Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Negotiating With Justice Department

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the they-should-hire-shatner dept.

Google 83

mikesd81 writes "Cnet reports that to avoid being sued by the US Justice Department, Google is negotiating with them. The Justice Department and a multistate task force are still reviewing the proposal to decide whether to oppose the partnership. Under the non-exclusive partnership Google would supply Yahoo with some search ads, a move that could increase Yahoo search revenue, but that also gives Google even more power in the market. Yahoo expects the 10-year deal to raise revenue by $800 million in its first year and to provide an extra $250 million to $450 million in incremental operating cash flow. Google's share of the US search market reached 71 percent in August, compared with Yahoo's 18.26, according to Hitwise's most recent numbers."

cancel ×

83 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

HI EVERONE! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25381297)

That is all

I fail to see the problem... (4, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381349)

to avoid being sued by the U.S. Justice Department, Google is negotiating with them

Okay, Google has 71% of the search engine market... Which itself makes up what, less than 5% of the total world of advertising?

Oh, boo-hoo, Google can actually tell you how much you have to pay to share their sandbox. Sorry advertisers, but we don't want your "product" in the first place. Go bitch to someone who carres.

And, advertisers-of-the-world (and other search engines), do you know why Google has 71% of the search engine market? Because Google doesn't piss us off with banners and flash ads and hiding sponsored links as results. Get the hint?

Re:I fail to see the problem... (5, Insightful)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381399)

And, advertisers-of-the-world (and other search engines), do you know why Google has 71% of the search engine market? Because Google doesn't piss us off with banners and flash ads and hiding sponsored links as results. Get the hint?

They also provide us with ads that are relevant to the content of the page, rather then something arbitrary.

Re:I fail to see the problem... (4, Funny)

PJ The Womble (963477) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381823)

Rather quaintly, when I'm cleaning spam out of my GMail account, it shows me a context-based ad for "Spam Casserole Recipe".

Re:I fail to see the problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25387085)

Those are on-purpose half-jokes. News links are what's normally there, with occasional contextual ad links. The spam recipes replace the news links when you're looking at your spam box.

Re:I fail to see the problem... (1)

Xarius (691264) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388907)

All the headlined items in the spam box on gmail show a different spam recipe link, my current one is for french fry spam casserole :D

Re:I fail to see the problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25392861)

They also provide us with ads that are relevant to the content of the page, rather then something arbitrary.

Search for "Herpes" on yahoo:

"Buy HERPES on Amazon.com!!"

Re:I fail to see the problem... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25381453)

This isn't about advertisers being unhappy, it's about the government being unhappy about monopoly power: Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]

Er... did you read your linked article? (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 5 years ago | (#25382501)

Please inform us as to what part of competition law Google is breaching?

People who post ads on Google are free to post ads with other engines. People who host Google ads are totally free to host ads form other engines as well. Google does not and never has enforced any kind of non-compete clauses to participate in Adwords in any way.

Re:Er... did you read your linked article? (2, Informative)

AlecC (512609) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384073)

Nonetheless, anti-trust law says that someone who already has a large fraction of a market is not allowed to takeover another significant competitor. The principle is that a monopolist can crush competitors by sheer power: while you *can* go to other ad suppliers, if Google has a huge slice of the market, all the advertisers will go to Google and alternatives won't have the ads to place if web-site owners want them.

Re:I fail to see the problem... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25383635)

This isn't about advertisers being unhappy, it's about the government being unhappy about monopoly power: Wikipedia article

But they ignore Vista being bundled. Something in this stinks of politics that has nothing to do with consumer benefit..

Re:I fail to see the problem... (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381469)

I am sure that people thought along similar lines when Windows was up and coming too...

Allowing any one company to dominate is not necessarily a good idea. Especially one who goes out of its way to tell us how nice they are, provided you live in a country they don't fear.

Besides, banner ads and the like are just noise to many and totally ignored - if not blocked by the likes of us

Re:I fail to see the problem... (3, Insightful)

sackeri (704269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381851)

Who is the government protecting in this case exactly? If you believe the Justice Department is involved due to benevolence instead of at the request of another corporation with a larger lobbying group, you are seriously being naive.

The government is intervening on behalf of microsoft for "the good of the people", no doubt about it.

Re:I fail to see the problem... (4, Interesting)

Jeff Hornby (211519) | more than 5 years ago | (#25382011)

Just like they sued Microsoft on behalf of Sun "for the good of the people".

The justice department doesn't go out and look for these cases. They only get involved after intense lobbying. And given the Google has a monopoly on search (71% sounds low unless they're including sites that index themselves instead of using an outside service) I would say that the Justice department should be keeping an eye on them.

Not to mention that Google is looking more and more evil despite their cute slogan. They bought DoubleClick. Does anybody think that they did that because they couldn't reporduce DoubleClick's technology? They wanted the DoubleClick databases going back to the early days of the internet. Combine that historical data with all of the data they have about you (almost every search you've ever made, the contents of your mail if you use GMail, the contents of your documents if you use Google Docs, information about your videos if you post them to YouTube, what news you read if you get it from Google News, where you like to go if you use Google Maps, etc.) The information that Google knows about an individual is staggering. It makes the CIA look like a bunch of amateurs.

But then, Slashdot likes Google.

Re:I fail to see the problem... (2, Informative)

sackeri (704269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25382969)

The Justice Dept went after Microsoft while under a different administration. When Bush came to power, the whole Microsoft anti-trust case pretty much ran out of gas.

Google's goal as a company is to index the world's information. I don't see how buying a competitor for their data is evil. They used no government coercion to do so. They played by market rules and bought them in a mutually cooperative deal. How is it any worse if Doubleclick has the data, or Google does?

If you don't like google, no one's forcing you to use their services.

The CIA? Are you serious?

Re:I fail to see the problem... (1)

Jeff Hornby (211519) | more than 5 years ago | (#25385059)

Google's stated goal is to index the world's data. But there's no profit in that. The real profit is from advertising. The best advertising is targetted. The best targetted advertising comes from knowing as much about the customer as possible. If you look at all of Google's offerings, all of them are about gathering information about you. Notice that Google hasn't entered the gaming market, they haven't entered the development tools environment, they don't have a database offering or an e-mail server (one that you can host yourself). Google is all about gathering as much information about you that they possibly can.

But then, Slashdot welcomes its new Google overlords.

Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25383869)

Companies from many, many different markets fell to the behemoth that was Microsoft because of it's abusive monopoly.

Sun wasn't the only one.

Re:Fail (1)

Jeff Hornby (211519) | more than 5 years ago | (#25385719)

Sun's drop from the playing field had nothing to do with Microsoft's monopoly. Microsoft was accused of forcing companies like Dell to install only Windows on the machines they sold. Sun sold it's own servers and didn't realize that the market was shifting away from high prices for perceived high value to more of a commodity pricing model. They lost market share to Microsoft for sound economic reasons that had nothing to do with Microsoft's monopoly. It was just that Microsoft Windows on an Intel box would do the job for less than half the price of the equivalent Sun server.

Re:I fail to see the problem... (1)

AlecC (512609) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384123)

Who is the government protecting in this case exactly? government is intervening on behalf of microsoft for "the good of the people", no doubt about it.

Advertisers. If Google is the only source of ads for all the websites in the world, advertisers have to go through Google and pay any price they ask. You need competition in the channels for advertising so that I have more than one place to go to advertise my Viagra.

Re:I fail to see the problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25385241)

And how is this any different from Netscape and Sun doing the same thing last decade? Microsoft is just playing ball - it didnt ask nor ever wanted to be in this silly game.

Re:I fail to see the problem... (5, Interesting)

aredubya74 (266988) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381471)

I'm generally wary of monopoly behaviors, but so far, I see nothing monopolistic here. Now, if Google/Yahoo require advertisers who want to run ads on their sites and ad networks to only run on them and nobody else, that's a monopoly practice. It would be equally monpolistic if Google/Yahoo said to a site that wanted to join their ad network "Sure, but you have to sign this agreement that says only Google/Yahoo-networked ads can run on my site". I don't see any such direct allegations though. What am I missing?

