Microsoft was punished for pumping a market with a free product, with its development supported by revenues from a monopoly product, so that they could afford to give it away where competitors could not. If Google offers something for free, kills off its competitors who were charging for their version, and then starts charging when they're the only ones left, then the French court has a point.
Even the headline in the linked article is absurd: "French court protectionis
Still trolling, I see. A few quick notes: * Google doesn't have a monopoly anywhere, even in search. * Google Maps is not given away, it sports ads, and the API costs money to access * You fail to mention Mapquest, or MS maps. Why just sue Google for its maps? Because it is the best one out there? * Why should Bottin be kept alive? Why not Garmin?
In short, you're wrong on two fundamental counts: that this is anything but protectionism of the most basic nature, and that somehow Google Maps is both special, and n
Still trolling, I see. A few quick notes: * Google doesn't have a monopoly anywhere, even in search.
Google search most certainly is a monopoly. A legal monopoly does not require 100% market share. Companies have been deemed monopolies with under 50% share and Google is way higher then that - go google it if you don't believe me.
Now, having a monopoly is not illegal, but using your monopoly profits to corner other markets is illegal. This is exactly the same thing that MS was convicted of a decade ago. Google it. When MS was killing Netscape it took the authorities years to act and the trial also took forever to end - Google just hasn't been doing this long enough to end in court yet.
Monopoly is a control or advantage obtained by one entity over the commercial market in a specific area. Monopolization is an offense under federal anti trust law. The two elements of monopolization are (1) the power to fix prices and exclude competitors within the relevant market. (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen or historical accident.
I have no idea how Google Search has the ability to either fix prices or exclude competitors through anything but offering a better product. Feel free to provide your argument, but at this point I see no evidence that Google is in a position where it either has a monopoly (control of or advantage in the search market), or that it is using monopoly power to advance that position.
Why don't you read your definition again? According to that, Google most definitely does have a monopoly in search. They are dominant in that area. And what they're getting slapped for is not for having a monopoly on search, which is quite fine, but by abusing that monopoly to edge themselves into other markets and drive out competition.
Please show me how Google has the ability to fix prices in the Search market, AND how they grow their market share in that market through means other than normal business operation. Finally, show that Bottin is somehow active in the online map market. Actually, I'll save you the trouble: they are a terrible knock-off of the original Yahoo, but aimed at businesses. Google has little to do with their market.
Note that being dominant in an area has very little to do with being a monopoly, and even less to do w
Well, you try to create a search service that is not free (= funded by ads) and I think you will quite soon realize what Google has done to the prices of online search. But that really was not my point.
Google search is a monopoly in the sense that most people use it and the google.com front page. The fact that other seach services are easily available is irrelevant as people just use google. This is not illegal, this is success. Now Google wants to get in to other markets like maps and navigation. So it sta
> Well, you try to create a search service that is not free (= funded by ads) and I think you will quite soon realize what Google has done to the prices of online search. But that really was not my point.
and? (btw, were you aware that web search was free (= funded by ads) for a decade before google?)
> Google search is a monopoly in the sense that most people use it and the google.com front page.
you clearly don't understand what a monopoly is. Please at least *try* to comprehend the definition. NeutronC
Please at least *try* to comprehend the definition. NeutronCowboy posted a good link. "most people use it" has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I read the definition. The definition is for the word Monopoly, but somehow it still defines Monopolization. I'm not accusing Google of Monopolization. I'm accusing them of Leveraging a monopoly - that's also defined in the same place: http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly-leveraging/ [uslegal.com]
Now, apparently just leveraging a monopoly is not illegal, but leveraging a monopoly with predatory pricing can be illegal. And this is what Google is doing. The monopoly is in search and the predatory price is in free maps.
btw, were you aware that web search was free (= funded by ads) for a decade before google?
No I wasn't. I was under the impression that WebCrawler, the first publicly accessible full-text World Wide Web search engine, predated Google by only four and a half years.
