[This series of posts dissects the threatened FTC antitrust case against Google and concludes that a monopolization prosecution by the federal government would be a very bad idea. We divide the topic into five parts, one policy and four legal. Check out Part I and Part II.] Antitrust law is characterized by rigorous, fact-intensive analysis, so much so that the prevailing jurisprudence […]
Last week I participated in a “parliamentary” debate, sponsored by TechFreedom, on the Federal Trade Commission’s anticipated lawsuit against Google for monopolization. The dialog is interesting, if I say so myself!!
The core proposition in any attack on Google for unlawful monopolization, because the necessary premise is that Google’s dominant share — estimated at from 65 to 80% — of Web searches is the foundation of its alleged monopoly. But here the antitrust analysis begins to break down.
Folks in the tech industry have for the most part been conspicuously silent, at least publicly, about the Federal Trade Commission’s lengthy investigation of and apparent intention — perhaps as soon as year end — to file an antitrust case against Google for monopolization.
The Wall Street Journal reinforces my earlier posts about the threat to innovation posed by premature government intervention into the technology marketplace.
The European Union has ordered Google to make “sweeping changes” to its business model by extending restrictions being demanded for Web search into the mobile realm. That’s wrong because mobile is fundamentally different for 5 profoundly important reasons.
One year ago, the Wall Street Journal and other business publications reported that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had launched an investigation into “Twitter and the way it deals with the companies building applications and services for its platform.” Let’s hope the FTC’s 2011 Twitter investigation is mothballed in 2012.
When Google’s proposed acquisition of Motorola Mobility was announced in 2011, the business press focused mainly on the extension of Google’s core business from Internet search into hardware. But from a legal perspective, the treatment given the deal by competition authorities in the United States, the EU and China raises intriguing questions about the scope and objectives of merger policy in emerging technology markets.
Google doesn’t act like a monopolist and shares none of the characteristics sheltering classic monopolists from competition. Its astounding success in Internet search is universally regarded as a consequence of better design, superior code, better products and plain old hard work. Like Lewis Carroll’s other queen, the Queen of Hearts, Google really has no power at all.
I do not represent Google. My law firm does not represent Google. Google is not paying me. So Gary Reback, Jeff Chester, John Simpson and others, get your facts straight.