You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2010-01-04 18:16
FreePress, which philosophically opposes competition policy, effectively is mocking antitrust law and authorities by cynically feigning to care about antitrust and competition in calling for an antitrust investigation of "TV Everywhere" efforts to enable authenticated paying video customers the additional convenience of accessing their paid-for content on any device at no extra cost.
In their own words, FreePress is anti-competition, anti-property, and anti-business.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2009-11-20 12:36
Connecting the dots of several recent important developments, Google increasingly is acting autocratically like it has unlimited power and is answerable to no one.
Consider these several Google public actions over just the last month or so:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-10-27 18:51
I admire clarity of thought, and Richard Epstein's Op-ed in the Financial Times, "Net Neutrality at the Crossroads," represents some of the clearest thinking I have found on net neutrality. Please read it.
Mr. Epstein does a great job of exposing the folly beneath the vacuous sloganeering of net neutrality proponents.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-10-20 18:50
I kid you not. Google's latest antitrust defense, from the mouth of Dana Wagner, Google's lead antitrust lawyer, is: "We want to be Santa Claus. We want to make lots of toys that people like playing with. But if you don't want to play with our toys, you've got us."
Let me attempt to unpack the irony of this new story/metaphor of which Google has taken ownership.
Most companies when they tell their corporate "story" try to "put their best foot forward," but no one but Google would think to try and slip jolly megalomaniacal corpulence down the narrow chimney of public credibility.
Only Google would have so little real-world self-awareness as to choose to wrap itself in the beloved mythical role of Santa Claus who has the unique power to decide who has been good or "evil" during the last year, and the unique power to reward those who have been "good" in Google's eyes with toys and punish those who have been "evil" with coal in their stocking.
Only Google would think it was good PR to allude to Google's secret search algorithms and auction "quality scores" as a worldwide "naughty and nice" list.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-09-29 12:59
If you like the op-ed please click on the "Recommend" check button above the title or at the end of the piece, that is in the link below, because that will keep the op-ed posted longer than otherwise.
My proposed title, which was supplanted for space concerns, was: "Taking Freedom From Some Takes Freedom From All."
"Net Neutrality Regulations Compromise Freedoms
September 29, 2009
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Sun, 2009-09-20 19:37
DOJ's 28-page Statement of Interest to the Court responsible for deciding the fate of the Google Book Settlement speaks volumes.
First, it ensures the current proposed settlement is effectively dead.
Second, despite the DOJ's encouraging tone in the press release, the DOJ statement itself set a very high bar for the parties to overcome. Substantively, the DOJ is insisting on radical changes in the settlement that practically would gut the unique and self-serving going-forward public benefits of the deal for the parties.
Third, it raises the question if there is still a basis for the parties to settle, because the DOJ recommended fixes fundamentally and substantially limit what the parties can extract from the settlement.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-07-02 20:37
An unusual and notable pattern appears to be developing with Google and DOJ antitrust enforcers.
This is the second formal agreement in less than a year that Google has negotiated and drafted that has "crossed the line" prompting DOJ antitrust officials to have to formally and publicly investigate.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2009-05-21 10:42
Google has begun to admit and make concessions that the Book Settlement it originally negotiated with authors and publishers is anti-competitive.
To try and win the support of the biggest libraries, Google has now cut a potentially exclusive side deal giving the largest libraries the benefit of a price oversight/arbitration mechanism per the New York Times.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2009-04-29 15:00
To start however, it is important to get an update of important facts since antitrust is so fact-driven. Recent facts only confirm and bolster the DOJ's public assessment 11-05-08 that Google had monopoly market power in search advertising and search advertising syndication.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2009-04-28 19:12
Cracks are appearing in the foundation of the Google Book Settlement, which suggests some of it may end up crumbling under the current harsh weather of public scrutiny.
The most recent crack to appear was the Court's quick rejection of Google's preemptory proposal to extend the opt-out notice period for authors for another sixty days, and quick approval of the request by a small coalition of rights holders for four more months until September 4th.
An ITIF forum on the Google Book Settlement at the Library of Congress last week exposed some other big cracks in the foundation of the settlement.