What is Digg?90 Comments
- Cararan, on 12/04/2008, -17/+107Google is not forcing me to use Google.
- EMFK, on 12/04/2008, -10/+66So a successful American business is being handled by the Justice Department while the Big 3 auto CEOs are in Washington DC asking for bailouts?
Don't know about anyone else, but the government needs to take their energy and resources and start unleashing on those wanting bailouts rather than those that are still afloat and prospering. Just a thought! - mattsidesinger, on 12/04/2008, -5/+42http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&am ...
- chriskzoo, on 12/04/2008, -7/+42Microsoft is not forcing you to use Windows.
- shortricekid, on 12/04/2008, -8/+39Google is 3 years away from being Skynet. Run Conner RUN!!
- desired, on 12/04/2008, -9/+35There is no such thing as being charged to be a monopolist. Monopolies are completely legal and widespread in any thriving economy. What a company can be charged for is abusing a monopoly, and I don't see this article coming anywhere close to that conclusion. Buried.
- minoss, on 12/04/2008, -3/+19If you make money, you're evil and it must be taken. If you don't, you're great and need more funding. That's how government works.
- desired, on 12/04/2008, -1/+13"While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete."
From the FTC web site (http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/maintain.htm). - UberNick, on 12/04/2008, -9/+21Yes they were, by making it exceedingly difficult (for a non IT person) to use alternate software. Remember the fake errors they displayed when they detected "Dr. DOS" back in the day? It's similar to some of their more-recent practices, which hardwired Explorer to use IE when links were typed, required updates to go through microsoft.com which forced use of IE, breaking competing software with patches, etc.
- chrisemc, on 12/04/2008, -0/+12From a business perspective is this not the ultimate compliment? Hi, <insert company here> you've kicked so much ass you now have close to total control over the marketplace. It's time for the federal government to step in and ruin the party.
- linagee, on 12/04/2008, -3/+12Don't be evil, google!
- JasonCox, on 12/04/2008, -1/+9And Microsoft is not forcing you to use Windows, Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows Live Messenger, etc etc but they've still been charged as a monopolist for each one of those items.
- Dailong, on 12/04/2008, -3/+11You're doing it wrong.
- R0ck3t33r, on 12/04/2008, -3/+11Microsoft makes it easy NOT to use IE.
- Dailong, on 12/04/2008, -0/+7The text for those who can't pull up the link.
When Google pulled out of its proposed search advertising deal with Yahoo last month, it was chief legal counsel David Drummond who made the announcement. He cited concerns of a “protracted legal battle,” but only now do we learn that the Justice Department was only three hours away from filing an antitrust lawsuit to block the deal. Sandy Litvack, the prosecutor hired by the justice Department to head up the case, tells Am Law Daily:
We were going to file the complaint at a certain time during the day. We told them we were going to file the complaint at that time of day. Three hours before, they told us they were abandoning the agreement.
. . . It would have ended up also alleging that Google had a monopoly and that [the advertising pact] would have furthered their monopoly.
When it came down to the wire, Google blinked. It was the right move. But Google is on notice that the DOJ considers it a near-monopoly, and will treat it as such if need be. At least until the Obama Administration takes over. Then Google CEO Eric Schmidt can remind them how hard he campaigned for them to win. - inactive, on 12/04/2008, -1/+8The word monopoly doesnt mean what you seem to think it does.
- drizzlelicious, on 12/04/2008, -4/+11http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&am ...
- IAmTheGuy, on 12/04/2008, -3/+10That is an astoundingly stupid thought. Do you realize that all the companies getting bailout money are companies deemed "too big to fail?" One problem with monopolies is that they can get pretty big.
Also, if anyone thinks that monopolies are good for the customers has a colossal lack of economic understanding. Most people don't like OPEC because it acts as a monopoly and can noticeably affect the price of oil. Looking at history, Teddy Roosevelt is most remembered for being a "trust-buster." - InfernoX, on 12/04/2008, -3/+9Monopolies are illegal in Canada, if a business has no competition the Canadian gov't will either make the competition with an officla gov't organization to provide the same service or they'll try to encourage competition by subsidizing start up companies that want to compete with the bigger company.
- DarkprinceArmon, on 12/04/2008, -3/+9Google...the next evil empire?
- jotux, on 12/04/2008, -2/+8COLUMNIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- glitchbit, on 12/04/2008, -1/+6well right now OPEC is its worse enemy, they can't trust each other to cut back on production so as long as that is the case we benefit. One of the nations producing oil will have to get the short end of the stick if the other nations are to make their budgets work, but they have all over budgeted so no one wants to make any cut backs.
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -1/+6fjpoblam - you tard!
1 - If you want updates from an OS vendor, like Symantec , you will be using their update software. MS simply uses IE for that if you want to do it manually. If you want automatic updates, you need not use IE.
2- Preference of you employers is a trend, not mandatory. If you only spoke Swahili in the USA, you might think you MUST learn English to find work, but that is still a choice. No one forces you to do anything. - inactive, on 12/04/2008, -2/+7OK ONE LAST TIME KITTIES !!!!
Being a monopoly is not illegal.
Having monopolistic practices is illegal.
The Feds just dont want to give a group too much control over 1 market in purchasing deals.
Microsoft isnt purchasing other OSes in the market and arrived where it is from its own sales.
Something like Apple, DOES have monopolistic practices where it locks down its own OS to its own hardware that is actually other 3rd party vendors. It restricts its "independent" sale of OSX to 1 hardware vendor - itself. While this is almost illegal, using the EFI chip to purposely lock this choice down and prohibit you from using other hardware (or others from marketing that they can run OSX) is a monopolistic practice and is illegal. - raymondgoho, on 12/04/2008, -4/+9google isn't a monopolist yet?
