Google is getting the same black eye all over the world these days. Is it just possible that the "completion" just isn't up to snuff and is using the courts to "level the playing field"?

Or more likely that governments see a cash cow they can extort with legaldemain (yeah, that's a created word, fits, I think)?

Google is getting the same black eye all over the world these days.

Is the world wrong or is Google in the right? Statistically speaking, odds are that the world has legitimate concerns. Although government proposed fines/remedies are far from adequate and do not discourage the actions for which Google was investigated for in the first place.

Or more likely that governments see a cash cow they can extort with legaldemain (yeah, that's a created word, fits, I think)?

The small fines/penalties levied against Google would suggest otherwise. However, if Google would not try to avoid paying taxes in their host countries (including India - [theregister.co.uk...] ), they might stand a better chance of staying off their radars.

>>Is it just possible that the "completion" just isn't up to snuff and is using the courts to "level the playing field"?

maybe, but this isn't unique to google, that's what import duties and tariffs and so on have partly been about for centuries.

Google is a virtual monopoly and I've seen it again and again blatantly favouring its own network sites or partners with which is has a contractual (read money) relationship. Google needs to split into many companies.

Google needs to split into many companies.

Don't hold your breath.

The AT&T days are long gone. In today's globalized marketplace, the US needs strong players of its own, to compete against world-class competitors, or even prevent them from rising. Some lip service to anti-trust principles is in effect aimed at naive concerned citizens, local or otherwise, while a blind eye is turned to what is really going on - that everyone in office knows.

The NSA deal is only another part of the story.
A story with many sub-stories - known and unknown.

.

the US needs strong players of its own, to compete against world-class competitors, or even prevent them from rising

The first part might have some reasonable basis, the second part is diabolically opposed by those of us resident outside of the United States.

It's possible, of course, that the Indian government knows a profit opportunity when it sees one.

The AT&T days are long gone. In today's globalized marketplace, the US needs strong players of its own, to compete against world-class competitors, or even prevent them from rising.

No, the US, like everyone else needs businesses that are strengthened by being forced to compete.

The idea of national champions is propaganda for corporate welfare.

No, the US, like everyone else needs businesses that are strengthened by being forced to compete.

I am not aware of any restrictions in the global marketplace disallowing Google competitors from competing against them, or against Bing, Yahoo, et al.

I just don't expect the US to shoot itself in the foot any time soon, by breaking up Google or any other US corporation. Imagine the party at Yandex or Baidu in such eventuality!

Mere facts of globalized life . . . .

.

I am not aware of any restrictions in the global marketplace disallowing Google competitors from competing against them, or against Bing, Yahoo, et al.

I did not say there were.

I just don't expect the US to shoot itself in the foot any time soon, by breaking up Google or any other US corporation. Imagine the party at Yandex or Baidu in such eventuality

Really? Look at your own example of AT & T - the breakup made the resulting companies far more competitive than the complacent monopolist.

I would have thought that it has been thoroughly proved by now that free markets work better than mercantilism (except for the few who benefit from reduced competition) but people keep coming up with arguments that try to tie national interest to corporate interests. Sorry, they are entirely unconvincing.

I am not aware of any restrictions in the global marketplace disallowing Google competitors from competing against them

just like "well, no one prohibits people from using other search engines than google. as long as there are other players, everything is ok." ?

typical wrong perception of a monopoly. a monopoly is not necessarily characterized by market share - that's only a symptom. the underlying issue and matter of investigation is the abuse of market power. which is clearly given imo.

for example, that our little one-trick-pony google uses their advertising profits as subsidies for activities completely outside their business area, thereby destroying whole former prospering industries. combined with the ever increasing abuse of their serps to push their own services in every thinkable area.

The underlying issue and matter of investigation is the abuse of market power

No doubt this is the essence of the matter, leading however to a slippery slope - as to who is to determine what consists legitimate use or abuse of market position in a globalized market.

In such a market, true abuse opens by itself, in time, holes in the armor of the abuser, allowing smart competitors to take advantage of consumer dissatisfaction and gradually either compel the abuser to revert to legitimate use, or let him self-destroy under heaps of consumer dissatisfaction.

