Skip navigation

Sure it’s big. But is that bad? This story is about a new anti-trust suit being filed against Google, inc. The story gives a good, balanced view of the issue, pointing out that Google’s ability to dominate the search engine market may be because they are good at what they do.

Google executives acknowledge the scrutiny. “We’re getting larger, and we have been very disruptive within some industries,” says Alan Davidson, head of United States public policy at Google. “We know we have a giant bull’s-eye on our backs.”

IN Washington, there is significant disagreement over the proper scope of competition regulation and what the future should hold for Google — and both sides have big financial stakes.

On one side are companies like AT&T and Microsoft, which vociferously lobby against Google in the policy arena.

AT&T is Google’s staunchest foe in the battle over “net neutrality,” a term used by Google and others who fear that telecommunications providers might throttle bandwidth for certain Internet services, discouraging innovation. Microsoft provides e-mail and other services in competition with Google and has a rival search engine, Bing, which controls 11.8 percent of the market in the United States. (Google has 64.4 percent, and Yahoo 17.7 percent, according to comScore.)

Of course, the real reason for anti-trust is to encourage competitive practice in markets where lower prices will encourage more efficient production levels. It seems here that, with 64% of the market, Google might be vulnerable to more aggressive services from other firms, but they don’t seem able to do that.

On the other hand, if Google is using their power to undermine the efforts of other firms, they might face fines or restrictions on their activities.

Their goal was to air the Foundem couple’s complaint that in 2006, Google’s supposedly objective algorithms suddenly dropped Foundem into the netherworld of Google search results. They say Google also raised the rates Foundem had to pay to advertise alongside search results. These moves, the couple say, pushed their comparison shopping site out of view, and Google later put the spotlight on its own shopping listings.


One Comment

  1. Personally I believe that anti-trust for google is reasonable and necessary.
    First of all, if one company dominates the market, there’s no incentives for other companies to make progress. With the high-rate update of the information, a single company cannot follow this step. The consequence will be that search engines in a society become less widespread.
    What is more, as the company which dominates the market gradually grows, other companies are likely to shrink. This will be followed by subsequent disappearances of search engine companies and hence lead to unemployment.
    In conclusion, anti-trust for google seems to be significant for the society, based on the consideration of competition and unemployment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: