
EU Lays Groundwork for Antitrust Charges Against Google - adventured
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-lays-groundwork-for-antitrust-charges-against-google-1427928793
======
hahainternet
I'm a fan of some of Google's work, but I also believe in strong protections
against them abusing their position.

However, does anyone really believe that certain categories of competitor
should be protected? Maps for example. If I search for something with a nearby
physical location, I do not want Google to have to present their mapping
product amongst a sea of others. I want a map displayed on my screen
immediately.

It seems that the vast majority of 'rivals' in this context are actually rival
search engines which isn't really that anticompetitive, just straight up
competitive. I guess we'll have to see which companies have filed constructive
points, I have yet to read any of them.

~~~
grey-area
Taking the example of say hotels, here is what happens:

[https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=hotels%20in%20cambri...](https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=hotels%20in%20cambridge)

A sort of booking widget appears, taking up the space of the first 4 results.
Instead of web pages we are presented with google place entries (another
google project), and a dates widget at top, which when you fill it in leads to
a nice list of google place results, so they are channelling users through
other web properties they control.

This might seem superficially appealing to customers (personally I think it is
great design, but used for evil ends), but it means that google controls that
entire space, because people generally click on the first few results, and
clicks after that diminish very very rapidly. So at some point when they start
charging for google place entries or booking via google wallet or whatever,
they can mint a huge amount of money purely because of the dominant _search_
position they enjoy. They can also drive out of business anyone who wants to
compete in that space, or force them to pay a toll to google - in fact I see
they're already doing this as adverts for booking.com appear on google place
bookings. Once we are used to them inserting non-organic results at the top of
every search, they can start to charge for those results, and for everything
associated with them. They will then have completed their transformation from
a company organising the world's information to a company controlling and
charging for the world's information.

As to maps, I think we need to clearly delineate between search results and
mapping results. People would be fine I think if google offered a small option
to go to google maps when you do an address search, but if they take over half
the page with a google map on these results, it is legitimate to ask whether
they are leveraging their dominant position in one domain to enforce dominance
in another (classic monopolist behaviour).

This wouldn't be a problem if Google did not have 70-90% of the market share
for search (depending on your country) - that is a near monopoly position. So
Google are abusing their dominant position in search to promote their other
properties, and to control which websites appear first in many domains
(shopping, images, hotels, shops etc), and they are also in de facto control
of the web due to their position in search, which is not good for anyone,
least of all google.

~~~
mike_hearn
The counter argument Google uses is that booking.com and friends have no
inherent right to exist. They either provide a service that people want or
they don't. Hotel booking is a commodity business: other than reviews and the
like there's a limited amount of value that can be added. If they add enough
value people will go there directly. If all they do is provide a few calendar
widgets and a billing backend then maybe Google can do that more effectively
by inlining it into the results page.

 _> People would be fine I think if google offered a small option to go to
google maps when you do an address search, but if they take over half the page
with a google map on these results, it is legitimate to ask whether they are
leveraging their dominant position_

Wait so the outcome of a legal case depends on how many pixels the feature
takes up? I don't see any rational basis in law for that. Why should a map not
be large? If someone came along that did mapping much better than Google did,
people could just go to that site directly, right?

I remember a time before "universal search" when maps did not appear in Google
web search at all. Yet Google Maps was still a popular service. So was Google
Earth which had to be downloaded.

~~~
tedunangst
Could the same argument not be made for browser bundling? Microsoft says other
browsers have no inherent right to exist. If people think they're useful,
they'll download and use them. If not, it's more effective to integrate IE
into Windows.

~~~
pricechild
I think so, but then I don't understand the logic behind that decision in the
first place? (Which they violated for 15 months anyway...)

~~~
denis1
And got fined big time for that violation.
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-06/microsoft-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-06/microsoft-
fined-731-million-by-eu-for-violating-browser-accord)

------
Alterlife
You can access the entire text of article without the 'subscription wall' by
accessing it through google search results:
[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd...](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Feu-
lays-groundwork-for-antitrust-charges-against-
google-1427928793&ei=ptQcVcefJIOigwTWjoOQCA&usg=AFQjCNEX7Bkj-_ND_KwRbmuxtEPsv-
civQ&sig2=IxhgpYe1LVxlla4OGh-jcQ&bvm=bv.89744112,d.eXY)

Is that irony? I don't know what irony means anymore. Hmm, might as well
google it.