Excluding cases where threat to social welfare is involved, market forces should be allowed to take care of all else.

For example, abuse en masse of small businesses by Google is possibly a case where social welfare is threatened. But, even in such case, who is to say?


.

It is the tactics adopted by Google directly or indirectly through their contractors in India which are extremely questionable and would amount to human rights abuses in most developed countries.
There is reason to believe that an experienced webmaster in India was subjected to an extremely malicious slander campaign based on lies, repeated identity theft attempts and surveillance for years , with her name misused repeatedly to steal lucrative assignments by powerful people who were encouraged by Google.

Even today, every attempt is made to cripple her financially, delay her payments, her websites are removed from Google's index and the surveillance is used to subject her to sexual harassment of the worst kind. When Google directly or indirectly supports these perverts who harass a harmless woman, wasting Indian tax payer money it is time that some one takes action against them.

@caran1, that sounds more like a police than competition commission matter. I hope you have evidence as Idia does have libel laws.

@MoTI, slightly wrong. A monopoly is characterised by market share - or to be precise pricing power.

A monopoly in itself is (unfortunately IMO) not illegal in any country I know of. It is abuse of a monopoly that is illegal.

uses their advertising profits as subsidies for activities completely outside their business area, thereby destroying whole former prospering industries

That is not illegal in itself either - unless it aimed at destroying competition. I cannot think of any Google market outside search in which the competition is being destroyed.

I cannot think of any Google market outside search in which the competition is being destroyed.

Some see G's constant acquisitions of intellectual property (patents), budding companies that challenge their market (a long list), and other expansions as market control. On one hand that is the spirit of capitalism: to the be best, deliver what the customer wants, at a fair price/profit. When a company rises to the level of "only game in town" and price controls, manipulating markets, that's when "monopoly" comes in and the governments take notice. At present G is not a "public utility", but certain new acquisitions may change that.

It is the system of framing of innocent harmless experienced webmasters in India to force them to sell their business for a pittance by abusing powers. when the girlfriend of some powerful people in the indian internet industry falsely claims to be involved in a webmasters business to steal lucrative assignments, powers and privileges from her, it is a problem for the webmaster. When the girlfriend is not doing any work or spending any money, why should the webmaster tolerate this blatant misuse of her name by a stranger with no connection, to deny the webmaster what is due.

This girlfriend who is extremely well connected is given powers of surveillance over the webmaster, which she abuses to harass the webmaster and make false claims of involvement in the business.

In general, there are some significant misconceptions of what is and what is not a monopoly in the United States. I'm not singling out this forum, but the issue is quite common elsewhere. A good reference to read, for those that care, can be found at [justice.gov...]

The percentage of market share that defines what a monopoly is varies from some people saying it must be 100% and other saying it must be 80% or greater. In chapter two ( [justice.gov...] ) look to footnote 29 where it reads:

("[A] party may have monopoly power in a particular market, even though its market share is less than 50%.")

Google exceeds this 50% figure in a number of markets besides search. For me anyway, I'm more concerned about the collective power Google has through not just search but their investments and partnerships.

The issue is that if you read [justice.gov...] you will find section 2 is no longer relied on for Department of Justice enforcement policy. Basically that section was neutered in 2009 and the DOJ is more concerned on how monopolies impact consumers. However, DOJ policy does not mean that the law is not legal in a court, although they recommend courts ignore that section of the law too. The DOJ is simply saying not to expect any enforcement action under that section.

I'm sure some will come to Google's defense, but I believe that the clearest (others exist) example of how Google is abusing its dominance in search can be found in violation of Sherman Act Chapter 4 Section 2 under competitive bidding. If you look to [webmasterworld.com...] you will see how I joined a conversation that started when Shepherd quoted a comment that basically said Google is investing millions in companies that advertise on Adwords. In the case of Auction.com, I saw this investment to be a $50 million Adwords voucher. Imagine the impact this has on other real estate auction websites that must bid against a company that Google has a $50 million stake in. This is a clear conflict of interest, but with a near 68% market share in search, advertisers can't afford to go elsewhere.

