Politicians Say Google Shouldn't Be Accused of Unfair Acts

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Politicians asking the Federal Trade Commission to leave their biggest campaign contributors alone? That can't be right. It is just so...so...so unlike a politician to do something like that. :rolleyes:

Two lawmakers urged the Federal Trade Commission on Monday to steer clear of expanding its authority as it investigates allegations search engine company Google violated antitrust law. The two California Democrats in the House of Representatives, who count Google as a major campaign contributor, asked the FTC not to accuse the company of "unfair" acts if it believes it broke antitrust law.
Click to expand...
 
Google services are prominently promoted right after you do a Google search, with other 3rd party services given little to no presence - per the FTC, this is a direct violation of antitrust law.That's basically the problem they are trying to address with the lawsuit.
 
Lith1um said:
This is 2012. As long as the government keeps handing out free shit to everyone they can do virtually whatever they want. And they know it.
Click to expand...

At some point, you run out of other people's money.

And we will still have firearms.
 
I have no problem with Google. It's so easy to switch search engines, it doesn't even matter how big their market share is. Their biggest competitor in searches is Microsoft. So it's not like they have the market to themselves.
 
Terminus said:
Google services are prominently promoted right after you do a Google search, with other 3rd party services given little to no presence - per the FTC, this is a direct violation of antitrust law.That's basically the problem they are trying to address with the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Since when is a company required to advertise their competition on their own product? Google search is a google product, I fail to see any logical argument that mandates them by law to promote bing in google search results.
 
Terminus said:
Google services are prominently promoted right after you do a Google search, with other 3rd party services given little to no presence - per the FTC, this is a direct violation of antitrust law.That's basically the problem they are trying to address with the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Nope, that's not against the law at all. Quite simply all that antitrust is irrelevant since Google isn't a monopoly to begin with. ~66% is not a monopoly, and there is zero barrier to switching. You would also have to prove that Google is tampering with the results to *unfairly* favor it's own - which is awfully hard to do when Bing and other search engines *also* have Google's products at the top.

Being better than your competitors isn't a crime. Oh, and the antitrust has to show consumer harm - not competitor harm, *consumer* harm.

But if we're going to question these politicians' financial motivations, it would be unfair to leave out that Microsoft is currently lobbying the hell out of the FTC to push this lawsuit through. If you can't compete, litigate!
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Since when is a company required to advertise their competition on their own product? Google search is a google product, I fail to see any logical argument that mandates them by law to promote bing in google search results.
Click to expand...

Talk to the FTC then.

And all you Google apologists stop pretending like you don't know what the FTC is talking about here. Yelp, Facebook, Amazon are all superior products and services yet they push Google+, Shopping, and Local on you like it's the only thing that exists when you search the web. It's the modern version of AOL and bad consumers.

Microsoft pulled the same hat trick with Internet Explorer during the Windows 9x era. If you are too young to remember the details of that case then you need to go back to school, kid.
 
Terminus said:
If you are too young to remember the details of that case then you need to go back to school, kid.
Click to expand...

If they're too young, wouldn't the chances are... that they are already in school and still going?

I don't like the entire thing... and I have to agree with the thought of not advertising your competitor. Not that they should be able to block it, but they shouldn't have to do any thing to help their competitor. Biggest offender is the BS Microsoft got hit with about IE.

But I don't actively try to check if Google's doing that or not. So maybe they are? That said.... the politicians can go fuck themselves. Corrupt twats.
 
Terminus said:
Microsoft pulled the same hat trick with Internet Explorer during the Windows 9x era. If you are too young to remember the details of that case then you need to go back to school, kid.
Click to expand...

Not really the same thing at all. Microsoft intentionally limited the number of browser options, on it's own operating system... to like 1. Guess how many web browser's Windows ships with now? Why don't we hear the FTC throwing a fit now? Because it's pretty easy to get another browser now..

