FTC Preparing Antitrust Case Against Google

[Techxan]

You can't corner a market, at least not in the US, we break up companies that do that. Google may have gotten so large that the government feels they have such a monopoly on search that they can control the market. If that is so,` they're gonna be broken up. We have done it many times, in my lifetime they broke up Bell telephones. No one can argue that Google is in such a position now because they have such a market share. When a company get so large that they can dictate the market, our laws require the government to do something about. It may take 25 years, but maybe someday there will be 20 googles.

The filing of this lawsuit gives us the chance to tell our lawmakers how google has destroyed our income with their policies. With this filing and subsequent media exposure, the elected officials are going to be sensitive, especially after this election cycle if they squeaked by.

This is an opportunity for all IM'ers to maybe do something to combat Google. We cant do anything on our own, but as a group we can scare the hell out of politicians if we all raise hell about Google at the same time.for the same reasons. Nothing gets action like a scared politician. Look at the "Dubai Ports" deal.

The best part is we don't even have to lie, all we have to do is sit down and e-mail our representatives, and tell them the truth.

 

[Expertpeon]

Eat it up America, and watch your tax dollars go towards funding another drawn out war on free enterprise.

I do find it entertaining that the same people clamoring about how unfair SOPA and PIPA were, and parading the cause of internet deregulation, are the same ones getting behind the FTC on this though.

Free enterprise = monopolies?
You do realize that originally, the US constitution had a provision in the first amendment that included "freedom from monopolies", but the federalists removed it right?

This is a very OLD idea, and one that Jefferson himself wished to be included at the constitutional level.

SOPA/PIPA were about keeping the government out of the internet at a personal level (keeping private actions from being crimes by mere implication, and huge prison terms for downloading a single song or movie) vs Google controlling and monetizing the entire internet, and paying off various companies to spread their market share.

Again, I could agree with you if practically everything else wasn't regulated to hell... but that's not the case, so you're completely wrong. Again, selling organic non-pasteurized milk to people is a crime... even with proper labeling of that. It's a felony, for whatever reason...
Making something criminal and allowing the FBI/Homeland security to spy on people's internet use is very different than anti-trust.

Anti-trust is one of the few areas libertarians believe a heavy hand is necessary (and Jefferson himself said much the same)

 

[jazzc]

If I make hazardous chemicals can I use the product anyway I want?

Yes, as long as they can only be a hazard to you property only.

 

[Expertpeon]

Yes, as long as they can only be a hazard to you property only.

Oh, so that DEFINITELY doesn't apply to google then
They make decisions regarding the use, and misuse of the property of others every second of every day...

 

[jazzc]

Free enterprise = monopolies?
You do realize that originally, the US constitution had a provision in the first amendment that included "freedom from monopolies", but the federalists removed it right?

This is a very OLD idea, and one that Jefferson himself wished to be included at the constitutional level.

You are led to wrong conclusions because of a common fallacy. You are confused as to what a monopoly is.

Monopoly in economics does not have to do with the number of sellers in a market, it has to do with the barrier of entry to that market. You can have a fully competitive market with even just one seller. Think about it for a while and I can clear it up in details if you like.

 

[jazzc]

Oh, so that DEFINITELY doesn't apply to google then
They make decisions regarding the use, and misuse of the property of others every second of every day...

No, they have absolutely 0 strength over they use of my/your property.

 

[Expertpeon]

You are led to wrong conclusions because of a common fallacy. You are confused as to what a monopoly is.

Monopoly in economics does not have to do with the number of sellers in a market, it has to do with the barrier of entry to that market. You can have a fully competitive market with even just one seller. Think about it for a while and I can clear it up in details if you like.

Actually, I think that is precisely what I'm saying...
The barrier of entry to compete with Google is monumental.

"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products. "

No, they have absolutely 0 strength over they use of my/your property.

You're, of course, incorrect. But this isn't how the law works anyway. Again, whatever planet you people live on it isn't Earth...
The next time the IRS sends me a letter telling me I cannot do cross investing of revenue from an S-corp with another wholly owned subsidiary without following made up transfer pricing rules, I'll be sure to tell them they have absolutely 0 strength over my property and how I use it... I imagine they will reconsider their views and let me go about my business.

 

[jazzc]

Actually, I think that is precisely what I'm saying...
The barrier of entry to compete with Google is monumental.

What barrier to entry? Is there a law that stops you to enter the market? Has google created a mob to come in your house and terrorize you in case you compete with them?

You're, of course, incorrect. But this isn't how the law works anyway. Again, whatever planet you people live on it isn't Earth.

Laws are made and changed by humans, they are not the all singing all dancing crap of the world - so you can't hide behind them in lack of arguments

I 'm happy to live on the whatever planet I live, no matter what you might think it is.

 

[Expertpeon]

What barrier to entry? Is there a law that stops you to enter the market? Has google created a mob to come in your house and terrorize you in case you compete with them?

Hilarious that you think this is the definition of a monopoly
Hint: it's not. De Beers is a monopoly... Google is a monopoly... and not surprisingly, they both do incredibly evil things (and I'm not even suggesting the stuff google does related to search, though that can sometimes be highly dubious... most people on this forum suck at making sites, so they have no right to complain therein).

For instance, De beers has bought up practically every diamond mine in the world, mines them, and stores them for the future. A worthless piece of carbon now becomes worth more than gold.
Google pays off every browser to be the default search, buys tons of competitors (youtube, etc) and then promotes its own products in its search. The similarities between the two far outweigh any dissimilarities you may find.

 

[kanbriiz]

Well,that'll save us all some money.