Re:I fail to see the problem... (1)

gnud (934243) | more than 5 years ago | (#25526803)

I'm not sure you're missing anything -- but that's beside the point. What the russian regulators are saying, is "you already own x% of online russian advertising. Y% is too much - that would make you a monopoly. You can't buy company Z."

Re:I fail to see the problem... (2, Interesting)

GargamelSpaceman (992546) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381969)

Yes, not doing sleazy stuff to the search results certainly helps them dominate search, but I wonder it it is really Page Rank and their patent on it that is to blame for their dominance.

Maybe indexing the web as well as google without infringing on the page rank patent is impossible.

Maybe it is possible to be almost as good as google, but the fact that google doesn't actively try to drive it's users away means that there is as yet no compelling reason for users to switch from google.

It will be very interesting to see what happens when the pagerank patent expires.

Re:I fail to see the problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25382103)

Um... take a look at the source code for Slashdot.org. See this part above the huge Flash banner ad?

<!-- DoubleClick Ad Tag -->

Who owns DoubleClick I wonder... oh, yeah, Google does [google.com] .

Re:I fail to see the problem... (2, Insightful)

deadcellplus (952706) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383203)

Sorry advertisers, but we don't want your "product" in the first place. Go bitch to someone who carres.

Not to troll, but I know plenty of people who have found something they wanted because of advertisements. The issue isn't with advertising its with marketing.

Re:I fail to see the problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25383349)

>> Google doesn't piss us off with banners and flash ads

Check the source code for Slashdot.org and note the part above the animated Flash banner ads that says "DoubleClick". Who owns DoubleClick? That's right: Google.

Re:I fail to see the problem... (1)

bishiraver (707931) | more than 5 years ago | (#25387383)

While they have a large percentage of the market, this move is actually bolstering their competition by preventing the bottom from falling out of their business. Google knows that competition is what keeps markets strong.

Google's competitors (5, Insightful)

homer_s (799572) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381357)

Why are Google's competitors opposing the deal?

If conventional wisdom about such big mergers - that they will 'corner' the market and increase prices - is correct, then shouldn't the competitors be happy that their competitor will raise prices and hence drive customers to them?

The obvious conclusion, supported by lots of data for those inclined to look, is that big mergers always increase efficiency and hence reduce prices for the consumer. It is precisely that outcome that terrifies competitors and forces them to rush to government and feign a concern for the well-being of the consumer.

But why should the new megacorp reduce prices if they have no competitors, you ask? This is only possible if you think that the only competitor to, for example an airline, is another airline. That is false. The airlines compete with cars, trains, USPS, the telephone and lately, in my case, with web-conferencing.

So it is with *all* other industries.

Re:Google's competitors (0)

speroni (1258316) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381427)

You missed a step. The one where Google corners the market, lowers their price and drives all competitors out of business. Then when they have 100% market share they can name any price they want and drastically reduce efficiency.

Once one company has a certain market share its not really competition anymore, its a monopoly. Is Microsoft's near monopoly causing them to be a terrifically efficient company?

Re:Google's competitors (1)

homer_s (799572) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381691)

You missed a step. The one where Google corners the market, lowers their price and drives all competitors out of business. Then when they have 100% market share they can name any price they want and drastically reduce efficiency.

I think you did not read the latter half of my comment. The one where I explain that a product has more competition that you think.
Even without that, when the monopoly increases prices, it will attract new investment to take advantage of the high profits. And not even a company of Google's size can afford to take losses year after year to drive any new competition away.

Once one company has a certain market share its not really competition anymore, its a monopoly. Is Microsoft's near monopoly causing them to be a terrifically efficient company?

How much did an operating system (that you could install on commodity hardware) cost before MS came along?

Re:Google's competitors (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#25382401)

How much did an operating system (that you could install on commodity hardware) cost before MS came along?

$70 [commodore.ca]

Re:Google's competitors (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25386809)

Adjusted for inflation between the years that the Commodore 64 was produced, that would be between $96.75 and $148.55 today.

Re:Google's competitors (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#25390459)

Compared to $130 to $320 (or whatever it is now) for Vista.

