5 ms·

The intention was never to break them up. MEPs calling for it is just to show the EU Commission that they have the political support to take the gloves off. If

by pasta_2 12y ago

The intention was never to break them up. MEPs calling for it is just to show the EU Commission that they have the political support to take the gloves off. If you actually want to know the justification for the EU doing this you should read this paper by Ben Edelman. http://www.benedelman.org/publications/google-tying-2014-10-26.pdf http://www.benedelman.org/publications/google-tying-2014-10-... He's consulted for various Google competitors but he's also a professor at Harvard Business School, and the argument he makes is sound.

DannyBee 12y ago
If by "consulted", you mean that Ben has been paid to come up with papers exactly like this for various anti-google lobbies, many many times over the past 10 years, then yes, he has "consulted". Ben has literally no legal training in antitrust law that i'm aware of, so his opining on it is somewhat interesting. (I edited this comment because Ben does have a JD from Harvard law that I forgot about, so he does have legal training, just not anything related to antitrust law) When he's not writing antitrust papers, he's busy writing scare papers about click fraud, or online ad deals. There are plenty of people who have views i disagree with, and respect. But folks like Ben, whose views seem to change entirely with who is paying him (i've watched him argue the same thing both ways depending on whether MS was doing it or Google was doing it), are not even worth arguing with. You only have to look at his testimony list to see where his views lie, and have since 2006.
- dmethvin 12y ago
  > Ben does have a JD from Harvard law that I forgot about A major omission when attacking someone's legal qualifications. > When he's not writing antitrust papers, he's busy writing scare papers about click fraud, or online ad deals Yes, and they're scary because they are true. The insidious thing about click fraud is that consumers are the mules who do the work but generally are only indirectly harmed. Advertisers and merchants really get screwed. Ben has been exposing those situations for a decade. > You only have to look at his testimony list to see where his views lie, and have since 2006. Actually I worked with him in 2005 and his views were consistent then as well. If he works on behalf of people who share his views, that's not a bad thing is it? It's fully disclosed, which is more than I can say for many of his attackers.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    FWIW: Ben is not fully disclosed by a longshot See, e.g., http://mumbrella.com.au/google-adwords-benjamin-edelman-37001 http://mumbrella.com.au/google-adwords-benjamin-edelman-3700...
- ckelvin 12y ago
  Do you work for Google? If you do, ny the same metric, shouldn't we discount all your numerous posts defending Google and attacking their competitors?
  - wfjackson 12y ago
    According to this post, they do. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8620539 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8620539 It would be nice to have that in a disclaimer in the posts discussing Google or in the HN profile page though.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Sounds awesome. Let's do that for everyone. We can put my NSA affiliation in there too. In the history of this site nobody has ever made themselves look smarter or been more persuasive by accusing another HN commenter of being a shill.
      - vdaniuk 12y ago
        Conflict of interest is very real and full disclosure should be a norm in the community powered media with so much influence on tech industry.
        DannyBee 12y ago
        What? Everyone on HN works for someone. I am not my company. Google has plenty of views i don't agree with, and I have plenty of views they don't agree with. If you believe comments on HN (or almost anywhere else) should have conflict of interest disclosures, you may as well shut it all down. Everything here is opinions of people, presented as opinions of people.
        Karunamon 12y ago
        It's really not that hard to understand that someone making comments about a company they are paid by should call that out.
- IBM 12y ago
  Do you actually have a rebuttal to anything he wrote in his paper?

by pasta_2 12y ago

DannyBee 12y ago

If by "consulted", you mean that Ben has been paid to come up with papers exactly like this for various anti-google lobbies, many many times over the past 10 years, then yes, he has "consulted". Ben has literally no legal training in antitrust law that i'm aware of, so his opining on it is somewhat interesting. (I edited this comment because Ben does have a JD from Harvard law that I forgot about, so he does have legal training, just not anything related to antitrust law) When he's not writing antitrust papers, he's busy writing scare papers about click fraud, or online ad deals. There are plenty of people who have views i disagree with, and respect. But folks like Ben, whose views seem to change entirely with who is paying him (i've watched him argue the same thing both ways depending on whether MS was doing it or Google was doing it), are not even worth arguing with. You only have to look at his testimony list to see where his views lie, and have since 2006.

dmethvin 12y ago
> Ben does have a JD from Harvard law that I forgot about A major omission when attacking someone's legal qualifications. > When he's not writing antitrust papers, he's busy writing scare papers about click fraud, or online ad deals Yes, and they're scary because they are true. The insidious thing about click fraud is that consumers are the mules who do the work but generally are only indirectly harmed. Advertisers and merchants really get screwed. Ben has been exposing those situations for a decade. > You only have to look at his testimony list to see where his views lie, and have since 2006. Actually I worked with him in 2005 and his views were consistent then as well. If he works on behalf of people who share his views, that's not a bad thing is it? It's fully disclosed, which is more than I can say for many of his attackers.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  FWIW: Ben is not fully disclosed by a longshot See, e.g., http://mumbrella.com.au/google-adwords-benjamin-edelman-37001 http://mumbrella.com.au/google-adwords-benjamin-edelman-3700...
ckelvin 12y ago
Do you work for Google? If you do, ny the same metric, shouldn't we discount all your numerous posts defending Google and attacking their competitors?
- wfjackson 12y ago
  According to this post, they do. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8620539 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8620539 It would be nice to have that in a disclaimer in the posts discussing Google or in the HN profile page though.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Sounds awesome. Let's do that for everyone. We can put my NSA affiliation in there too. In the history of this site nobody has ever made themselves look smarter or been more persuasive by accusing another HN commenter of being a shill.
    - vdaniuk 12y ago
      Conflict of interest is very real and full disclosure should be a norm in the community powered media with so much influence on tech industry.
      - DannyBee 12y ago
        What? Everyone on HN works for someone. I am not my company. Google has plenty of views i don't agree with, and I have plenty of views they don't agree with. If you believe comments on HN (or almost anywhere else) should have conflict of interest disclosures, you may as well shut it all down. Everything here is opinions of people, presented as opinions of people.
        Karunamon 12y ago
        It's really not that hard to understand that someone making comments about a company they are paid by should call that out.
IBM 12y ago
Do you actually have a rebuttal to anything he wrote in his paper?