Quoted from the Competitive Bidding Section:

Predatory bidding involves a buyer of a critical input bidding up the price of that input and thereby foreclosing rival buyers from competing. In certain circumstances, a buyer might be able to drive rival purchasers from the market.

Just as consumers benefit in the short run from lower prices charged by a firm that pursues a predatory-pricing strategy, input suppliers benefit in the short run from higher prices paid for inputs by a firm that pursues a predatory-bidding strategy.

Every week we that Google is buying or investing into multiple companies. These companies are in a wide variety of industries. Besides the market reach that Google has beyond its search engine, how many of the companies receiving Google investments are bidding up the cost of advertising for other companies that are using Adwords?

In general, there are some significant misconceptions of what is and what is not a monopoly in the United States.

Isn't this thread about India?

Isn't this thread about India?

No, it's about Google's monopolistic practices, which is why I assume you were compelled to post a comment that added absolutely no value to the discussion.

I would recommend reading the first post, which Google has claimed that "The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for competition, it added."

If Google is going to call upon the FTC's inaction as a defense for their anti-competitive practices throughout the rest of the world, how the FTC blatantly ignores Section 2 of the Sherman Act is fair game in a thread about the monopolistic practices of a United States based company.

I'm not even sure what the India reference is about... particularly in regards to this thread. Is G actually doing evil in India? Against women? When the woman is:

This girlfriend who is extremely well connected is given powers of surveillance over the webmaster, which she abuses to harass the webmaster and make false claims of involvement in the business.

Either a confusion, or a mighty stretch for G getting involved in everybody's business.

It is believed that Google or some related agency is extremely brutal in destroying the life of webmasters who earn money by selling advertising links and content, which is in competition to Google adwords.
Some of the methods used either directly or indirectly through their contractors and business associates are
1. Surveillance for nearly four years without a valid reason, using thermal imaging on almost every home
2. encouraging the denial of important information to domain investors and webmasters who spend over $100,000, despite making repeated requests, while this information is readily provided to others who do not spend any money, but are well connected.
3. interception and diversion of emails,smses, phone calls, postal mail, making it impossible to contact customers, get orders or even family members in an emergency. almost every electronic device, laptop, mobile is tampered using hidden government frequencies causing tremendous losses
4. use of directed energy weapons repeatedly to cause severe headaches, insomnia , memory loss
5. subjected to organized stalking, character assasination, tampering of bank records.
6. abuse of powers to delay payments from various customers causing financial hardship
7. protecting and supporting people who have cheated the webmaster, and encouraging them to misuse the name of the webmaster to steal benefits, assignments, privileges from the webmaster. There is a bangalore based housewife who has openly cheated this webmaster, but is showered with privileges because of Google's and other large Indian companies support for her while this webmaster who has been looted of her hard earned money is getting nothing at all.
8. using unethical tactics, to force the webmaster to agree to identity theft, wherein the webmaster has to agree to give up her educational qualifications and experience to get her hard earned money back.
9. Leakage of personal and financial information of a single woman, which should be kept confidential, causing a great deal of hardship. No compensation is offered for all the problems created due to the leakage of information, which makes it impossible for the webmaster to lead a normal life..

There is no transparency or accountability in the system, some powerful people do whatever they like to harass webmasters who earn money from non Google Adsense sources and are confident they will never be punished. It is time to stop the exploitation of experienced webmasters in India, for how long should the webmaster tolerate the misuse of her name to benefit every lazy undeserving person who has cheated her, in an attempt to leave her penniless?

It is not only Google, there are many other companies in India that behave in an extremely unfair manner, there is no will to correct big mistakes that have been made
. As a result many people have lied their way to great power, and there is no one who will punish them. None of those who have exploited the webmaster will be able to justify their behaviour in an open debate or discussion.

I'm not even sure what the India reference is about... particularly in regards to this thread.

The original post might give a hint.

Got that up front. Thanks for the reminder. Now what is this other about? The ray guns, shes in turmoil and other such? These allegations of nefarious G leaks and government interventions against private enterprise? Heck that sounds way worse than $9B in sanctions!