- omgwtflawl, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5Monopolies are creations of the state. Occasionally a natural monopoly comes along (such as Alcoa in the early 1900s), but they can't actually act as a monopoly due to competition from other areas. For example, Alcoa had a monopoly on aluminum production, but if they charged their prices too high people would just buy tin, or copper, or other metals which have similar properties to aluminum.
Monopolies today only exist because they are best buds with the state or federal governments. - arunforce, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5Look up the Per Se rule, a company can be broken up for being a monopoly. The came from the Sherman Act:
Section 2 of the act forbade monopoly. In section 2 cases, the court has, again on its own initiative, drawn a distinction between coercive and innocent monopoly. The act is not meant to punish businesses that come to dominate their market passively or on their own merit, only those that intentionally dominate the market through misconduct, which generally consists of conspiratorial conduct of the kind forbidden by section 1 of the Sherman Act, or Section 3 of the Clayton Act. - trghpy, on 12/04/2008, -1/+6You mean Google doesn't want litigation to be part of its core business? What an amazing concept.
- subliminalurge, on 12/04/2008, -1/+6Didn't they know you're not supposed to inhale the little metal horsey?
- yojiffyskippy, on 12/04/2008, -1/+5'could' and 'would' are two very different things.
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -2/+6Ya wouldnt it be great if we still had to rent our telephones from ma-bell!
Ignorant child. - jamesdoogin, on 12/04/2008, -0/+4A Monopoly doesn't mean that there is any wrongdoing, it just means Microsoft owns so many assets that we rely on, that a competitor cant reasonably compete in the market. So the government would want to break that up to help economic growth.
- pw378, on 12/04/2008, -0/+4The name 'big 3' for automakers sort of implies that there is no auto monopoly. The 'too big to fail' is referring to the fact that UAW (union) provides too much money to political campaigns to allow them to fail.
- clone4crw, on 12/05/2008, -0/+3http://www.amazon.com/Make-Your-Opoly-Board-Game/d ...
Should see 'em very soon. - vinceislegend, on 12/04/2008, -2/+5I mean, really, what kind of business plan involves being efficient, and good what you do? Monopolizing? That's no way to get a bailout.
- EvilHomer, on 12/04/2008, -0/+3You're burying the article because you disagree with the Justice Department's decision?
- YodaJones, on 12/04/2008, -1/+4Isn't it amazing how on top of things the justice Department is when it comes to something like this, but never seemed to catch that little thing going on with Wall Street and the American banking system?
- mousky, on 12/05/2008, -0/+3Really? Care to cite a source?
Explain the milk marketing board? Or the Canadian Wheat Board? - BrokenVisage, on 12/04/2008, -4/+7Still waiting for that Google-themed Monopoly game.
- mousky, on 12/05/2008, -0/+3Begs the question: exactly where is the misconduct or the conspiratorial conduct?
Funny how the DOJ thought that a Google-Yahoo would be 'bad' for the market, but has no problem with the various monopolies the telcos, cablecos and media companies have in some markets. - Ryanw430, on 12/04/2008, -1/+4I'm so sick of this governmental *****. The definition of "monopoly" is so subjective it's not even funny. How do you define market boundaries? XM/Sirius is an excellent example: it took the government forever to clear the merger and the two companies are still probably going under. Ok, so what if Google had a monopoly in search advertisement (they wouldn't control the entire internet by any means)--there would still be radio advertisement, print advertisement, television advertisement, sponsorships, billboards, direct mailings, etc., etc., etc. And would anyone really be bothered if advertisers had to pay more to bombard us with their nonsense?
If any monopoly needs to be shut down its the federal government in all its forms--the biggest monopoly of all. - CMuffa, on 12/04/2008, -0/+3Bravo sir. I agree. Why let XM/Sirius turn into a monopoly, but Google can't?...eventhough not really. WTF?
- themastersb, on 12/04/2008, -1/+3Microsoft has been charged about this a few times. I was expecting Google to be as well sometime.
- arunforce, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2Look up the Per Se rule, a company can be broken up for being a monopoly. The came from the Sherman Act:
Section 2 of the act forbade monopoly. In section 2 cases, the court has, again on its own initiative, drawn a distinction between coercive and innocent monopoly. The act is not meant to punish businesses that come to dominate their market passively or on their own merit, only those that intentionally dominate the market through misconduct, which generally consists of conspiratorial conduct of the kind forbidden by section 1 of the Sherman Act, or Section 3 of the Clayton Act.
Is this diggenomics again at work? What the hell do you think Google is trying to do, which almost caused an anti-trust issue? - ch40sBr1ng3r, on 12/04/2008, -2/+4I like Google.
- mousky, on 12/05/2008, -0/+2Complaint != Charged
- JasonCox, on 12/04/2008, -1/+3Too late.
- Ryanw430, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2well i mean, it's like I always say--Burger King has a monopoly on Whoppers. Should we regulate them too? The only remotely monopolistic industries today are probably oil and banking, and those were the original problems (robber barons) all of these anti-trust acts were supposedly trying to fix! The free market is the only mechanism that stops this corruption from completely running our existence--look at all of the foolish automakers going under right now because of all the enormously wasteful engines they've been building all these years...look at the bankers losing billions and billions of dollars as people begin stuffing their money under their mattress...oh...wait...the government is now going to help all the robber barons once again...
WTF indeed? Google just didn't want to cough up a check to Uncle Sam. - ZenFu, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2But Google's not a canadian company now is it?
-
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is