• Hillz

    Can google afford to buy…ahem, I mean influence a Brazilian judge? Not saying they did…but after reading articles like this – http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/02/brazil-corruption-trial-politicians, could it be possible?

  • cjvannette

    You know how much money Google has. They can afford to buy anyone who’s for sale.

  • Jenner Cruz

    People can be bought all over the world. But I don’t think it could happen in this case. Both parties have skilled lawyers, money and media attention. Nobody would dare to bribe a judge under so bright spotlight.

  • Jonatas Leonel

    Man, most of brazilian judges are corruptible, you don’t need too much to buy a sentence there. Unfortunately that’s the reality of that country.

  • ScottyMack

    Glad to hear this ruling. For some reason, people think Google owes the world some sort of fairness in their search results. Would I like to be higher in their results? You bet! Do I feel like I am entitled to it? No way! It’s their search engine, it’s their company, it’s their website. They can do whatever they want to with it.

    Hey, all you people running websites with affiliate links: where are the links for websites NOT paying you a commission for your referral? By many people’s twisted logic, you should be required to show ALL possible places that have similar products – not just the ones that make you money. And, down that same line, you certainly better not be showing ones that earn you a better spiff in better positions on your pages and with better ratings than ones that don’t pay as much.

    Yeah, the decisions of these judges apply to more than just Google. Remember that!

  • James Lan

    It is a case ruled by a judge with wisdom and intelligence.

  • James Lan

    there are corruptions in US too, maybe Apple bought over the judge and jury in the case against Samsung , do you agree?

  • Maurice Walshe

    95% share is a de facto monopoly in practice – and I am not sure that would acept some of the judges resoning as “resonable” here.

    A parallel argument woudl be that some one like say BT in the UK does not need to do LLU or regulating becuase of KCom (which only serves a tiny % when compared to BT)

  • daveintheuk

    Bad news for the internet.

  • Alistair Dent

    That parallel doesn’t work, because of the cost involved to the consumer.

    If I decide I don’t want a BT line then I go to somebody else who can provide infrastructure. The cost involved in that is huge so it’s a disincentive to me as a consumer to use a different service, thereby allowing BT to offer me uncompetitive prices.

    But if I as a consumer don’t want to see Google’s search results I simply use another one. I haven’t been charged by either service, nor is there any burdensome difficulty for me in making the switch.

    Monopoly rules exist to protect consumers from behaviours that harm them. Not to protect competitors.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thiago-Almeida/100001893880101 Thiago Almeida

    Not sure if a lot of corruptible judges or a whole lot of inferiority-complexed people, apologizing for being born there, claiming stuff with no basis at all.

  • Knowles2

    Hopefully there a couple of wise and intelligence judges in the US and EU.

  • Maurice Walshe

    and if you dont appear on google shopping the 5% or so scraps from bing and yahoo are not the same so your example falls down.

    Antitrust cases are not always about the consumer this one is about harming the other players in the game just as Microsoft and IBM did.

    IBM in particular was hammered for what it did to its competitors not the end users of its mainframes.

  • http://twitter.com/nelsond25 Nelson D

    “As a practical matter there’s probably nothing they can do about it — except to buy AdWords for visibility.”

    Yeah especially since shills like you still shill for Google and call
    them a “search engine,” instead of an ad engine. It’s getting old and
    you and Danny will lose any shred of credibility you may have had.
    Google is also manipulating “organic” search to force sites to advertise
    for traffic and to increase PPC. Where are you with that Panda and
    Penguin report, Mr Shill? Why are Google’s earnings and ad clicks going up every time they “improve quality” ?

    By the way: 95% market share is a monopoly in US and EU no matter how
    much saddens you Greg. Besides Windows, we had Unix, Linux, Apple etc.

  • MeZmer1Ze

    Don’t mean to be rude.. but google is a website.. you don’t like it, go elsewhere… Microsoft is using desktop Windows to try to force people to like it’s Phone OS… Apple also tries to leverage it’s market wins to push their other products. Why are they allowed to and not Google? Google are NOT the only ad company.. yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, ASK etc etc. all have their own add networks tied to their products. If Google is not a search engine because they don’t rank their competitors above themselves, then I rather expect that we don’t have any “real” search engines left.

    Compete on merits, not litigation. Google isn’t like Microsoft, IE doesn’t default to Google by default and you can leave google any time you like and it costs you nothing.

    I’m glad there are still courts in the world that make sense.

    cheers

    Frank