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."
"Do No Evil" (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not the same... (Score:2, Funny)
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 reciproc
Its "don't be evil" (Score:2, Informative)
I call Bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I call Bullshit (Score:2)
Re:I call Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
However it appeared to everyone with eyes that this site was just a crappy linkfarm/google optimising pile of crap with no reasonable content of its own (it did however appear to use a derivative of slashcode for some of its pages).
Now they are crying that they were a search engine, they are just tosspots crying because google stopped their shit (it was all removed when google refreshed their rules about valid sites and removed thousands of crap from their results).
Google: a monopoly on 'G' letter search? (Score:2)
Actually, I don't think Google has reached the monopoly level yet, but it will be interesting to see if Slashdotters are consistent about their opinions when the monopoly isn't MS.
On the hand, just as MS could only qualify as a monopoly when the market in question was artifically restricted to desktop OS's, you could certainly make the case that Google has a monopoly on web se
Re:Google: a monopoly on 'G' letter search? (Score:2)
Re:Google: a monopoly on 'G' letter search? (Score:2)
Re:Google: a monopoly on 'G' letter search? (Score:2)
Originaly, the standard oil company said if you are going to sell this, you need to sell this too. At some times they said if your going to sell this, you cannot sell that. What ended up hapening is that everyone was using thie
Re:I call Bullshit (Score:2)
google [google.com], MSN [msn.co.in] & Yahoo [yahoo.com].
On both MSN & Yahoo, it's the first hit. One Google it's nowhere on Page1.
Pure Evil.
Re:I call Bullshit (Score:2)
Oh, please...
You have no metric on which to base such a claim, you're only saying it because you're a Google fan.
I suppose that the outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I suppose that the outcome (Score:3, Insightful)
What's funny is that this lawsuit might make their PageRank increase temporarily once again :)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I suppose that the outcome (Score:2)
Re:I suppose that the outcome (Score:2)
Re:I suppose that the outcome (Score:2)
Frankly, I had never heard of them before hand and generally dont go to a search engine to search for search engines. As a result of the press this will generate, more people will google "KinderStart" and thus increase both their traffic and google rank.
Kinda a sad abuse of the legal system, but in the end even if they lose they may win.
Re:I suppose that the outcome (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeesh... Google couldn't have shitcanned that
Re:I suppose that the outcome (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I suppose that the outcome (Score:2)
Not really
Google's Shelf Space = Safeway's Shelf Space (Score:5, Insightful)
In the market for online products and services, Google provides shelf space by returning links to the sellers (of such products and services) in the Google web page of search results. The analogy between shelf space at Google and shelf space at Safeway is quite strong, and anti-trust laws apply in both cases.
How does Kinderstart fit into this picture? Well, first, consider the case of shelf space at Safeway. Kroger is a direct competitor of Safeway. Both Safeway and Kroger produce their own in-house-branded versions of many foods. For example, Kroger sells Kroger-branded frozen vegetables, and Safeway also sells Safeway-branded frozen vegetables. Should Safeway be expected to give shelf space to Kroger-branded frozen vegetables? Can Kroger's president claim anti-trust violations if Safeway refuses shelf space to Kroger. The answer is "no". Kroger and Safeway are direct competitors, and Safeway cannot be expected to help a direct competitor.
As for Kinderstart, it is a direct competitor of Google. Google is a general search engine that handles all searches in the known universe. Kinderstart deals with only a subset (of that universe): search results dealing with only parenting. Since Google and Kinderstart are direct competitors, we cannot expect Google to help a direct competitor. Google's management is well within its right to even remove Kinderstart from all of Google's search results (i.e. Google's shelf space).
By the way, Google now owns more than 60% of the market for search queries, and Google's marketshare is growing. Google has now entered monopoly territory, and we must keep a watchful eye over Google. Google is fully capable of evil (like catering to Beijing in censoring search results). However, in this particular case involving Kinderstart, Google has not done any evil -- yet.
