You are here Antitrust
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-09-26 10:18
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-09-25 10:59
A new antitrust analysis by leading academics in the field provides some very relevant and eyebrow-raising new third-party survey data that appears to debunk Google's main defense of the DoubleClick acquisition: that Google and DoubleClick are not competitors.
- This first and most comprehensive market survey of advertisers suggests that DoubleClick's customers do indeed view Google and DoubleClick offering as substitutes/competitors for their ad dollars.
For those following this merger review closely, this study is a must read:
Why is this study important?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-09-21 13:30
Richard Waters of the FT produced a very insightful and newsy article on how Google reportedly passed on buying DoubleClick two years earlier over internal concerns about how that alignment of businesses could clash with Google's famed "don't be evil' highmindedness.
- It's a must read article for Googlephiles.
My big takeaway from this article was an undercurrent of Google's struggle over internal controls to ensure Google's "ethics" are carried out in practice.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-09-20 10:59
The New York Times (and others) reported yesterday Google's announcement that it was launching a "Gadget ads" program which is essentially display-ad-serving to "widgets' which are essentially "mini-websites" within websites.
It is getting harder and harder for Google antitrust lawyers to argue with a straight face that Google does not compete in the market of "display-ad-serving" with DoubleClick.
- Google is the world leader in "serving":
- search text ads
- contextual ads;
- video display ads through YouTube,
- And is now entering:
- mobile ad- serving;
- and widget ad-serving to these mini-websites withing websites.
- Google's definition of "ad-serving" is increasingly becoming too-cute-by-half semantic wordplay and not a functional or factual definition.
Antitrust officials should ask Google if they are colluding with DoubleClick to not compete while the merger is pending.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-09-18 19:02
So what are the implications of Microsoft losing its antitrust appeal in the EU's Appeals court -- which was a page one story in all the major papers?
More and different than most may think.
The EU is signalling in it's harsh treatment of Microsoft, that the EU is going to be tough on "dominant" firms.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-09-18 10:56
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-09-12 10:58
Evidence continues to mount that the Google-DoubleClick merger presents serious anti-competitive concerns.
Let me share a series of antitrust developments over the last several days that cumulatively are very significant.
First, and most ominous, is that Yahoo, the weak #2 in the search market, which used to use Google's search engine, has been actively considering exiting the search business and outsourcing to #1 dominant Google or distant #3 Microsoft, because investors want the greatly expanded investment returns such a revenue-enhancing and cost cutting move would generate for shareholders.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-09-06 19:05
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-09-06 15:16
It is never a good omen for a merger's approval outlook, when EU antitrust authorities can't wait to investigate the impact of the merger and proactively inititiate their own antitrust investigation -- before their official process even gets started.
Google's antitrust lawyers have to be bummed by the development reported by Reuters that: "EU questions customers over Google-DoubleClick deal."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-09-06 13:02
The Financial Times had a noteworthy article about Google's role as an editor of content and defender of free speech -- when Google finds it convenient: "Thailand lifts Youtube ban after Google agrees to block some clips."
This article is an interesting juxtaposition to Google CEO Eric Schmidt's very recent comments on the importance of free speech at a speech before the Progress and Freedom Foundation.
-
"We need to defend freedom of speech as more speech comes on line. ...Let’s do this in the right way. Let’s preserve the openness and the freedom of speech principles. You could use Internet censorship, for example, as a non-tariff trade barrier, which we all need to fight because governments, especially non-U.S. governments, have an incentive to some degree to control the populations -- to do all the things that are obvious if you’re afraid of empowering your citizens."
The FT article is a good opportunity to review if Google's actions support Google's rhetoric when it comes to Google defending free speech...
Pages
|