3 ms·

Then why didn't they go after that instead? That's even more blatant if so. > And I think these days, search engines aren't just developed by someone coding u

Then why didn't they go after that instead? That's even more blatant if so. > And I think these days, search engines aren't just developed by someone coding up a clever algorithm in their garage; they improve based on data from being used a lot. So yes, it would be an obstacle to competitors. Wait, now we need to make sure others can develop a good search engine? That's what fairness in competition is? That's a whole new level of argument. I cannot imagine a court wanting to step into that territory.

jbay808 6y ago
I was just answering your question. What did you have in mind when you asked if this could "stifle the development of search engines"?
- supernova87a 6y ago
  I take "stifling the development of search engines" to mean Google using its position to prevent someone from engaging in the software development of code, trying to sell any alternative to its offering, preventing market entry at all. I just think it's a whole other level of argument to say that someone not having access to the same data and only being able to develop an inferior search technology = anticompetitive. (where the "not having as good data" part is not done by denying other competitors access to some resource that they should have a right to, or could equally gather on their own)
bleepblorp 6y ago
It's pretty much a definitional requirement for fair competition that competitors must be good enough to be competitive. A monopoly does not mean literally zero competition; it need only mean no competitors that are good enough to be viable.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  Wait, I am very interested to know this condition. Not only does a Google or Intel or whoever need to not artificially prevent competition, it has to ensure that its competitors offer actually good alternatives? How can you put a responsibility on a party for the capabilities of someone else?
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Google doesn't have to ensure, the government does.
  - bleepblorp 6y ago
    Legally, no. Monopolies do not generally need to aid their competitors to the point that they produce viable products. At times, however, monopolies do provide token support to competitors to reduce the risk of anti-trust enforcement. See, for example, Microsoft supporting Apple in the 1990s and Google supporting Mozilla. Definitionally, companies without viable competitors are monopolies. Microsoft still has a defacto monopoly on PC operating systems as Linux isn't a viable choice for 95%+ of PC users. This market situation is extremely detrimental to consumers but isn't illegal.
    - supernova87a 6y ago
      Well here then is yet another layer of complication. Linux has many more features than Windows, gives the user more control, respects privacy better, and is free even, yet consumers choose not to use it. How far must a company or government go to create competition where the behavior of both the suppliers and consumers indicate otherwise?
      - gbear605 6y ago
        Having a monopoly isn’t illegal. Using a monopoly to give you market power in another area is illegal. Windows can have a monopoly perfectly legally, they just can’t use that monopoly to give themselves a monopoly on, say, web browsers.

jbay808 6y ago

I was just answering your question. What did you have in mind when you asked if this could "stifle the development of search engines"?

supernova87a 6y ago
I take "stifling the development of search engines" to mean Google using its position to prevent someone from engaging in the software development of code, trying to sell any alternative to its offering, preventing market entry at all. I just think it's a whole other level of argument to say that someone not having access to the same data and only being able to develop an inferior search technology = anticompetitive. (where the "not having as good data" part is not done by denying other competitors access to some resource that they should have a right to, or could equally gather on their own)

bleepblorp 6y ago

It's pretty much a definitional requirement for fair competition that competitors must be good enough to be competitive. A monopoly does not mean literally zero competition; it need only mean no competitors that are good enough to be viable.

supernova87a 6y ago
Wait, I am very interested to know this condition. Not only does a Google or Intel or whoever need to not artificially prevent competition, it has to ensure that its competitors offer actually good alternatives? How can you put a responsibility on a party for the capabilities of someone else?
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Google doesn't have to ensure, the government does.
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  Legally, no. Monopolies do not generally need to aid their competitors to the point that they produce viable products. At times, however, monopolies do provide token support to competitors to reduce the risk of anti-trust enforcement. See, for example, Microsoft supporting Apple in the 1990s and Google supporting Mozilla. Definitionally, companies without viable competitors are monopolies. Microsoft still has a defacto monopoly on PC operating systems as Linux isn't a viable choice for 95%+ of PC users. This market situation is extremely detrimental to consumers but isn't illegal.
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    Well here then is yet another layer of complication. Linux has many more features than Windows, gives the user more control, respects privacy better, and is free even, yet consumers choose not to use it. How far must a company or government go to create competition where the behavior of both the suppliers and consumers indicate otherwise?
    - gbear605 6y ago
      Having a monopoly isn’t illegal. Using a monopoly to give you market power in another area is illegal. Windows can have a monopoly perfectly legally, they just can’t use that monopoly to give themselves a monopoly on, say, web browsers.