The DOJ busted six companies, Google, Apple, Intel, Adobe, and Intuit for "naked restraint of trade" in collusively agreeing to not poach each others employees and reducing their employees' ability to be paid what a fair market would bear. See the DOJ statement; complaint; Final Judgment. (and Google's spin that they were very busy changing the world and that everybody was doing it... self-justification -- is here.)

• This is a logical extension of the FTC investigation last summer that forced Google and Apple to cease having overlapping board seats because that was judged anti-competitive collusive behavior.
• Moreover, Google and Apple were at the center of this DOJ antitrust prosecution, in that three of the five illegal agreements involved each of them.

What's notable here?

Ever wonder why the net neutrality issue can't be resolved, despite all the many earnest efforts, negotiations, and compromises to resolve it over the last four years?

• The simple reason is that FreePress -- the head net neutrality activist -- does not want to resolve net neutrality; every time there is a real effort to resolve the issue, FreePress does everything in their power to blow up any prospect for resolution.
• The one constant in the Net neutrality debate over the last four years has been FreePress’ fierce opposition to any real resolution, because FreePress wants the opposite -- revolution.

Before I recount FreePress’ ignominious longstanding record of opposing resolution of net neutrality, it is important to understand why FreePress is such a singularly destructive, and not a constructive, force in the net neutrality debate.

In another Google fit of no-self-awareness, Google has launched a new web tool that they call the "transparency report" in order to promote transparency as "a deterrent to censorship," per a Google spokeswoman in the NYT's Bits Blog.

While I applaud the tool and Google's effort to promote transparency as a deterrent to censorship, the effort appears disingenuous because of Google's double standard that others must submit to transparency, but not Google.

Google's tool will have "a map that shows every time a government has asked Google to take down or hand over information, and what percentage of the time Google has complied," per the NYT's Bits Blog."

If transparency is good:

In a comical defense of Google, David Balto of the Center for American Progress pleaded for the Government to not regulate Google in his HuffPo Op-ed: "Regulating Google: Searching for a solution without a problem." Let me count the ironies here.

First, Mr. Balto is attempting to shield Google behind the successful defense of the broadband industry against mandated net neutrality regulation that "net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem."

That defense works because it is true. The industry has only one official net neutrality violation that has withstood scrutiny and due process -- Madison River in 2005. Since then, the roughly 2,000 broadband networks in the U.S. have abided by the FCC's 2005 Broadband Principles and remain committed to work constructively to ensure that consumers can neutrally access and use the legal content, applications, and devices of their choice.

(Don't miss the eye-opening numbers at the end of this post.)

I am testifying tomorrow before the House Judiciary Competition Subcommittee hearing on "Competition in the Evolving Digital Marketplace."

• My written testimony, with a one-page summary, is here.
• In addition, to talking generally about the evolving digital marketplace, I focus specifically on "The Main Antitrust Event -- Googleopoly."
  • My testimony includes my most recent Google antitrust research released Monday as an attachment: Googleopoly VI Seeing the Big Picture -- How Google Monopolizes Consumer Internet Media.

The other witnesses I have heard that are testifying are: Ed Black of CCIA, Morgan Reed of ACT, Mark Cooper of Consumer Federation, and Geoff Mannes of Lewis and Clarke Law School.

It is a particularly timely hearing given Google's pending acquisition of ITA Software, which is under review at the DOJ, and which is a quintessential example of how Google exploits the soft underbelly of antitrust enforcement to buy its way to monopoly power in vertical markets like travel. My testimony attachment explains how Google already bought its way to a Internet video monopoly via its acquisitions and integration of YouTube, DoubleClick, and AdMob.

The link is here to: "Googleopoly VI -- How Google is Monopolizing Consumer Internet Media and Threatening a Price Deflationary Spiral and Major Job Losses in a Trillion Dollar Sector" -- It is a 41 page PowerPoint presentation with 18 pages of pictorial analysis.

Below is the Executive Summary: (The PDF link is here.)

Executive Summary

Googleopoly VI – Seeing the Big Picture: How Google is Monopolizing Consumer Internet Media

And Threatening a Price Deflationary Spiral & Major Job Losses in a $Trillion Sector

By Scott Cleland* President of Precursor LLC, September 13, 2010

Could Google Instant turn out to be like Coca Cola's huge "New Coke" fiasco when Coke presumed they knew better what people wanted than people did?

To follow up my previous post... how does the eye-blurring screen flashing of Google Instant square with Google's signature pledge of screen simplicity and spartan-ness?

It will be interesting to see if anyone does the equivalent of a Google Instant "taste test" to poll people to see if they find Google Instant search better? simple? distracting?

After New Coke came out, the press had a field day doing taste tests showing that most people liked classic coke better...

Seems like trying to tell people that Google knows better what they are searching for -- than they do -- is a new level of goobris...

Seems Google thinks people are all alike and sheep who will go where they are steered.

Google's claim that presenting search results faster with Google Instant -- does not affect advertising, user search behavior or user-click-throughs -- does not ring true.

First, how is Google Instant not push-advertising?

A spate of recent Google antitrust developments indicate there is more here than meets the eye.

First, Google, just like it cleverly discriminates in its search results to its advantage, cleverly discriminated when it announced antitrust information material to Google investors -- not when it occurred but when the least number of people would see it, according to its web analytics calculations.

What have we learned from the FCC's wise inaction this week, in deciding to not vote to declare broadband a Title II telephone service before the election, and to ask more questions in a further Open Internet regulation inquiry about specialized and mobile services?

#1 Stakeholder collaboration/negotiation works. The FCC apparently now better recognizes that the open industry collaborative dynamic that has been so consistently successful in resolving most every other major Internet issue over the last couple of decades, can also succeed in appropriately resolving the FCC's Open Internet concerns now -- if only given the time and flexibility to negotiate a workable outcome.

#2 Apparently net neutrality is not the popular populist political issue it has been touted to be. The September-October period before an election is when the real political rubber meets the road.