Google Antitrust Suit May Go Forward 151
TechForensics writes "KinderStart, whose page hits and AdSense revenue dropped sharply after changes by Google demoted its appearance in search results, brought suit claiming the search engine effectively suppressed its first amendment rights by lowering the site's visibility. While the Court rejected that argument out-of-hand, it appeared more amenable to KinderStart's argument that since it was a search page, Google's suppression of a rival search engine is prohibited by antitrust laws. The suit may go forward with the judge's commentary."
well... (Score:2, Interesting)
Kinderstart (Score:4, Interesting)
And never mind that Google, being a private enterprise, can present its results any way it wants (assuming that the claims are accurate), so that there's no grounds for a lawsuit. This whole incident smells frivolous.
Re:Kinderstart (Score:2, Interesting)
One thing should get this thrown out of court. Tada [google.com]. Google UK is fourth, after frickin Altavista of all places, and real Google is fifth. Then MSN Search and Yahoo.
If Google were going to, nonsensically, manipulate the search rankings for itself, surely it would not have actual competitors, not little guys that no one has heard off, on its first result page. (In fact, putting little guys up there would be the best bet. Put up the crappiest engines no one's ever heard of when people people look for alternatives, and no one will leave.)
Re:I suppose that the outcome (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeesh... Google couldn't have shitcanned that site quickly enough.
Re:Kinderstart (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that Kinderstart and Google are not in the same market. Kinderstart is, despite them trying to confuse the issue, a directory, not a search engine. What's more, they are a very focused directory. There is no way in hell they can even vaguely compete with Google.
And here's a fun link. Search Google for 'kids'. What's the topmost result? Yahoo!'s Web Guide for kids.
Oh, yeah, Google's really trying to corner that market. They not only don't even have a directory for children, but point people looking for one of those at a very big competitor to their actual business, general search.
That's like, the exact opposite of abusing your monopoly position. Someone comes into a hamburger place (google) and wants some ice cream (Kid friendly stuff), and you don't have any, you direct them to a directly competing hamburger place (yahoo) that has ice cream (Their kid directory), instead of just an ice cream place (kinderstart), in the hopes they'll come back to you for the hamburgers.
Re:Uh. (Score:2, Interesting)
A stupid conversation I'd like to see (Score:3, Interesting)
"What? No. Fuck off".
"But, we have a link to yours!"
"Huh? Ok. Fuck off".
"Maybe we'll take out all references to Paypal if you won't reciprocate"
"We'll sue. Fuck off".
"So, that's a no?"
Once you let judges have a say in how and what Google has in it's index you open a real can of worms and how hard would it be for some very good attorney and some very bad judge to decide that indeed the nature of the web is cooperation and reciprocal links and Google should have a link to it from paypal OR the Goog gets to take out Paypal if they won't reciprocate.
Stupidist lawsuit. Ever.
Kill the legal system please (Score:2, Interesting)