in the comments to the below post. What explains it? One doesn't normally think of Chairman Liebowitz as shying away from a populist skirmish. Or has Google out-populized (?) him?
I was intrigued by a justification for the decision made in a NY Times article: Google's conduct must have been efficient because competitors' imitated it. So now we laud a gas station price increase because the station across the street matches it?
Where does the theory of harm fail? Is the monopoly that fragile? Is Google's conduct simply a question of a better mousetrap? Or is Google better represented than the government in a way that Microsoft was not? Beth Wilkinson is impressive, but (with much respect) David Boies she ain't.
Great topic but you raise so many important topics. Briefly, I think the patent part of the case is important and nicely done. On the search side, I always thought this was a very tough case. Although debatable, I think market power can be shown, but have always had trouble seeing the unlawful conduct. I have always thought that most of the asserted violations sounded more consumer protection-ish rather than competition in nature. If Google says they rank results one way and if they don't in fact do so, that is a simple CP case, but still a tough competition case to make out.
ReplyDeleteAs to remedies, the scraping provisions appear to be historical in nature and not that important. Advertising control over data is helpful but not that big a deal. However, if the FTC felt those practices were violations, they should have insisted on a consent decree rather than this commitment letter, the legal effect of which is rather dubious and makes for a lousy precedent.
Interesting. I have a hard time with the CP angle! Because Google is a free service, what harm if it slants its results, even if it does so while saying it is not? Any harm from this conduct arises in the downstream service markets for maps, travel, movie listings, and so on.
ReplyDeleteBut what is the consumer complaint in those markets? I was misled as to how this service provider came to my attention? That doesn't seem to be a material statement.