Please show me how Google has the ability to fix prices in the Search market, AND how they grow their market share in that market through means other than normal business operation.... Note that being dominant in an area has very little to do with being a monopoly, and even less to do with monopolization of your market position.
Google is able to provide for their many web services for free from all the advertising revenue that they earn with Google Adwords, DoubleClick and AdMob. They've pretty much cornered the advertising market with their dominate share of the search engine market and web applications. They secured their top spot with their purchases of Sprinks (2003), Applied Semantics (2003), dMarc Broadcasting (2006), YouTube (2006), AdScape(2007), DoubleClick (2007), AdMob (2009), Teracent (2009), Invite Media (2010), and Admeld (2011). This doesn't include all the other purchases of search technology companies, review sites (including Zagats), web applications, voice of IP providers, social media analytic services, and shopping sites.
They are basically buying out potential competitors, potential technology that they can use for their advantage, or high traffic websites that would suddenly use one or more Google advertising subsidiaries.
This is similar to the tactics used by Microsoft in the late 80's early 90's to secure their dominate position.
His argument is that's it's illegal to use a monopoly you already have in one market to obtain a monopoly in another market by squeezing out competition. There's nothing circular here.
Your right, it's not all about market share. It's about being able to control the market, and abusing that control.
I certainly have a choice to not use google maps, or google search. I can easily switch from google maps, to yahoo maps, or to mapquest; it takes seconds. Absoluty nothing ties me to google.
This is not true with OSes. If I switch from windows, to linux, I will not be able to run my applications. OS makers have much more potential than search engines, to abuse their monopoly positions.
Yes, but why would you switch from Google to some other provider? Especially now that they have this wonderful free maps service bundled with the free search service - why would you switch?
It was always possible and actually pretty easy to install Netscape on Windows and still MS lost in court. In the same way I can use Google search and some other map service, but it's just so nice to use Google maps because it's integrated to the same page and all. So because I use the Google search (monopoly and really g
Wrong. It's not the maps that's the question here, it's the Google Maps API.
It'll take you far longer than "seconds" to switch your web application to a different mapping API.
This is similar to running your Windows applications on Linux. All you have to do is run them under Wine, and then fix the problems with Wine where it doesn't quite get the API interpretation right for your particular application. That'll only take "seconds", right?
Having a 100% market share does not give you a monopoly. A monopoly is power to dictate terms. This requires barriers to entry for others, and a lack of suitable alternatives for customers. Given how I can still type www.bing.com in my browser, or how I could easily go out and rent a large datacentre start trawling the web and make a search engine, google doesn't have a monopoly in search.
For monopoly you need control. e.g. Microsoft had a monopoly not because it's system was popular but because you couldn'
> Google search most certainly is a monopoly. A legal > monopoly does not require 100% market share.
Monopolies require extremely high barriers to entry.
Entering a different URI in your browser is not extremely difficult, rather it is extremely easy. There, monopoly broken---if the user so wishes. Making a dang good, dang simple, dang uncluttered, with dang clairvoyantly parsive input should not be a crime.
And even if a "monopolist" has monopolist's power, being a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing monopo
The more cordial the buyer's secretary, the greater the odds that the
competition already has the order.
This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would it?
Microsoft was punished for pumping a market with a free product, with its development supported by revenues from a monopoly product, so that they could afford to give it away where competitors could not. If Google offers something for free, kills off its competitors who were charging for their version, and then starts charging when they're the only ones left, then the French court has a point.
Even the headline in the linked article is absurd: "French court protectionis
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
Still trolling, I see. A few quick notes:
* Google doesn't have a monopoly anywhere, even in search.
* Google Maps is not given away, it sports ads, and the API costs money to access
* You fail to mention Mapquest, or MS maps. Why just sue Google for its maps? Because it is the best one out there?
* Why should Bottin be kept alive? Why not Garmin?
