
The FTC wants to sue Google, and now it may have found the charges that stick - donohoe
http://qz.com/23718/the-ftc-really-wants-to-sue-google-and-now-it-may-have-found-the-charges-that-stick/
======
alanctgardner2
I'm not sure about the source, but this seems far more malicious on the part
of the FTC than I'm comfortable with. Shouldn't they be impartially judging
this sort of thing on a case-by-case basis? Instead they've decoded that
Google, as an entity, is broadly criminal, and the crime itself is just their
vehicle for delivering whatever punishment they deem appropriate.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
Then, should Al Capone not have been indicted for income tax evasion? They
really wanted him for peddling booze during the Prohibition.

~~~
alanctgardner2
The problem is that indicting an individual stops them, more or less. Whatever
judgement they get regarding FRAND patents won't have anything to do with
search. If all they had done was collect Capone's taxes without throwing him
in prison, it would've been pretty useless.

I also have issues with things like tax evasion being used as a proxy to
prosecute other crimes, but that's more of a romantic notion about how law
should work. I realize it can't be that way.

------
Noxchi
Why the fuck is the FTC trying to troll Google? Because it prioritizes (and
thinks better of) it's services than other sites? That's what ANY business is
supposed to do!

~~~
fear91
The problem is when for majority of people Google = The Internet.

If you are not showing high in Google and you don't want to pay, you are
fucked. You don't exist for the 85% of population.

~~~
fourspace
Clearly, Google needs to be punished for such abuses of the power, power that
is granted to them by consumers voluntarily choosing to use their free
product.

~~~
fear91
Well if you show people Bing;s results in Google's search template, they will
prefer it over Google's own results.

It's not like consumers make rational decisions. They are habituated to use
Google.

PS: Searchers are not Google's consumers, they are their product. Advertisers
are their consumers - they are the ones who pay them.

~~~
myko
That doesn't sound quite accurate. I know Microsoft ran a study saying such
but in the small sample size of friends on various social networks I saw test
this Google won nearly every case, with a few ties (I don't think Bing won any
of the posts I saw).

So, nice try Microsoft?

------
dalke
donohoe: You say that you are "Product Engineering Director for Quartz" and
comment that you "do post stuff from qz.com on rare occasions cos I naturally
come across it as part of my work".

10 of your last 13 posts, all within a month, are to your company. I think you
need to change your about text and remove the words "rare occasions".

~~~
tatsuke95
I get a lot of links to Quartz from another (financial) website I frequent.

I've never been able to get a page to load in Chrome, so I've never read a
single article from the site.

~~~
donohoe
Really - what version? Screenshot? (email in profile)

------
youngtaff
2.25% is slightly less that Samsung wants for it's FRAND patents and is a
whole lot less than the 6% Apple wanted for it's patents.

Apple and MS seemed to want the mobile radio patent owners to give away their
technologies for free but are unwilling to license their own patents on
reasonable terms

~~~
tzs
What Apple patents has Apple promised to license to all comers under FRAND
terms in exchange for getting those patents into required parts of
international standards?

~~~
felipeko
What Motorola's patent they promised to give for cheap? FRAND does not mean
cheap. It never meant. Microsoft and Apple are trying to change the term now,
because they want to tax Android products, and cheapening SEP is the easiest
way to do that, because that would disarm all others OEMs, and they would be
able to tax them with "utility" patents.