Re:Google's competitors (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25390865)

True, but an OS does much more than it used to.

Re:Google's competitors (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#25391129)

Yep, some of which is what I want it to do.

Re:Google's competitors (2, Insightful)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381477)

But in addition to your point - this is the internet!!! It costs $10 to get a domain name, $400 a month for dedicated hosting (or less), and a couple of smart guys can create the website/search engine.

There is nothing stopping anyone on this site, or anywhere else in the world from directly challenging Google tomorrow. You just can't suck at it *cough*Cuil*cough* - because Google doesn't. This is one case where there seems to be a conclusively better product and, surprise, most people use it!

Re:Google's competitors (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25381557)

But in addition to your point - this is the internet!!! It costs $10 to get a domain name, $400 a month for dedicated hosting (or less), and a couple of smart guys can create the website/search engine.

This is so true. I really don't get why all serious Search competitors, including Google, invest millions and millions and millions of dollars in distributed server farms, r&d etc. when you can easily beat them from your dorm with a godaddy domain and some brains.

Re:Google's competitors (1)

SenseiLeNoir (699164) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383405)

I know you said it as a joke, but didn't Google itself start from a garage?

Re:Google's competitors (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384527)

That's a good point, but the times and scales were somewhat different. I'm not sure that argument still applies.

Re:Google's competitors (1)

SenseiLeNoir (699164) | more than 5 years ago | (#25413035)

i am not sure, Google was founded by two very smart founders, who hired the right CEO for the job (Eric Schmitt, a good techie, who also grokked business).

Google didnt cast smoke and mirrors (cuil bring an example) which fell over.

I switched to google from altavista all those years ago, because it was fast, clean, and WORKED.

today, tis still the same story, its fast, clean and works.

Re:Google's competitors (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383165)

That's a ridiculous argument. Are you seriously suggesting that a completely new search engine could burst into an established market, challenge the entrenched incumbents, and grab massive marketshare simply by giving users what they want? That's inconceivable [google.com] .

Re:Google's competitors (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25386915)

I check in on Cuil now and then, and the relevance of their search results has improved dramatically.
I still hate their layout, though.

Re:Google's competitors (1)

bfremon (1128877) | more than 5 years ago | (#25387933)

400$/month is expensive: I got a 2Ghz server with 160 Gb, 1Gb RAM with unlimited bandwidth, and total control for less than 40 euros in France: http://www.dedibox.fr/ [dedibox.fr] I'm sure there are alternatives elsewhere...

Re:Google's competitors (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25381489)

The obvious conclusion, supported by lots of data for those inclined to look, is that big mergers always increase efficiency and hence reduce prices for the consumer.

As someone who has worked in server provision for telcos and spent a lot of time around the baby Bells and DECHPaq, all I can say is hahahahahahahahahahahah (because otherwise I would cry).

Hint: the pissant business class you did at uni gives you performance metrics that have no real bearing on consumer satisfaction.

Re:Google's competitors (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381785)

The obvious conclusion, supported by lots of data for those inclined to look, is that big mergers always increase efficiency and hence reduce prices for the consumer.

As someone who has worked in server provision for telcos and spent a lot of time around the baby Bells and DECHPaq, all I can say is hahahahahahahahahahahah...

In this case though, the relation to that example is a non-sequitur.

There is a huge difference between monopolies in the gas/utility market and others, because the the ability of average citizen to regulate the demand is much less. The average person drivers to work and has a phone (land or cell) and would require drastic changes to not have to have either.
In contrast, the ability to cut google out of my life tomorrow would be like a new years resolution to not eat red meat: I could just stop, I'ld find another way. Consider that you don't need to search to browse to a web address you want.
And for the advertisers themselves, even if google has 100% of the search market, there are always other places to advertise on and off the web.

An ISP monopoly on the other hand...

Re:Google's competitors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25381583)

Why are Google's competitors opposing the deal?

First of all, it is not Google's competitors which are opposing the deal, but rather that the government is opposing the deal because it fears this will allow Google to become too big a company and take monopoly power.

If conventional wisdom about such big mergers - that they will 'corner' the market and increase prices - is correct, then shouldn't the competitors be happy that their competitor will raise prices and hence drive customers to them?

The concept behind opposition to big mergers is that there is no or almost no competition if big companies merge. Therefore, even if the newly created company which is created increases prices, there will be no competition which other people can go to.

The obvious conclusion, supported by lots of data for those inclined to look, is that big mergers always increase efficiency and hence reduce prices for the consumer. It is precisely that outcome that terrifies competitors and forces them to rush to government and feign a concern for the well-being of the consumer.

Big mergers usually do increase efficiency due to economies of scale, but this does not necessarily mean that prices for consumers decrease. It just means that the cost for the company decreases. Since there is no competition to a monopoly anyway, they can jack up prices and increase profits even further.

But why should the new megacorp reduce prices if they have no competitors, you ask?
This is only possible if you think that the only competitor to, for example an airline, is another airline. That is false. The airlines compete with cars, trains, USPS, the telephone and lately, in my case, with web-conferencing.

So it is with *all* other industries.

You compare airlines to cars, trains, USPS, telephone and web conferencing. This is an interesting point and it is true that there are alternative ways to achieve the same thing, but most people who travel by airline have a valid reason for it and do not want to use other methods, for example if they want to fly halfway across the world (I don't think there is any car or train which can do that) and want to meet in person, or the other person doesn't have any access to a telephone or a computer with internet access (believe me, there are still people like that).

Re:Google's competitors (1)

speroni (1258316) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381709)

I'd love to teleconference holiday dinners.

Re:Google's competitors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25383435)

It isn't the competitors in opposition as it is their existing advertisers... they are in a precarious position where they already have all of their eggs in the Google basket and they don't want to risk being even more dependent on Google for site traffic.

Re:Google's competitors (1)

Mr.Ned (79679) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383499)

"The obvious conclusion, supported by lots of data for those inclined to look, is that big mergers always increase efficiency and hence reduce prices for the consumer."

Counterpoint: cell phone carriers and text messages.

#1 share in online advertising (5, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381359)

Is that really something that needs to be regulated?

Re:#1 share in online advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25381445)

Is that really something that needs to be regulated?

well.. the advertising market is several times the size of the software market.. allthough not online yet but that is just a matter of time. We might care more about software than advertising, others might not.

Christ almighty.. (1)

xant (99438) | more than 5 years ago | (#25386395)

DJI [google.com]

Is now really a good time to quibble about regulating giant, economy-controlling companies? Yes, regulate those bitches. Small businesses need to advertise, if one company controls the only means to do so on the Internet, they can set the price and make life miserable for lots of people.

creators: planet/population rescue non-negotiable (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25381405)

it's already happening, you can 'play' along if you're so inclined.

greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/28/what.matters.meltdown/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/07/atwood.debt/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApTbxRfLnscxaGGuCocWlwq7YWsA/SIG=11qicue6l/**http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/meltdown_kashkari.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE
(some yoga & yogurt makes killing/getting killed less stressful) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_us/warrior_mind;_ylt=A0wNcw9iXutIPkMBwzGs0NUE
(the old bait & switch...you're share of the resulting 'product' is a fairytail nightmare?)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_bi_ge/where_s_the_money;_ylt=A0wNcwJGwvFIZAQAE6ms0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson
consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Re:creators: planet/population rescue non-negotiab (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25381431)

It makes me sad for you every time I see this posted. You must have a terribly lonely life.

Re:creators: planet/population rescue non-negotiab (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25387499)

Maybe he is related to Gene Ray?

So they let MS have a monopoly.... (4, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381443)

But they'll investigate Google after MS cries about fairness?

Re:So they let MS have a monopoly.... (2, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381799)

Ahh yes, +5 insightful for a logical fallacy. The article is about investigating Google for its business practices. Microsoft has nothing to do with this story, and dragging it in is just muddying the waters. Either Google's partnership will cause a suit, or it won't. But what happened with Microsoft has nothing to do with this.

-1 naive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25382521)

Ah yes, would you mind telling us of a business practice of Google's that's worth the DoJ's glance?

I can think of 3 from Microsoft, all from the past year.

1) Steve Ballmer openly admits Office Mac sucks.
2) XP stops being sold despite consumer demand. Vista is shoved down consumers' throats.
3) OOXML/ISO fiasco anybody?

That's just Microsoft.

Looks like Google hasn't been paying off the crooks in Washington. Good for them.

Re:-1 naive (2, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#25382709)

*Chuckle* Thanks for repeating the same logical fallacy. I am not defending Microsoft. Simply put, this article is about Google. If you think what they are doing is fine, then defend on that front. Don't play politician and muddy up the waters with Microsoft. There are plenty of other stories on them... just wait a bit and you will get your chance to rant on topic.

Re:So they let MS have a monopoly.... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#25386967)

Yeah because it's not like MS hasn't been complaining about Google's rise at all. In fact they don't care because they're an OS company and only want to make OSes along with maybe the occasional office suite.

They certainly have no reason to be threatened by Google or want to dominate search themselves.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2008/jul/16/microsoftcomplainsaboutgoog [guardian.co.uk]

From that article:
Microsoft's general counsel told a congressional committee yesterday that "never before in the history of advertising has one company been in a position to control prices on up to 90% of advertising in a single medium."

Re:So they let MS have a monopoly.... (2, Insightful)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 5 years ago | (#25382071)

Google hasn't paid for half of the Judiciary's law schooling yet, unlike Microsoft who's been churning out lawyers like it's going out of style.

Microsoft hasn't been a software company for years, they're a law firm.

Summaries should include the important bits! (3, Insightful)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381479)

Cnet reports that to avoid being sued by the U.S. Justice Department, Google is negotiating with them. The Justice Department and a multistate task force are still reviewing the proposal to decide whether to oppose the partnership.

"The" proposal? "The" partnership? Don't make me RTFA to work out what you're talking about!

Re:Summaries should include the important bits! (1)

Kevin72594 (1301889) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381925)

Nope, you really just need to read one more sentence.

from the government and here to help (2, Insightful)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381481)

The Government has no business in trying to prevent a more efficient business, or even a less efficient business, from forming - that is the job of a free market - which of course our government has strangled already in other areas by forcing risky endeavors. While Google and Yahoo are prevented from doing business, Yahoo is diving deeper and deeper into the dumpster - way to go, "just here to help" government - you're killing the golden geese of the economy.

Instead, how about trying "lead, follow, or", (best of all), "get out of the way".

Re:from the government and here to help (1)

dword (735428) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381875)

I'm sorry, but I couldn't help myself from asking: what did you smoke?

golden geese of the economy

Wow!

Re:from the government and here to help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25382185)

reagan was a retard, so are you

HTH HAND

Re:from the government and here to help (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25382733)

I just love the argument that Wall Street is only in trouble because it was somehow *forced* to be greedy. Yeah, that's the only reason.

Keep 'em coming, I need more laughs.

Cuil (4, Funny)

Wiarumas (919682) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381507)

Don't worry guys, Cuil will soon dominate the market once everyone realizes how vastly superior it is.

Re:Cuil (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381665)

TBH, I find Cuil to be a bit rubbish. In theory it's nice but in practice, when searching for anything that isn't quite popular it seems to return some really worthless results.

Re:Cuil (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25382609)

I really liked Clusty, in terms of interface, but it doesn't have a big enough index yet to be competitive. I wonder if archive.org should launch a search engine - they have a huge amount of local data from which to construct an index.

A department staffed by neocon administration (0, Offtopic)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381549)

over 8 years of extremist neocon rule, somehow starts to act as microsoft attack dog. JUST at the time when microsoft attempt to take over yahoo flops.

im not surprised.

microsoft compare to google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25381897)

it's funny how you don't see any of these comments about how stupid it is that the government is regulating monopolistic companies when the government does this to microsoft =)

Re:microsoft compare to google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25382035)

Well, one company is an illegal monopoly that pisses us off, and the other is making our lives easier. You know which is which (windows hasn't made my life easier since 1993)

How do _you_ think people would respond to two so different companies?

Re:microsoft compare to google (1)

SleepingWaterBear (1152169) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383645)

Well, there is a difference here. Microsoft quite clearly engaged in illegal monopolistic practices, forcing vendors into exclusive deals using their market dominance, while charging excessive prices for increasingly inferior products. So far at least, Google doesn't seem to engage in any anti-competitive behaviour, and its success is based on providing good services at reasonable prices.

That said, I think it's good that the government is paying attention - Google may not be doing anything wrong yet, but they have amassed enough power that they bear close watching.

It seems to me that this is the system working as intended.

Prepare for Pun Impact in 5...4.... (1)

intothemiddle (1142025) | more than 5 years ago | (#25381941)

Google without the Ads [google.com] seems like a choice for all those disgruntled fools. Though we all know it's hard to avoid Google as your first point of cuil. (SORRY!)

Wake Up (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#25382179)

The US Justice department is negotiating a deal with the company that owns the worlds largest information databases. What form do you think their "agreement" is going to take?

To paraphrase Churchill; This is not the end of Google as we know it. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

biznTatCh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25382299)

And the striking Private sex party and mortifying NIIGER ASSOCIATION had at lunchtime RAM) for about 20 fact there won't but now they're long term survival look at the to look into stand anymore, you need to succeed Large - keep your guests. Some people - NETCRAFT HAS about bylaws Why not? It's quick Website Third, you a BSD over other superior to slow, WEBSITE. MR. DE noises out of the *BSD but FreeBSD things the right core team. They hobby. It was all I know it sux0rs, gloves, condoms since we made the rules are This I read the latest If you answered development model session and join in

One wonders why ... (1)

Jerry (6400) | more than 5 years ago | (#25382839)

the DOJ doesn't investigate Microsoft after the flood of incidents involving MS hijacking two standards bodies, funding proxy attacks against other corporations, bribing bloggers and journalists with expensive laptops to write puff pieces about VISTA ... their misdeeds seem to never end. They've proven that ethics is foreign to them.

But, what can you expect? With all the Congressmen they've bribed on both sides of the isle, and a,fter Bush emasculated the DOJ and made it Microsoft's lapdog, Microsoft has been able to get away with acts that would have resulted in jail terms for management of poorer corporations.

The ONLY reason why Microsoft's lapdog is going after Google now is because Microsoft has been unable to FAIRLY compete with Google in the market place.

Re:One wonders why ... (1)

yukk (638002) | more than 5 years ago | (#25383065)

Ahh, but Microsoft has all the money. That's why the DOJ's punishment of them for monopoly was to make them give away stuff they can't sell to schools and to spread their O/S and office products even further. Now when it's M/S bringing the cash-backed complaints, let's see what happens.

Who what where? (1)

BigFlirt (632867) | more than 5 years ago | (#25384325)

Anyone else wonder, if not for a split second, why CNET needed to avoid being sued by the U.S. Justice Department?

Doubleclick (1)

Danny Rathjens (8471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25385149)

Don't forget that this comes after last year's $3.1 billion purchase of doubleclick which was under scrutiny because of the power in the online advertising market it gave them and had to be approved by the anti-trust regulators in the US and in Europe.
I also see they bought a Russian online advertising company a few months ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Google [wikipedia.org]

Hey DOJ - investigate Hitwise too (1)

schwaang (667808) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388605)

The summary refers to stats collected by Hitwise. Where do they get those stats on web usage? From their how-we-do-it [hitwise.com] :

Hitwise has developed proprietary software that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) use to analyze website usage logs created on their network. The anonymous data sent to Hitwise from the ISPs include a range of industry standard metrics relating to the viewing of websites including page requests, visits and average visit length.

IOW, your ISP may be sending your clickstream to Hitwise without your knowledge. That should be flat illegal, I don't care if they "anonymize" it first -- AOL did that with search data they released publicly and got in trouble when reporters were able to identify individuals who made some very private searches. Who is to judge how anonymous it really is?

Even worse, Hitwise is "an Experian company" -- they are owned by one of the big credit reporting companies, which already amass lots of private info about you, making it easier for them to de-anonymize that clickstream.

Hitwise claims to cover 25 million people worldwide including 10 million in the US. Is your ISP is selling your private data without even informing you?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>