Google The Next Antitrust Target

There is a new news item posted at »ASE Labs

»Google The Next Antitrust Target

The companies that Google is buying make it ripe for antitrust violations. <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6198111.html">I think they are getting to big for their own good</a>. Even now they don't care about privacy.

Quote

For its part, Google says it's confident that the threat to its business can be contained. "We're finding that the more we meet with policymakers, the more they are realizing that Google and DoubleClick are different types of companies, that we take significant steps to protect users' privacy, and that this acquisition will benefit both consumers and advertisers," said spokesman Adam Kovacevich. In addition to its full-time staff lobbyists, also involved in Google's efforts to fend off antitrust bureaucrats are four newly hired lobbyists in the Washington office of the law firm Brownstein Hyatt & Farber (including Makan Delrahim, a former top Justice Department antitrust official). Google's earlier hires include the now-renamed PodestaMattoon, which draws its name from longtime Democratic dealmaker Tony Podesta, and King and Spalding, home to former Republican Sens. Connie Mack and Dan Coats.

Please add your comments below.

I've stopped using Google. I don't think they should be as big and as powerful to the industry as they are. F Google!

The problem is that antitrust laws are so outdated and easy to avoid that it doesn't matter.

Buying up different type of search and display companies does not qualify in the slightest for anti-trust. The concept of monopolisation is based on one entity (remember that term) gaining a controlling share of a resource (legally or illegally) that prevents other entities from using those resources, often considering explicitly effects on the economy. Google is the largest vertically integrated search engine. The logistics problem is that Google does nothing that forces other people to use their database, a key point of all Internet companies that are not coupled with an ISP or other related access means. Google's control comes from product quality, trust and word of mouth.

Google makes money trying to be the best company at search; it does not gain money from outside resources. If Opera had gained 66% of the market share it wouldn't inherently be a monopoly either, as it's independent of both ISP's and OS's. It would have gained its position purely on being the best browser by word of mouth (NB: it's a damn good browser).

Entities that are up for being considered monopolies and the related reasons:
Microsoft: Aggressive marketting contracts, as well as their direct vending contracts gave them control of desktop PC (a resource as any dostuff@home user would know)
AFLCIO: their vast integration of what was once dozens of unions in the same occupational space. In most cases there are no alternative unions, which means that, unlike Europe, there is no bidding for jobs (the impact on the economics involved should be clear). This has allowed them monopolistic control of human resources (ironically, not Mexicans).
AOLTW: Any time spent in Europe will result in this one being clear, almost everywhere is AOL. In all of the Nederlands, there is but one company to get your access from. This may have improved in the past decade, but this seemed to be surprisingly common last I was there.

That should be a bizarre mix to keep you wondering about my leanings.

I don't think that they are a monopoly at all. I just think that they are being relied upon too much. Even though it's voluntary, the situation still remains the same. Google has a lot of pull in the industry and frankly, I don't like it.