Slashdot Log In
Google Experiences EU Antitrust Friction Over Doubleclick
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Sep 23, 2007 06:31 AM
from the it's-tough-trying-to-take-over-the-world dept.
from the it's-tough-trying-to-take-over-the-world dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Here in the US, the Google purchase of Doubleclick is old news. Despite a few hiccups, the news of April and May seems well in the past. In the European Union, though, the discussion begins anew again as Google seeks permission from EU antitrust regulators. From the article: 'The European Commission said it had set a review deadline of October 26, when it could approve the deal, give a two-week extension or open an in-depth, four-month investigation ... The Commission has already sent questionnaires asking competitors and customers what they think about the deal. Google has already filed with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and with the Australian competition regulator.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Google buys DoubleClick for $3.1 Billion 351 comments
marvinalone writes "The New York Times reports that Google has purchased DoubleClick. That seems to be the conclusion to the speculation we've talked about earlier. From the article: 'Google reached an agreement today to acquire DoubleClick, the online advertising company, from two private equity firms for $3.1 billion in cash, the companies announced, an amount that was almost double the $1.65 billion in stock that Google paid for YouTube late last year.'"
[+]
Google's Stomach Pangs - Adjusting to DoubleClick 98 comments
An anonymous reader writes "C|Net is reporting on some trouble Google is having integrating DoubleClick into their family of products. External problems, like antitrust allegations and privacy concerns, are bad enough. The worst problems might come from within, though, as a division within DoubleClick was essentially created to game the very systems the Google search engine is founded on. '"Google is treading in dangerous waters right now," writes Ross Dunn of WebProNews.com. Google's search results "are supposed to be unbiased and highly relevant," but with Performics, "Google is put into the conflicted position of trying to generate profits by providing result-oriented organic ranking services for its own unbiased organic search results." The worry, in other words, is that Google's search results could be compromised by operating a division with an interest in skewing those results in favor of clients.' The article goes on to say how this Performics division is likely to be sold off to make sure everything stays above board."
[+]
Politics: FTC Investigating Google-DoubleClick Deal 81 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is covering FTC interest in Google's purchase of the DoubleClick service. The investigation is in response to privacy group concerns over the amount of information Google will have available to it via its ad service and DoubleClick. Between a few days and a week from now the FTC should either declare the all clear, or elevate the process to a 'second request' stage. That would indicate more serious issues the federal body has an interest in. Google stated it was confident the purchase would hold up under scrutiny. 'In the complaint, the groups noted that Google collects the search histories of its users, while DoubleClick tracks what Web sites people visit. The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world.'"
[+]
FTC Approves Google-DoubleClick Deal 56 comments
Bogie Lowenstein is one of many readers letting us know that the FTC has approved Google's acquisition of DoubleClick in a 4-to-1 vote. The FTC essentially blew off the privacy concerns about the merger, saying it lacked the legal authority to block the deal on any grounds except antitrust. The EU's review of the deal is still going forward, with a decision due by April 2, 2008; the privacy sensibility there is more sharply focused.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
How is it anti-competitive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How is it anti-competitive? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
misleading headline (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not friction unless the EU doesn't approve the deal on October 26. Until then, this is normal process. I would question who this "anonymous reader" who submitted the misleading headline is.
Re: (Score:2)
And the anonymous reader is most likely a M$ shill.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey!!! Where's my sensationalist headline? (Score:2)
Re:EU is right (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't Google who closed EU for Yahoo, and it isn't Google who set M$'s business plan.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The EU has never stated they have a problem with this purchase, they are only investigating as is their duty to keep business in it's jurisdiction fair.
Monopolies and similar have always hurt people.
In this particular case (t
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
(Well, anyway: the EU is helping startups here, by allowing fairer compe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Asking the competitors what they think.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft is still being investigated because they continue to spoil the playing field for others.
In Europe, just like the USofA, a company in a near-monopoly situation has greater obligations than a start up, Microsoft continues to challenge that notion.
Of course the EU commission could have picked better examples, like opening the specs to allow access to NTFS and supporting Samba.
The problem is they see these things as a legal challenge while I would like more technical issues like interoperability being discussed.
So charging the local/national VAT at the place of destination sounds, as far as any sales tax goes, really fair for all.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes - the EU fines lots of companies regardless of where they're based. Just because the DOJ has no bollocks, doesn'
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A European company? (Score:4, Informative)
Oh wait, what's that? they investigate Foreign and EU companies.. Oh
The US investigates US and foreign companies for this kind of behaviour too?
Oh and the commission is to ensure that *customers* don't get a poor deal? its not about promoting one company over another?
My god, how can we live with this horrible intrusion into the free market, which only effects all companies?
Wait a minute - how come you didn't complain when VW or SAS or Maersk Air, or Hoechst AG, or Peaugot were fined? See what a 2 minute web search can do? That's from a single page, all in one year, take a look at the EU website and see how many fines have been issued against EU and foreign companies. Whilst you are at it, take a look at how many companies have been investigated, because at the end of the day, all that is happening is that a deal that Google has put together that clearly *does* change the on-line advertising market, the EU wants to make sure that that change will not be detrimental to consumers. Hardly a protectionist and anti-American attack (OR should I say that it is not commercial-terrorism?). The EU *is* in part there to encourage and grow EU business, it is also there to protect its own internal market (see the tariffs and penalties imposed against foreign nations, in the same way as they are imposed on the EU), and if it didn't exist Google would be facing investigations not by one commission, but by the individual bodies of each of the current member states (I'm sure some are investigating anyway).
I'm sick and tired of US bashing in the EU and EU bashing from the US. Much of what is discussed in the media in terms of economics is nothing short of propaganda (Although I must say that the US is better at propaganda, or maybe European's are better at seeing through it), see what we have had recently with china, or the reaction in the UK to the US sub prime credit collapse.
If people could put aside their national bias for a day, we might be able to make this free-market globalisation thing work, but that is not likely, instead we will take taxpayers money and use it to prop up ailing businesses (as if they have a *right* to survive) or use it to prevent others from entering our markets. That's the US and Europe (and much of the rest of the world). Either practice capitalism, or scrap it and work out a way of organising an economy that benefits the citizens of the world rather than a few mega-corporations.
Bit of a rant, but come on, this is so far a non story, for the EU it is the sensible thing to do, it s not anti-American, it is ensuring that the consumer (thats me and you) get a good deal.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Schneider and Legrand. Schneider lost billions in this affair (If I remember well, they had to resell shares of something). But the EU court voted in favor of S
Re:EU is just taxing innovation that is not their (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)