Re:The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances
by nikcub on Friday July 15, 2011 @06:36AM
(#2766906)
If Google ever does end up facing an anti-trust trial, your second point will likely form part of the case against them. This could be considered direct evidence that Google are using their dominance in search to favor their own properties over others.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
This shouldn't have been downvoted; news of an FTC antitrust probe for /precisely this behavior/ was reported just last month: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230333990457640...
A few years ago they had an ad for Blogger, which was not actually an AdWords ad, shown if a search request contained a word "blog". It was placed above AdWords.
It's not illegal to use dominance in one market to enter another. That's called good business.
Antitrust requires monopoly, which google does not have. There are many competitive and successful ad networks and search engines, and there is no lock in to the search product.
I don't agree with the entire concept of anti-trust, let alone support any case against Google - but I can see it happening
Re:The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances
by chopsueyar on Saturday July 16, 2011 @07:49AM
(#2770601)
Yeah, Standard Oil and U.S. Steel were pretty awesome.
Without robber-barons, we would have a dearth of philanthropists.
Re:The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances
by MaysonL on Saturday July 16, 2011 @06:50PM
(#2772014)
Bullshit.
Yes, some of the robber-barons were and are philanthropists.
But robbing to give it away is not much more moral than robbing to spend it yourself or give it to your heirs. Both are still theft.
For examples of modern non-robber philanthropists, see H & P, Buffet, et al.