Re:Google's Shelf Space = Safeway's Shelf Space (Score:2)
All it takes is a single man in a black robe to rule that Google is a monopoly, and the rules for Google change. And that's exactly what this proposed antitrust suit seeks to do. If that happens then Google would indeed be forced to help its competitors (according t
Re:Google's Shelf Space = Safeway's Shelf Space (Score:2)
Help Googlebomb Kinderstart.... (Score:2, Troll)
Kinderstart is a miserable failure [kinderstart.com]!
(No, this is not karma whoring. Unless, of course, Taco added a new level above 'excellent'. Think what what would happen if we had a link like this to Kinderstart at the top of every
Meh, not improtant (Score:3, Insightful)
At the same time, I wouldn't consider Google stock a good bet. They make all their real money through advertising, of which some significant fraction is fraud. They are desperately groping around for some other way to make money, but none has shown up yet, despite their having snapped up every bright mind in the tech industry for the last couple years. Google knows as well as anybody that as soon as they start trying to make money by charging for all their free services, there will be an instant public relations backlash. There is nothing that the public hates more than having to pay for something that used to be free. When Google starts cashing in on everything they've built, they a) still won't make more money from it than from search, which is probably tapped out, and b) they will become more hated than AOL.
Re:Meh, not improtant (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Meh, not improtant (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't American Idol.
You'd be surprised how few people outside of the hothouse environment of Slashdot have a substantial emotional investment in Google.
Not that it matters much, really: Judges are appointed for life to insulate them from popular pressure.
Re:Meh, not improtant (Score:2, Insightful)
Too many people where? On Slashdot? Get around a bit more and you'll find Google holds no special place in the hearts and minds of those the slashdot elite would derisively term "Joe Sixpacks." And -- Gosh, I hope this is not a NewsFlash -- it's Joe and his friends, not the Digerati (and underage Digerati wannabes) who actually make things "go," including the justice system.
Of course, by the time that they "become more hated than AOL," they will have amassed a database of all
Re:Meh, not improtant (Score:2)
This idea that most software was "free as in beer" before the PC is a myth.
did google do this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:did google do this? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:did google do this? (Score:2)
Re:did google do this? (Score:2)
Re:Seems pretty suspicious to me (Score:2)
Sorry dude, but that's not the way it works. If no one links to you, you won't get on the first page. Simple as that.
well... (Score:2, Interesting)
Incompatible model (was:well...) (Score:2)
Re:Incompatible model (was:well...) (Score:2)
Re:well... (Score:2)
The problem is that Yahoo and MSN aren't monopolies, while Google might be (the court will decide this). Just as other OSes can bundle all sorts of software without anyone batting an eye, everyone throws a hissy fit if Microsoft bundles anything. Arguably, Microsoft should be able to bundle just as much as other OSes, but since they have a monopoly in that market, they can't. Similarly, one could argue, as you hav
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 altern
Re:Kinderstart (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Kinderstart (Score:1)
That has to be a bug. No one sane would code on purpose an URL like those. (/.'s junk character detector won't event let me quote those -/-/-...)
Re:Kinderstart (Score:3, Insightful)
This is only mostly true. If google is using their market dominance of the search engine market in an attempt to surpress the rise of any other search engine, then they are doing something wrong. And if they actually have over 80% of the search engine market, it is likely even illegal. Us
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:Kinderstart (Score:1)
You aren't disagreeing with me, and I think you're perfectly correct and have an excellent point. So, why is the tone of your message adversarial?
Re:Kinderstart (Score:2)
Re:Kinderstart (Score:2)
Re:Kinderstart (Score:2)
Fucking sour grapes losers. I wish you could bitch slap companies that
Which just goes to show... (Score:1, Funny)
and you're not a true monopoly unless you get them big Euro fines.
Today's post was broght to you by the captchka 'losses'
Antitrust, antischmust (Score:5, Insightful)
What's next, forcing Wendy's and Burger King to put McDonald's advertising placards in their restaurants?
