5 ms·

It’s all so ridiculous. Microsoft got nailed for talking about beating the competition. They’re trying to nail Google for training employees to not talk about b

It’s all so ridiculous. Microsoft got nailed for talking about beating the competition. They’re trying to nail Google for training employees to not talk about beating the competition. What is competition supposed to be if it’s not beating the competition. Just have extremely progressive taxation on companies as they get larger and stop approving megamergers if you believe large companies are harmful.

edgyquant 3y ago
I don’t think “progressive tax on companies as they get larger,” would be at all helpful. For one thing companies can skirt this with subsidiaries but also there are capital intensive industries where such a system could punish the average company. I agree they shouldn’t allow mergers, this should be very rare and there should have to be a very good case for it, but also just breaking up companies should be a lot more normal. I also agree there has to be some kind of answer based on company profit, but I think that taxation is not the best answer. It would be much better if there was a way to funnel that money into R&D at other companies and even industries; but admittedly I have no idea how such a system would work or if it’s even possible. Just sounds good in my head.
- trimistermota 3y ago
  Taxes funds public R&D which it's used by all companies
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> What is competition supposed to be if it’s not beating the competition. It's supposed to be fair. Microsoft didn't get nailed because they were winning, they got nailed because they were winning by abusing one monopoly to try and create another.
- lazide 3y ago
  Bwahaha. Since when is business, or hell life in general fair? Maybe ‘not doing illegal things’ should be the bar? At least they’re written down in advance (hopefully) instead of retroactively defined by folks who didn’t win?
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    What is being " retroactively defined"? And how much about antitrust law do you know?
    - lazide 3y ago
      ‘Fair’ and ‘reasonable’ in this case. As to the second question, feel free to browse my comment history.
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        on comment history: I looked at the first four pages. the only really relevant ones I saw were about attorney-client privilege, where you were 100% right. I saw nothing much about antitrust. "fair" and "reasonable" definitions probably suffer because there aren't that many antitrust cases tried, period.
        lazide 3y ago
        Apologies, been too busy posting apparently. I did read the actual Sherman act (and provided links) recently, and experience wise I’ve been in management and senior leadership at several FAANGs in the past where this particular situation was a real and present ongoing concern. Including the one being targeted in this case. So I’ve had all the training, worked with some talented attorneys, and been directly involved in related decisions - though not the ones being called into question here.
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        ok. those are two words that are deliberately left up to the judge & jury to decide. Trying to define them would just end up being circular.
        lazide 3y ago
        So one could only know after it had been ruled on? Which is by definition after it had occurred. Which is my point on retroactive.
AlbertCory 3y ago
They are not being prosecuted for "training employees to not talk about beating the competition." They're being prosecuted for restrictive deals on the search engine default, which prevents competition from gaining the data they need to compete. Udi Manber himself said that's what they're for. The training bit: personally I think it's a mistake for the government to dwell on that too much. It would be nice if they had a smoking gun email about "cutting off their oxygen," but they don't, so move on. Explaining why you don't have the smoking gun is something you should do only in passing.
tennisflyi 3y ago
> What is competition supposed to be if it’s not beating the competition. Wrong question. How about “how can we make our product/service better”? Not, let’s just push the other company over.
- SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
  It doesn’t really seem like there’s any evidence for a story where Google went out of their way to destroy any competing search engines. The worst thing the article references is an engineer who argued that search engine quality is directly proportional to search volume, which if true would imply that making Google better necessarily implies other search engines will be worse.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    Wrong. The assertion is, they got the volume by buying it, not by becoming better.
  - BytesAndGears 3y ago
    I think paying Apple and Mozilla to be the default search engine, as well as within Chrome, counts as intentionally crippling other search engines. If Apple made them default because they’re the best, then that’s fine. But spending a ton of money to keep themselves as the default, when they already have the vast majority of market power, seems like an artificial barrier to competition. Unless another search engine is so much better that Apple is willing to forfeit billions of dollars of pure profit, then nobody else has a chance to be the default.
    - karpierz 3y ago
      Apple made them the default because they are the best at monetization of large volumes of search queries from iOS devices. If another company was better at it, they'd put in a higher bid and rake in the profits.
      - Regnore 3y ago
wayfinder 3y ago
The government isn’t pursuing this because of the language. It’s because they think Google legitimately did anti-competitive things. They took down Al Capone not because of the tax evasion but rather because he was a crime lord. Tax evasion was merely the means to the end.
hot_gril 3y ago
About the training: Suppose GCP or Gmail accidentally steps on the toes of a user who happens to compete with Google in some other way, and during some anti-competition lawsuit/hearing, they dig up a message between employees dissing that particular competitor. Maybe things like "let's make X feature better than Y company" are fine, but it can easily slide to less innocent-looking things.
bt4u 3y ago
[dead]

