You are here
Conflict of Interest
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-07-12 11:51
Serial beehive kicker Google, just kicked the wrong beehive -- IAC.
So fixated on stomping on the potential competitive threat posed by Microsoft's vertical search competitive differentiation strategy, i.e. by buying the dominant airline software supplier ITA, Google apparently did not look down to see that it was trampling on the honey pot of one Google's biggest and most important partners/allies -- IAC and Barry Diller -- in buying ITA and abruptly heralding its broader ambitions of invading and conquering the vertical space of its many online content partners.
Why will the IAC sting hurt Google more than other beehives that Google has kicked?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-07-09 11:00
In an exceptionally uncharacteristic low-key PR manner for Google, Google announced on its blog in one sentence that China renewed its license to operate in China.
What's the rest of the story here?
Google and China have been at loggerheads with one another in one of the highest-of-profile international standoffs between a private company and a superpower in modern history, since Google publicly accused China in January blogpost of being complicit in a hack of Google that resulted in the theft of Google's intellectual property, (which John Markoff of the New York Times reported was the extremely sensitive computer code for Google's password control system.)
What is the quid pro quo here?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-07-02 14:28
In buying travel software leader ITA, Google Inc., the self-described "biggest kingmaker on this earth," seeks to expand its ever-expanding digital information empire into the $80b online travel market and establish a dominant "Google Travel" vertical.
What's most critical here is pattern recognition in order to get perspective on what this Google-ITA transaction means more broadly.
Pattern 1: Extension of market power via strategic acquisition of first-mover potential competitors.
This proposed ITA acquisition is the latest example of a well-established Google monopolization strategy -- i.e. to buy the dominant or first-mover player in a strategic vertical as a platform to extend its search market power into those markets much faster than it could organically. Note the pattern in the examples below. Google's:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-07-01 11:56
In a trailblazing and ominous antitrust precedent for Google, French antitrust authorities ruled for the first time that Google is a search monopoly that anti-competitively abused its market power by capriciousy cutting off Navx, a Google competitor, from Google's search results without warning.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-06-30 11:39
The evidence mounts that Google is increasingly throwing its monopoly weight around anti-competitively without much apparent fear of antitrust enforcement. This Google antitrust update will spotlight:
I. Latest Evidence of Google's Anti-competitive Search Discrimination:
Google's behavior continues to raise serious antitrust concerns about whether Google's dominant search business is treating competitors neutrally as it claims, or whether it is anti-competitively picking itself and its partners as content winners and its competitors as content losers.
A. Search Discrimination:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2010-06-25 16:34
Viacom is likely to ultimately prevail in its appeal of the lower Court decision in the seminal Viacom vs. Google-YouTube copyright infringement case.
Why is Viacom likely to prevail on appeal?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-06-24 09:37
Has Mr. Masnick of techdirt fame joined Google's legendary PR team as its go to apologist in the blogosphere?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-06-23 13:17
For anyone wanting to better understand the big picture threat to our Nation's communications and media infrastructure/business models, please don't miss Randy May's outstanding post: "Not Mao Zedong or a communist... but a Socialist."
Building on the great foundation of work laid down by Adam Theirer of the Progress and Freedom Foundation in this area, Randy adds another laser spotlight on how there are powerful ideological forces championed by FreePress' leader Robert McChesney that seek ultimate government control of both the media and the communications infrastructure.
The disturbing common thread here that deserves much more attention from freedom-loving people everywhere, is the deeply (and scarily successful) anti-free-enterprise, anti-property, anti-individual-freedom efforts by FreePress in promoting a de facto government takeover of both the media and broadband communications infrastructure.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sat, 2010-06-19 18:01
Mr. Masnick of techdirt fame is putting his head in the sand, just like an ostrich does, in hopes that the danger of "search neutrality" will somehow go away as long as he manages to not see or hear anything about it.
First, none other than Google's founders railed against advertising causing "insidious" bias in search results -- in their famous Stanford paper on search engines -- see Appendix A.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-06-17 14:06
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June, 17 2010
Contact: Scott Cleland
“FCC Regulating the Internet like a Phone Company Would Enthrone “Ma Google”
“FCC’s Broadband De-competition Policy Would Accelerate Google-opolization of the Net”