We're talking about search engines here. That aren't tied to anyone's browser. There are a gazillion search engines, and a gazillion web browsers. Microsoft made it difficult to choose a browser that wasn't theirs. There's no difficulty here in choosing another search engine. This would be akin to the FTC having a problem with Fox not showing advertisements for ABC shows on it's own channel.
 
percydaman said:
Not really the same thing at all. Microsoft intentionally limited the number of browser options, on it's own operating system... to like 1.
Click to expand...

That wasn't it at all. MS wasn't nailed over any indications that it was limiting browser options. The question at hand was whether they were allowed to bundle an internet browser with an operating system which, looking back, was one of the dumbest questions the government could ask, and a demonstration of the lack of understanding government agencies have for technology.
 
Why does every thread that involves a politician somehow turn into a thing about how they're all horrible and should be overthrown...in a computer nerd forum. :(
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Since when is a company required to advertise their competition on their own product? Google search is a google product, I fail to see any logical argument that mandates them by law to promote bing in google search results.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one. When did it become anti-competive to advertise myself on my own site? If it were the ONLY search engine available online, I could see the problem, but it's not. There are actually a few players in that market, but people choose Google search because it is, for the most part, a better product. Is it anti-competitive to make a better product now as well?
 
Terminus said:
Talk to the FTC then.

And all you Google apologists stop pretending like you don't know what the FTC is talking about here. Yelp, Facebook, Amazon are all superior products and services yet they push Google+, Shopping, and Local on you like it's the only thing that exists when you search the web. It's the modern version of AOL and bad consumers.

Microsoft pulled the same hat trick with Internet Explorer during the Windows 9x era. If you are too young to remember the details of that case then you need to go back to school, kid.
Click to expand...

This isn't the same on any level, to argue it as such is just inane. Also just because the FTC claims something, doesn't mean it will stand up in court. I'm not a Google apologist, I will say the same thing about any company. Also calling people "kid" in your argument lessens your credibility, especially when that "kid" is probably older then you.
 
Stiletto said:
That wasn't it at all. MS wasn't nailed over any indications that it was limiting browser options. The question at hand was whether they were allowed to bundle an internet browser with an operating system which, looking back, was one of the dumbest questions the government could ask, and a demonstration of the lack of understanding government agencies have for technology.
Click to expand...

That's the thing though. It all boiled down to whether MS limited the competition because they bundled their own browser with windows, while not bundling any others. The assertion was, that by only bundling their own, they limited browser options, because it was then also asserted that people wouldn't take the time to install any other one. I never agreed with that though, just like I don't agree with this current situation. I do agree it seems silly in retrospect. How many different browsers does apple include in their OS's? Just theirs. So when did it change?
 
Terminus said:
. If you are too young to remember the details of that case then you need to go back to school, kid.
Click to expand...

Even if I agreed with your position, what would sending somebody back to school change? Was the details of the case taught in schools? If I went back to school, could I then learn of this case? Why would being too young to remember the details of the case, mean I needed to go back to school? Anyways, I think you're an idiot.
 
percydaman said:
That's the thing though. It all boiled down to whether MS limited the competition because they bundled their own browser with windows, while not bundling any others. The assertion was, that by only bundling their own, they limited browser options, because it was then also asserted that people wouldn't take the time to install any other one. I never agreed with that though, just like I don't agree with this current situation. I do agree it seems silly in retrospect. How many different browsers does apple include in their OS's? Just theirs. So when did it change?
Click to expand...

That's like saying MS was limiting the competition for simple text editors by including Notepad. Still stuns me to this day that they wasted time on such an idiotic premise.
 
Serpent said:
Not that they should be able to block it, but they shouldn't have to do any thing to help their competitor. Biggest offender is the BS Microsoft got hit with about IE.
Click to expand...

What get's me is Apple does this right now on their iPhones/Ipods with their Safari browser. They intentionally don't allow full access to their javascript engine for other browsers. It ends up making their browser feel faster. Talk about BS.

percydaman said:
Anyways, I think you're an idiot.
Click to expand...

Way to toe the line there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top