 

[Tensegrity]

Eat it up America, and watch your tax dollars go towards funding another drawn out war on free enterprise.

I do find it entertaining that the same people clamoring about how unfair SOPA and PIPA were, and parading the cause of internet deregulation, are the same ones getting behind the FTC on this though.

I find it entertaining that you generalize so easily and completely misunderstand both situations.

Arguing against SOPA and PIPA was actually the same battle that people are supporting against Google: anti-monopoly.

The problem the economy in the U.S. faces is about favouritism for big business and shitting on small businesses in the process. It results in less competition, i.e. less freedom for the end user.

 

[jazzc]

Hilarious that you think this is the definition of a monopoly

It 's not me who thinks what is the definition of monopoly. It 's the resulting knowledge from the great minds in the history of Economic thought that does - or to put it in layman terms, here 's a quote from wikipedia

Monopolies derive their market power from barriers to entry - circumstances that prevent or greatly impede a potential competitor's ability to compete in a market.

-----

Hint: it's not.

Epic fail

 

[jazzc]

Arguing against SOPA and PIPA was actually the same battle that people are supporting against Google: anti-monopoly.

The only detail is that it isn't a monopoly

 

[Expertpeon]

It 's not me who thinks what is the definition of monopoly. It 's the resulting knowledge from the great minds in the history of Economic thought that does - or to put it in layman terms, here 's a quote from wikipedia

The definition cited is actually from the Oxford English dictionary, regardless of what wikipedia states in its long irrelevant analysis of monopolies.

Then again, Wikipedia also stated it as well, you just chose to find the single quotation that helped your point (and not even that well):
"Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods."

And barriers to entry are still severe. To generally compete with google at least $10 billion/yr in expenditures would be needed just to wrestle their purchasing of being the "default engine" away from firefox and safari

 

[Tensegrity]

The only detail is that it isn't a monopoly

I think your programming logic is taking a bit too much control over your debating logic

Sure, it's not a monopoly in the classical sense of the word, I am not arguing that. But it IS a company that is abusing its power and getting away with it. Regulations should be set to stop that from happening, in my opinion. Regulations that limit the power of a large corporation and strengthen the power of a small business. Right now, it's backwards and if it keeps going this direction then someday soon yes, it will become your classical monopoly.

 

[Expertpeon]

I think your programming logic is taking a bit too much control over your debating logic

Sure, it's not a monopoly in the classical sense of the word, I am not arguing that. But it IS a company that is abusing its power and getting away with it.

Actually classically it IS the definition of a monopoly. It may or may not be based upon the modern Keynesian approach to economics, who seem to think only complete and total authoritarian control leads to "monopolies"
This is, of course, bogus. One of the major problems in the US is oligopolies who use mutual self interest to price fix and fix statutory increases in prices year on year (see college education)

 

[jazzc]

The definition cited is actually from the Oxford English dictionary, regardless of what wikipedia states in its long irrelevant analysis of monopolies.

I don't know where you went in school, but Economics isn't Latin. A definition from a dictionary isn't what it takes to even begin to grasp it.

And tbh, I don't really understand what you are saying here. The only reason I quoted wikipedia was to provide you with a starting point because you have no idea what a monopoly is - not as an authoritative source.

In any case, you do not have to believe me. A self-respecting scholar seeking for the truth would do his own unbiased search in the available documentation (which is ample in our Internet days) and discover it for himself.

 

[jazzc]

Actually classically it IS the definition of a monopoly.

Maybe in your favorite political group but definitely not in Economics.

 

[Tensegrity]

Yea, well anyway, jazzc, I never said anyone was a monopoly. I just said the SOPA/PIPA situation was the same anti-monopoly battle. s0ap seems to misunderstand this and I wonder if you and other capitalists do too, cuz there is a big difference between being a supporter of free-enterprise and holding an all-or-nothing, black-or-white stance. I personally support a free market, but without SOME regulation, it would be all-out chaos and serious job losses going on which would destroy the American economy even further. Peter Schiff is someone I've always enjoyed listening to, but that is one major thing I disagree on: letting the bubble burst.

I don't support creating a fake economy either, but there has got to be a better way for small businesses to survive than to let a ton of small businesses fail and let huge businesses like Google make it impossible for them to compete in the same marketplace.

 

[Expertpeon]

I don't know where you went in school, but Economics isn't Latin. A definition from a dictionary isn't what it takes to even begin to grasp it.

And tbh, I don't really understand what you are saying here. The only reason I quoted wikipedia was to provide you with a starting point because you have no idea what a monopoly is - not as an authoritative source.

In any case, you do not have to believe me. A self-respecting scholar seeking for the truth would do his own unbiased search in the available documentation (which is ample in our Internet days) and discover it for himself.

I'm well aware of economists say about monopolies historically, and how they require authoritarian and legal barriers to exist.
However, this isn't what is being discussed here. The use of the word is irrelevant to the actions and the public interest associated with preventing abuses.

In fact, I see no reason to even go over this definition with you, because it's not at all relevant to the issue. What is relevant is if the governments of the EU and USA have the authority to limit the monopolized control Google has, and they clearly do.
They do this all the time, and anti-trust is a well founded, respected arm of the legal system in democracies.

Again whatever planet you live on, it's not the Western world that's for sure. The USA has particularly WEAK anti-trust protections compared to other western countries.

Since it's not 1850, the modern definition (stated above) applies... and it's safe to call Google a monopoly on search.

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Monopoly.html
"A pure monopoly is a single supplier in a market. For the purposes of regulation, monopoly power exists when a single firm controls 25% or more of a particular market."