Re:Antitrust, antischmust (Score:4, Insightful)
No, forcing Microsoft to make it easy to install a competitors' browser and remove their own. Oh wait...
Re:Antitrust, antischmust (Score:2, Insightful)
Search google for 'kids'.
Hey, look, they do have competitor ads, right there. For free, no less! ;)
It's just this one guy's crappy directory they don't have.
This stinks! (Score:1)
Re:This stinks! (Score:1)
Show me transcripts of the criminal trial, please.
That's just absurd (Score:2)
Supression? (Score:5, Informative)
If Google suppressed other search engines, they might have a point. But Google aren't suppressing other search engines, they simply aren't choosing to promote this particular one. The website still exists.
To use an analogy that people might be more familiar with, this isn't like when Netscape complained Microsoft included Internet Explorer with Windows, this would be like if Netscape demanded that Microsoft included Netscape Navigator with Windows.
And the whole idea that Google are doing this purposefully to kill other search engines is ludicrous, given that Google list plenty of real competitors when you search for "search engine". But somehow this tiny search engine nobody has heard of is worse competition than MSN, etc?
They actually claim that their First Amendment rights are being infringed. For those of you completely unfamiliar with the USA constitution, as their attorney apparently is, the First Amendment says:
Last time I checked, Google not including KinderStart in their index is substantially different from Congress making a law.
Remember: freedom of speech is not the freedom to force your speech on others.
KinderStart are either kooks or publicity-whoring barratry artists, the SCO of search engines.
It's a ridiculous understanding of suppression (Score:2)
The first twenty pages of results at every search engines must be full merely of links to other search engines, since to drop them in the rankings is anticompetitive business practice. It would render s
History (Score:2)
Re:Supression? (Score:2)
One of the strengths of Google is tha
Re:Supression? (Score:2)
Um, Netscape and the DOJ *did* demand that Microsoft bundle Netscape Navigator with Windows. Just before the DOJ filed their case, Microsoft and the DOJ were in last-ditch talks to come to a settlement to avoid the trial altogether, and Microsoft basically gave
Hopelessly Lost (Score:5, Funny)
Stupid lawsuit (Score:2)
This is totally stupid. First, Google is not required to list any website, especially not those of competitors. That would be like suing the yellow pages company for not including a (free!) listing for a competitor's directory. (At least in MA, there are multiple companies selling directories. The phone companies distribute them for free, and then another company, Yellow Book, has started giving them out.) Second, this isn't free speech. Google is free to quash any company it feels like. The Webmaste
Can somone explain? (Score:2)
I wouldn't see any problem with google removing this site from their database and giving them NO ranking.
Re:Can somone explain? (Score:2)
We don't *know* whether Google is a "monopoly" as might be defined by the judge. The antitrust trial's Findings of Fact would determine such. Microsoft wasn't an official monopoly until they were declared such in the middle of the trial in which they were tried for monopolistic abuses (one reason wh
Re:Can somone explain? (Score:2)
No but anyone with a feel for the online advertising market is aware of whether or not an entity holds a monopoly in that market or is merely popular. Judges make bad decisions all the time but google is clearly not a monopoly in truth (ignoring for a moment the idiots who believe that court decisions define the truth).
Microsoft clearly is a market monopoly that desperately needs to be broken, even if the failed US legal syste
Web directory (Score:5, Insightful)
As the old saying goes... (Score:1)
Wait, I think we skipped a step or two.
Bout time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bout time! (Score:2)
On a more serious note, if Google does not solve the link farm problem soon, like before vista and MS IE 7 are desployed with special 'features' meant to break go
Lets keep in mind (Score:1)
Also - as other
I just see no merit her
Would TV be a precedent? (Score:2)
Kinderstart, where is my link? (Score:2)
I don't have a problem with Google, but...anyone know a good lawyer? I have this new girlfriend who is teaching me the meaning of "high maintenance", and I figure Kinderstart may be good for a few bucks.
