4 ms·

Having money to buy something that is for sale is not anti-competitive in itself, neither is selling stuff to a monopolist at market rates. You need to look at

Having money to buy something that is for sale is not anti-competitive in itself, neither is selling stuff to a monopolist at market rates. You need to look at why Google's adtech is so obscenely profitable, why they are able to generate so much profit per user. A lot of it is powered by things that either already are or should be illegal, from various abuses of monopolistic power to forced tracking without informed consent. Fixing those issues would be a good start. Otherwise, nothing will change. Google has enough of its own moat with Pixel devices and Android and Chrome that banning or somehow restricting the sale of default search engine position will hurt sellers of those defaults like Mozilla much more than it will hurt Google's monopoly. Just because the lawsuit is on paper targeted at Google, doesn't mean that their competitors (or the public) will be the beneficiaries of its results.

coliveira 6y ago
People misinterpret what antitrust is all about. It is not about making transactions at market rates. It is about having the power to define market rates through the operations of the company (trust) and its close associates. All the characteristics of trusts appear in Google's behavior when they buy competitors and pay their buddies (FF) to deal with them. When they say that people "chose" to use Google properties, this is clearly false in the moment that they buy would be competitors and pay FF and Apple prices that cannot be replicated by others.
- nikitaga 6y ago
  Just what kind of conspiracy do you think exists between Google, Mozilla, and Apple? Those seem to be normal business relationships. Google being the highest bidder, i.e. paying "prices that can not be replicated by others" does not make an antitrust case alone. By that logic you could sue every billionaire buying expensive real estate, art, surgeries, etc. Buying competitors (DoubleClick) is the kind of stuff that should have been prevented on antitrust grounds, but that is not related to the search box transaction at all, and is not the focus of this lawsuit.
  - coliveira 6y ago
    > By that logic you could sue every billionaire buying expensive real estate, art, surgeries, etc I don't know any billionaire who has cornered the market for real estate, art, etc. Your example just shows that there is something special about the web search market: it was cornered by Google using several strategies that amount to monopoly.
    - nikitaga 6y ago
      Yet you haven't provided any explanation why Google's deals with Mozilla and Apple should be considered anti-competitive. Those deals are not how Google became ubiquitous, neither in search nor in advertising. Once again, do you think Microsoft doesn't have the same money as Google to pay for default search placement? Or do you think Apple or Mozilla won't take their money? I'm sure Microsoft has the money. They just don't want to spend it on this because they don't earn as much money from their search users as Google does, so Google outbids them. You keep talking about generalities of Google's monopoly position, but I'm not disputing that their monopoly position is problematic and should be reigned it. What I'm saying is that this particular lawsuit succeeding will at best be a wash all things considered, and at worst will entrench Google's moat even further if it kills off Mozilla. Or, if you don't think so, what kind of court-imposed solution do you think will come out of this lawsuit?
      - coliveira 6y ago
        You already know the answer: MS and/or others cannot pay the same amount of money because Google makes more money from search than they do. This is exactly the point of anti-trust legislation: to avoid that dominant businesses use their position to make anti-competitive arrangements to maintain their monopoly. The point of anti-trust is not to look at a single legal transaction and criminalize it, but to see the pattern of anti-competitive behavior and stop it. > what kind of court-imposed solution do you think will come out of this lawsuit? Like in other anti-trust cases, the obvious solution should be to break up the company so that it cannot control the search market as it does today. I think this should be a great solution for consumers and even for Google shareholders.

coliveira 6y ago

People misinterpret what antitrust is all about. It is not about making transactions at market rates. It is about having the power to define market rates through the operations of the company (trust) and its close associates. All the characteristics of trusts appear in Google's behavior when they buy competitors and pay their buddies (FF) to deal with them. When they say that people "chose" to use Google properties, this is clearly false in the moment that they buy would be competitors and pay FF and Apple prices that cannot be replicated by others.

nikitaga 6y ago
Just what kind of conspiracy do you think exists between Google, Mozilla, and Apple? Those seem to be normal business relationships. Google being the highest bidder, i.e. paying "prices that can not be replicated by others" does not make an antitrust case alone. By that logic you could sue every billionaire buying expensive real estate, art, surgeries, etc. Buying competitors (DoubleClick) is the kind of stuff that should have been prevented on antitrust grounds, but that is not related to the search box transaction at all, and is not the focus of this lawsuit.
- coliveira 6y ago
  > By that logic you could sue every billionaire buying expensive real estate, art, surgeries, etc I don't know any billionaire who has cornered the market for real estate, art, etc. Your example just shows that there is something special about the web search market: it was cornered by Google using several strategies that amount to monopoly.
  - nikitaga 6y ago
    Yet you haven't provided any explanation why Google's deals with Mozilla and Apple should be considered anti-competitive. Those deals are not how Google became ubiquitous, neither in search nor in advertising. Once again, do you think Microsoft doesn't have the same money as Google to pay for default search placement? Or do you think Apple or Mozilla won't take their money? I'm sure Microsoft has the money. They just don't want to spend it on this because they don't earn as much money from their search users as Google does, so Google outbids them. You keep talking about generalities of Google's monopoly position, but I'm not disputing that their monopoly position is problematic and should be reigned it. What I'm saying is that this particular lawsuit succeeding will at best be a wash all things considered, and at worst will entrench Google's moat even further if it kills off Mozilla. Or, if you don't think so, what kind of court-imposed solution do you think will come out of this lawsuit?
    - coliveira 6y ago
      You already know the answer: MS and/or others cannot pay the same amount of money because Google makes more money from search than they do. This is exactly the point of anti-trust legislation: to avoid that dominant businesses use their position to make anti-competitive arrangements to maintain their monopoly. The point of anti-trust is not to look at a single legal transaction and criminalize it, but to see the pattern of anti-competitive behavior and stop it. > what kind of court-imposed solution do you think will come out of this lawsuit? Like in other anti-trust cases, the obvious solution should be to break up the company so that it cannot control the search market as it does today. I think this should be a great solution for consumers and even for Google shareholders.