edgyquant 3y ago

I don’t think “progressive tax on companies as they get larger,” would be at all helpful. For one thing companies can skirt this with subsidiaries but also there are capital intensive industries where such a system could punish the average company. I agree they shouldn’t allow mergers, this should be very rare and there should have to be a very good case for it, but also just breaking up companies should be a lot more normal. I also agree there has to be some kind of answer based on company profit, but I think that taxation is not the best answer. It would be much better if there was a way to funnel that money into R&D at other companies and even industries; but admittedly I have no idea how such a system would work or if it’s even possible. Just sounds good in my head.

trimistermota 3y ago
Taxes funds public R&D which it's used by all companies

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

> What is competition supposed to be if it’s not beating the competition. It's supposed to be fair. Microsoft didn't get nailed because they were winning, they got nailed because they were winning by abusing one monopoly to try and create another.

lazide 3y ago
Bwahaha. Since when is business, or hell life in general fair? Maybe ‘not doing illegal things’ should be the bar? At least they’re written down in advance (hopefully) instead of retroactively defined by folks who didn’t win?
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  What is being " retroactively defined"? And how much about antitrust law do you know?
  - lazide 3y ago
    ‘Fair’ and ‘reasonable’ in this case. As to the second question, feel free to browse my comment history.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      on comment history: I looked at the first four pages. the only really relevant ones I saw were about attorney-client privilege, where you were 100% right. I saw nothing much about antitrust. "fair" and "reasonable" definitions probably suffer because there aren't that many antitrust cases tried, period.
      - lazide 3y ago
        Apologies, been too busy posting apparently. I did read the actual Sherman act (and provided links) recently, and experience wise I’ve been in management and senior leadership at several FAANGs in the past where this particular situation was a real and present ongoing concern. Including the one being targeted in this case. So I’ve had all the training, worked with some talented attorneys, and been directly involved in related decisions - though not the ones being called into question here.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      ok. those are two words that are deliberately left up to the judge & jury to decide. Trying to define them would just end up being circular.
      - lazide 3y ago
        So one could only know after it had been ruled on? Which is by definition after it had occurred. Which is my point on retroactive.

AlbertCory 3y ago

They are not being prosecuted for "training employees to not talk about beating the competition." They're being prosecuted for restrictive deals on the search engine default, which prevents competition from gaining the data they need to compete. Udi Manber himself said that's what they're for. The training bit: personally I think it's a mistake for the government to dwell on that too much. It would be nice if they had a smoking gun email about "cutting off their oxygen," but they don't, so move on. Explaining why you don't have the smoking gun is something you should do only in passing.

tennisflyi 3y ago

> What is competition supposed to be if it’s not beating the competition. Wrong question. How about “how can we make our product/service better”? Not, let’s just push the other company over.

SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
It doesn’t really seem like there’s any evidence for a story where Google went out of their way to destroy any competing search engines. The worst thing the article references is an engineer who argued that search engine quality is directly proportional to search volume, which if true would imply that making Google better necessarily implies other search engines will be worse.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Wrong. The assertion is, they got the volume by buying it, not by becoming better.
- BytesAndGears 3y ago
  I think paying Apple and Mozilla to be the default search engine, as well as within Chrome, counts as intentionally crippling other search engines. If Apple made them default because they’re the best, then that’s fine. But spending a ton of money to keep themselves as the default, when they already have the vast majority of market power, seems like an artificial barrier to competition. Unless another search engine is so much better that Apple is willing to forfeit billions of dollars of pure profit, then nobody else has a chance to be the default.
  - karpierz 3y ago
    Apple made them the default because they are the best at monetization of large volumes of search queries from iOS devices. If another company was better at it, they'd put in a higher bid and rake in the profits.
    - Regnore 3y ago

wayfinder 3y ago

The government isn’t pursuing this because of the language. It’s because they think Google legitimately did anti-competitive things. They took down Al Capone not because of the tax evasion but rather because he was a crime lord. Tax evasion was merely the means to the end.

hot_gril 3y ago

About the training: Suppose GCP or Gmail accidentally steps on the toes of a user who happens to compete with Google in some other way, and during some anti-competition lawsuit/hearing, they dig up a message between employees dissing that particular competitor. Maybe things like "let's make X feature better than Y company" are fine, but it can easily slide to less innocent-looking things.

bt4u 3y ago

[dead]