In short, you're wrong on two fundamental counts: that this is anything but protectionism of the most basic nature, and that somehow Google Maps is both special, and n
Re:This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:5, Informative)
Still trolling, I see. A few quick notes:
* Google doesn't have a monopoly anywhere, even in search.
Google search most certainly is a monopoly. A legal monopoly does not require 100% market share. Companies have been deemed monopolies with under 50% share and Google is way higher then that - go google it if you don't believe me.
Now, having a monopoly is not illegal, but using your monopoly profits to corner other markets is illegal. This is exactly the same thing that MS was convicted of a decade ago. Google it. When MS was killing Netscape it took the authorities years to act and the trial also took forever to end - Google just hasn't been doing this long enough to end in court yet.
Re: (Score:3)
By what definition? From http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly/ [uslegal.com]:
Monopoly is a control or advantage obtained by one entity over the commercial market in a specific area. Monopolization is an offense under federal anti trust law. The two elements of monopolization are (1) the power to fix prices and exclude competitors within the relevant market. (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen or historical accident.
I have no idea how Google Search has the ability to either fix prices or exclude competitors through anything but offering a better product. Feel free to provide your argument, but at this point I see no evidence that Google is in a position where it either has a monopoly (control of or advantage in the search market), or that it is using monopoly power to advance that position.
Re:This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:4, Interesting)
Why don't you read your definition again? According to that, Google most definitely does have a monopoly in search. They are dominant in that area. And what they're getting slapped for is not for having a monopoly on search, which is quite fine, but by abusing that monopoly to edge themselves into other markets and drive out competition.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Please show me how Google has the ability to fix prices in the Search market, AND how they grow their market share in that market through means other than normal business operation. Finally, show that Bottin is somehow active in the online map market. Actually, I'll save you the trouble: they are a terrible knock-off of the original Yahoo, but aimed at businesses. Google has little to do with their market.
Note that being dominant in an area has very little to do with being a monopoly, and even less to do w
Re: (Score:1)
Well, you try to create a search service that is not free (= funded by ads) and I think you will quite soon realize what Google has done to the prices of online search. But that really was not my point.
Google search is a monopoly in the sense that most people use it and the google.com front page. The fact that other seach services are easily available is irrelevant as people just use google. This is not illegal, this is success. Now Google wants to get in to other markets like maps and navigation. So it sta
Re: (Score:2)
> Well, you try to create a search service that is not free (= funded by ads) and I think you will quite soon realize what Google has done to the prices of online search. But that really was not my point.
and?
(btw, were you aware that web search was free (= funded by ads) for a decade before google?)
> Google search is a monopoly in the sense that most people use it and the google.com front page.
you clearly don't understand what a monopoly is. Please at least *try* to comprehend the definition. NeutronC
Re: (Score:1)
Please at least *try* to comprehend the definition. NeutronCowboy posted a good link. "most people use it" has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I read the definition. The definition is for the word Monopoly, but somehow it still defines Monopolization. I'm not accusing Google of Monopolization. I'm accusing them of Leveraging a monopoly - that's also defined in the same place:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly-leveraging/ [uslegal.com]
Now, apparently just leveraging a monopoly is not illegal, but leveraging a monopoly with predatory pricing can be illegal. And this is what Google is doing. The monopoly is in search and the predatory price is in free maps.
4 1/2 years (Score:2)
btw, were you aware that web search was free (= funded by ads) for a decade before google?
No I wasn't. I was under the impression that WebCrawler, the first publicly accessible full-text World Wide Web search engine, predated Google by only four and a half years.
Re:This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:4, Insightful)
Google is able to provide for their many web services for free from all the advertising revenue that they earn with Google Adwords, DoubleClick and AdMob. They've pretty much cornered the advertising market with their dominate share of the search engine market and web applications. They secured their top spot with their purchases of Sprinks (2003), Applied Semantics (2003), dMarc Broadcasting (2006), YouTube (2006), AdScape(2007), DoubleClick (2007), AdMob (2009), Teracent (2009), Invite Media (2010), and Admeld (2011). This doesn't include all the other purchases of search technology companies, review sites (including Zagats), web applications, voice of IP providers, social media analytic services, and shopping sites.
