decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Monopolies are not illegal nor necessarily wrong | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Monopolies are not illegal nor necessarily wrong
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT
In other words, let's redefine monopoly away from "has a large market
share" to "has the ability to indulge in price-fixing".

Which, as I keep saying, is why the UK Monopolies and Mergers Commission take a
keen interest in anyone with a market share over 20% ...

And which is why Google does NOT have a monopoly in that sense - as has much
been pointed out, the competition is a mouse-click away. Advertisers pay Google
because ads work. If Google upset the searchers, then the ads quickly become
worthless. And Google are treading a fine line here - if they kow-tow to the
advertisers they will *rapidly* drive the searchers away - after all that's how
they attracted the searchers in the first place - they treated the *adverts* as
second-class citizens. The adverts need to know their place!

And actually, I *very* *rarely* search for something I want to buy on Google -
when I do I find the results are normally so badly poisoned by advert
aggregators as to be pretty useless! So I go direct to Amazon, or Play, or other
sites I know that are *real* *shops*. And when I do have to hunt for a product
on Google, I find it a real hassle. Come on - "Buy Evelyn Glenny on
Ebay"! -are Ebay into slavery?!?! Yet that's what I sometimes see in the
Google search results!

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )