• ScottyMack

    It just goes to show you why the vast majority of people should not be voting. They are too stupid to make decisions that will affect the lives of everyone in the country.

    Through this kind of moronic thinking, any business that is more successful than others can be branded a “monopoly” even though competition clearly exists (albeit poorly run competition). Obviously, something got lost in their brains when they forgot that people are free to search wherever they want and that it is FREE. People pay money to buy things in department stores. By this level of “thinking” WalMart is also clearly a monopoly!

  • http://twitter.com/HyperTexted Kevin Gerding

    Let’s look briefly at some of the key places that Google comes into contact with consumers… Broadband (TiSP), mobile phones (Android), search, e-mail (Gmail), analytics, online antivirus (Virus Total), anti-spam solutions (Re-Captcha), etc. Anyone that understands how large of a footprint Google has over consumers, even outside of search, would easily come to the conclusion that Google is a monopoly. Joshua Wright’s opinion is either ill-informed or he has been bought and paid for. If the FTC is too inept to determine that Google is a monopoly, the agency should simply be abolished as it can’t perform its most basic function of protecting consumer choice.

    Global eCommerce is nearly a one trillion dollar a year industry. Anyone that thinks Google’s dominance in the eCommerce market is healthy surely needs to reevaluate their views. Whether it’s connecting to the internet, performing a search, or simply visiting a website, chances are a Google product is somehow connected with it. This has serious implications for the protection of our personal privacy and hinders the development of new technologies outside of Google.

  • ScottyMack

    Miriam Webster Definition of Monopoly:

    1: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
    2: exclusive possession or control
    3: a commodity controlled by one party

    None of the above apply.

    God help us all if some “International Consortium” becomes in charge of what individual websites can and cannot show. No … there won’t be any corruption involved there!

    Stupidest idea I have ever heard! Ironically, these tend to be the same people fighting against things like ACTA and other internet anti-freedom legislation.

  • ScottyMack

    Well, it would appear that Joshua Wright is more inclined to side with Webster’s. This all about lawyers trying to make a huge sum of money and has nothing to do with any basis of law at all. They just want to create enough noise that they’ll get their 30% of whatever settlement Google coughs up, as they almost always do. Of course, with judges writing their own laws from the bench and not following actual laws passed by legislators, anything is likely to happen – especially when an unelected government agency that is not bound by any laws gets involved.

    Every single aspect of Google’s business has competitors. I think I’m going to sue the guy who is number one in the SERPs in my market for not advertising my website. He’s monopolizing position one and I simply won’t stand for it!

    The part that I would find so funny if it wasn’t so sad is all the people – especially SEO’s – who are rooting against Google. Google loses, we all lose. They’ll just come up with another chunk of their page to squeeze more money out of us all. Eventually the search results will be 5 organic per page, then 3 and finally nothing on page one. Keep rooting against them people. Cut off your nose to spite your face!