Will be thrown out. Just filler for a slow news (Score:2)
Nothing but soccer going on today.
since .... (Score:2)
Whats next? Have me sue you because you are not making me money? Is google even costing them money at all? They had free advertising for awhile from a competitor of all places!
So by chance Kinder just happened to be highly rated in Google(a competitor I may add), and all of the sudden they are not advertised as much when tweaking some algorithm. Kinder cries boo hoo! Why should Google go out of their way to help a competitor?
What p
Re:since .... (Score:2)
All I know is.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My playground, my rules (Score:2)
As for the anti-trust thing, I don't think that sticks, either. This isn't Microsoft telling stores they'll lose product if they stock non-MS stuff. Google isn'
kinderstart needs to stfu (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:kinderstart needs to stfu (Score:2)
site:kinderstart.com
Click on some of the page 1 hits. Yep, 404 pages, and the pages which DO exist, there is nothing but hyperlinks.
Next, read Google's site submission guidelines.
There is NO reason that site should be listed at all, let alone actually achieve good SERPS.
This suit is unfounded (Score:2)
Kill the legal system please (Score:2, Interesting)
Searching for "Search Engine" on Google Refutes... (Score:2, Informative)
I think that the antitrust argument can be easily refuted by searching for "search engine" on Google. If Google were really manipulating the results (and maybe even if it weren't), you'd expect "Google" to be the first result returned.
But it's not.
In fact, the first three are: Dogpile, AltaVista, and MetaCrawler. The next 10 are: Google UK, Google, MSN, Yahoo, Netscape, HotBot, FreeFind, Lycos, Mamma, and Vivisimo.
So, if they were manipulating results, wouldn't that be an obvious place to start?
Let's see what happens when we search for... (Score:2, Insightful)
For some reason I don't see a monopolistic company allowing themselves to drop down to 4th or 5th in their own results.
Anyone care to guess who the top result in Yahoo and MSN are?
how not to get devalued at google ranking (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Uh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uh. (Score:2)
Theses pages would have ads or direct you to sites for purchasing the item. In addition theses search engines would purchase alot of generic domainnames that redirected you to the exact same page.
In a way they were not really that good of search engines since if you did enter anything to search they just had a few
Re:Uh. (Score:2)
Re:Uh. (Score:1)
But they aren't looking for 'a' search engine, they're looking for 'google'.
If someone types in 'kinderstart', this search engine is currently five in the ranking. The first one is a nursery in the UK called 'Kinderstart', the second is the California Department of Education program called 'Kinderstart', and the third and fourth are discussions about this case, so presumably wouldn't have been there before this case.
I.e, if you were looking for 'the kinderstart search engine', you could trivially find it
Re:Uh. (Score:2)
Re:Uh. (Score:2)
Google does a lot, but it doesn't do everything. Business to business stuff especially, not to mention that a large portion of the internet is in the form of databases that Google barely spiders.
Re:Uh. (Score:2)
Re:Uh. (Score:2)
Re:Uh. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How is there a case? (Score:1)
Google is arguing that pagerank is subjective, not objective. Google is arguing that it is not an automatic formula, and that their employees regularly rate sites, and that's their business if they want to do it that way.
The other side is arguing that Google lies to people and says their ranking is automated and unbiased, but in reality, there are humans diddling the ranks of some sites.
Re:How is there a case? (Score:1)
We've already got past that stage. They have the right to make their argument (and then probably lose), but they do have a case.
Re:How is there a case? (Score:2)
IF ([advertiser class] = search engine provider)
THEN decrement ([pagerank])
Re:Google's lawyer, and the obvious (Score:2)
That's true, until the day comes when a judge rules in an antitrust case that Google has a monopoly on web searches.
And even if that doesn't happen, why would slashdotters, of all people, support Google rigging its search results? I'm not saying Google is doing that or not, but your statement above suggests that you'd have no problem with it. Surprising for a slashdotter, and I doubt you'd feel the same way if we weren't