~~~
igravious
It's recursively ironic which is the sweetest tasting type of irony.

Any idea why going through search results succeeds and allows us access to the
full content by the way?

~~~
violentvinyl
WSJ will get a better Google ranking by allowing the Google spider to crawl
the whole article. If they allow the spider to crawl the whole article, then
they have to allow users coming in from the Google results to see the full
article as well.

------
spacemanmatt
Without PJ (of Groklaw fame) around to say, "Oh yeah, the usually legally-
adroit Google has really stepped in it this time." I'm skeptical this will go
anywhere. Microsoft has been buying politicians to hurt Google for years.

~~~
throwawaykf05
1\. Google is simply buying more politicians these days:
[http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=B12&year...](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=B12&year=2014)
\- helps to get pesky investigations blown over, I guess ;-) I don't blame
them either, just the way the world works. Microsoft's mistake was not doing
it sooner when they were getting investigated.

2\. PJ's analysis might have been useful in the SCO days, but really, her
knowledge of other topics that I'm more conversant with (specifically,
patents) was woefully lacking. Not sure if she'd have done any better with
antitrust laws.

~~~
spacemanmatt
She was not a SME to every patent in litigation but her forum attracted tons
of incredible insight. It was not a solo act, to be sure. I guess the person
is a shorthand for the forum when I refer to her by name.

~~~
throwawaykf05
I'm not sure I saw any "insight" over there that was different from what I see
on Slashdot and most of HN. While there were a few knowledgeable posters, they
were mostly drowned out by the noise.

~~~
spacemanmatt
If there was any insight on slashdot, it was drowned out by the noise a long
time ago. The S/N ratio on GrokLaw was incredible. If you didn't get that, you
just weren't paying attention. There hasn't been a law blog like it, since.

~~~
throwawaykf05
Oh I was paying attention (with the caveat that I started reading it late,
around 2007 or so). I just happened to also understand the relevant legal
aspects better than PJ and 99% of the posters, who, let's admit it, were
software nerds like you and me. The difference is, I had familiarized myself
with aspects of the laws in question, whereas most of the posters blindly
spewed their ideological beliefs.

For instance, I enjoyed the essays by PoiR, which made a lot of germane
references to case law and CS theories, but their premises had tenuous
connection to legal reality at best. Or guest posts by mrisch, an actual legal
scholar, whose posts were rewarded with comments no better than Slashdot,
drowning out any thoughtful conversation. And even then, how many such essays
were ever posted? If you thought most of the stuff posted there was good
"signal", it probably just means you are not familiar with the legal aspects
and enjoyed the content because it appealed to your biases.

------
kuschku
Non-Paywalled link: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/02/google-eu-
idUSL2N0...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/02/google-eu-
idUSL2N0WY2X920150402)

~~~
tim333
not quite the same article. Better to google the title and click that link
which avoids the paywall.

------
dzdt
I am cynical on this: I strongly suspect this is an attack being orchestrated
by google's competitors rather than an enforcement motivated by the public
interest. Can anyone point to evidence either way?

~~~
freehunter
Aren't they all? Do you think the EU regulators said "Man that Microsoft is
really hurting people with IE and Windows Media Player, let's help the
underdogs" or do you think Microsoft's competitors had some kind of influence
on them?

------
walterbell
If TPP/TTIP were already in effect, would EU regulators have priority over a
TTIP court? Stated differently, could Google sue the EU in TTIP court under
ISDS rules?

~~~
adventured
I believe the ISDS provision would only apply to suing specific States. How
Google would go about arguing any given State were responsible, or that all of
them were... talk about a convoluted legal situation. I'd be skeptical it
would apply to anti-trust actions brought by the EU.

------
yuhong
Personally, I think what the US anti-trust regulators did was pretty sensible,
but I do wonder why Larry Page thought some of this stuff was a good idea in
the first place.

------
msh
Why does hn allow pay walled links?

~~~
LLWM
Why do hn users refuse to pay for content they want?

