Be In “Tentative Discussions”

    The group that’s fined companies like Microsoft and Intel billions of euros in the past few years might reach a less harsh solution where its antitrust probe of Google is concerned.  Rumors indicate that Google and the European Commission are holding talks.

    Note: these rumors are very much unproven, with even the unnamed source who leaked them indicating that negotiations aren’t far along.  Google could still be in a lot of trouble.

    Reuters reported this morning, however, "Google and European Union regulators are in early talks to resolve an antitrust probe against the Internet’s dominant search engine."

    More specifically, Reuters’s source said, "There is some interest from both sides, some tentative discussions in resolving the issue, but no really concrete proposals on the table."

    It might be in Google’s best interest to reach an agreement.  Microsoft won a bit sympathy the last time the European Commission levied a fine – people thought the fine was too large – but corporations of that size risk damaging their reputations when they battle in the spotlight.  Lots of unpleasant details (and/or unfounded allegations) can come out.

    We’ll of course be sure to follow the story and report any significant updates.

    Google’s stock is up 1.01 percent so far today, at least, perhaps indicating that shareholders are feeling encouraged.