














Comments     Threshold


RE: a monoply on internet search....
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 1:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
Unless there is evidence found that Google has forcibly blocked other search engines from starting up, then Google has done nothing anti-competitive, and thus nothing wrong.
Yawn.. you seem to be missing that it is very much possible for this to be true the second a company becomes a monopoly. You do not necessarily need to 'do' anything to be anti-competitive. The fact that you own such a large portion of the market, and you are able to offer services for a fraction of the price because of your market position is anti competitive in itself. Thus the reason for not allowing monopolies in the first place..

Using your example of another startup, one would imagine said startup would probably have to take a loss for a number of years in order to become competitive. It would be quite hard for a startup to be able to match googles advertising prices while maintaining a profit. Especially when you consider how much larger the Google userbase is i.e Google is a better investment, a startup may be able to offer add space at a fraction of the price, but when its advertising audience is a fraction of Googles, its not exactly cost effective is it?

I'm not saying Google is necessarily in this position, but one could definitely argue it as such.

RE: a monoply on internet search....
By Alistar on 5/5/2009 2:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
Simply being good at your job is not anti-competitive.

Oh no, Joe is suing me for doing my job better and he got fired.

Anti-competitive behaviour requires an active attempt to be anti-competitive. Temporarily undercutting the competition until they go out of business then jacking the prices can count. Simply offering a consistent product or service does not. Purposely and specifically removing links to other search engines or advertising companies could count as well, but I don't think they do that.

RE: a monoply on internet search....
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 2:31:33 PM , Rating: 2
You can't merely look up anti competitive behavior and get the answers you are looking for here. In this case Google would be a coercive monopoly, in which an active attempt to be anti-competitive is not required. Just ask Microsoft, being a coercive monopoly monopoly was the basis of their US anti-trust cases.(although some would disagree)

RE: a monoply on internet search....
By Alistar on 5/5/2009 2:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
I can see your point, but I am not sure I agree.

A coercive monopoly says that there is no means to compete on either technological innovation or price.

Simply having exclusive control over your own product is not a coercive monopoly simply because people are free to choose another company easily.

The fact that everyone freely chooses google does not make them a coercive monopoly. What could, and I say could make them a coercive monopoly is that by their sheer volume they beat any potential competitors on price. Effectively making them the only game in town.

Even then I would say that such a situation is not black and white, also, they do not have a monopoly on the technology or advertisements in general. Anyone is free to make their ads different to stand out, or offer to companies that Google won't, stuff like that.

RE: a monoply on internet search....
By omnicronx on 5/5/2009 4:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I was just making the point that you do not need to perform active anti competitive act in order to be considered anti competitive.

By meepstone on 5/6/2009 10:02:40 AM , Rating: 2
so your whole arguement was pointless because it doesnt apply to google???

what was the point of the bickering


Related Articles
Samsung Unveils I7500 Android Smartphone
April 27, 2009, 10:29 AM