They are basically buying out potential competitors, potential technology that they can use for their advantage, or high traffic websites that would suddenly use one or more Google advertising subsidiaries.
This is similar to the tactics used by Microsoft in the late 80's early 90's to secure their dominate position.
Re: (Score:2)
They've pretty much cornered the advertising market with their dominate share of the search engine market and web applications.
Actually, that's pretty far from the truth. If you want the leader of online advertising, you want Facebook. There's some discrepancy in how the numbers pan out, but they all agree: Facebook beats Google fairly handily in the online advertising market.
http://www.allfacebook.com/report-facebook-leads-2011-online-display-ad-sales-2011-06 [allfacebook.com]
http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/04/facebook-one-third-online-ads/ [techcrunch.com]
You actually missed the more troublesome buy in your list: that of flight data company ITA. Because of the way t
Re: (Score:1)
I went and read the definitions that you linked. What google is doing in leveraging a monopoly:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly-leveraging/ [uslegal.com]
In itself it is not illegal, but combined with the price fixing (= $0) in the maps market it is illegal:
http://www.antitrustlawblog.com/2006/09/articles/article/seventh-circuit-rejects-monopoly-leveraging-theory/ [antitrustlawblog.com]
In the case mentioned in the article monopoly leveraging was legal, because there was no price fixing.
Re: (Score:2)
His argument is that's it's illegal to use a monopoly you already have in one market to obtain a monopoly in another market by squeezing out competition. There's nothing circular here.
By your own definition Google is not a monopoly (Score:3)
Your right, it's not all about market share. It's about being able to control the market, and abusing that control.
I certainly have a choice to not use google maps, or google search. I can easily switch from google maps, to yahoo maps, or to mapquest; it takes seconds. Absoluty nothing ties me to google.
This is not true with OSes. If I switch from windows, to linux, I will not be able to run my applications. OS makers have much more potential than search engines, to abuse their monopoly positions.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but why would you switch from Google to some other provider? Especially now that they have this wonderful free maps service bundled with the free search service - why would you switch?
It was always possible and actually pretty easy to install Netscape on Windows and still MS lost in court. In the same way I can use Google search and some other map service, but it's just so nice to use Google maps because it's integrated to the same page and all. So because I use the Google search (monopoly and really g
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. It's not the maps that's the question here, it's the Google Maps API.
It'll take you far longer than "seconds" to switch your web application to a different mapping API.
This is similar to running your Windows applications on Linux. All you have to do is run them under Wine, and then fix the problems with Wine where it doesn't quite get the API interpretation right for your particular application. That'll only take "seconds", right?
The US Government is a monopoly (Score:2)
Let's see which markets it has cornered:
education, law enforcement, price of money...
Oooh, but Microsoft bundled a browser!
Re: (Score:2)
Having a 100% market share does not give you a monopoly. A monopoly is power to dictate terms. This requires barriers to entry for others, and a lack of suitable alternatives for customers. Given how I can still type www.bing.com in my browser, or how I could easily go out and rent a large datacentre start trawling the web and make a search engine, google doesn't have a monopoly in search.
For monopoly you need control. e.g. Microsoft had a monopoly not because it's system was popular but because you couldn'
Re: (Score:1)
> Google search most certainly is a monopoly. A legal
> monopoly does not require 100% market share.
Monopolies require extremely high barriers to entry.
Entering a different URI in your browser is not extremely difficult, rather it is extremely easy. There, monopoly broken---if the user so wishes. Making a dang good, dang simple, dang uncluttered, with dang clairvoyantly parsive input should not be a crime.
And even if a "monopolist" has monopolist's power, being a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing monopo