Comment Re:Give me a break (Score 2, Interesting) 427
Now first of all I would like to preface this by saying that I basically agree with you. Google should not be forced to recommend certain sites if it chooses not to, and indeed if it was Google would become useless.
However, I find it ironic that when Google is involved, Slashdotters seem to subscribe to the "private companies should be allowed to do as they please" ideology, but when say Microsoft is involved, Slashdotters everywhere scream "MONOPOLY! DOWN WITH CORPORATE AMERICA!" and the like. Microsoft CANNOT legally break compatibility with competing software vendors' products, for example making Firefox not work on Windows because it competes with Internet Explorer, or making OpenOffice not work because it competes with MS Office. This is ILLEGAL and the fact that it is illegal is a good thing, I think we all agree.
Likewise, IF Google is determined to have a monopoly on the search engine market, some restrictions should be placed on how they index pages on their site. Now some will say that "no one is forcing you to use Google" but likewise no one is forcing you to use MS products. However, 95% of people do whether or not they are forced and Google can have a monopoly even though other search engines exist. For example, if Google suddenly decided to require companies pay for their page ranking, many lawsuits would follow, justifiable lawsuits, in my opinion.
All I'm saying is that private companies CANNOT do whatever they want just because they are private. There are some restrictions. I will admit that this is a losing if not a frivolous lawsuit, but simply because it is Google instead of MS does not make the suit evil.
However, I find it ironic that when Google is involved, Slashdotters seem to subscribe to the "private companies should be allowed to do as they please" ideology, but when say Microsoft is involved, Slashdotters everywhere scream "MONOPOLY! DOWN WITH CORPORATE AMERICA!" and the like. Microsoft CANNOT legally break compatibility with competing software vendors' products, for example making Firefox not work on Windows because it competes with Internet Explorer, or making OpenOffice not work because it competes with MS Office. This is ILLEGAL and the fact that it is illegal is a good thing, I think we all agree.
Likewise, IF Google is determined to have a monopoly on the search engine market, some restrictions should be placed on how they index pages on their site. Now some will say that "no one is forcing you to use Google" but likewise no one is forcing you to use MS products. However, 95% of people do whether or not they are forced and Google can have a monopoly even though other search engines exist. For example, if Google suddenly decided to require companies pay for their page ranking, many lawsuits would follow, justifiable lawsuits, in my opinion.
All I'm saying is that private companies CANNOT do whatever they want just because they are private. There are some restrictions. I will admit that this is a losing if not a frivolous lawsuit, but simply because it is Google instead of MS does not make the suit evil.
