• fran farrell

    Potentially debilitating future threats by the FTC. If the commissioners want law settled against them they should go to court.

  • http://twitter.com/adamjepstein Adam J Epstein

    FTC is right to focus on Google’s Search Partner Network. Google uses its monopoly position to require publishers to sell their search traffic exclusively to Google (via advertising placements). This hurts advertisers and publishers – and ultimately consumers. Obtaining a consent decree that requires Google to compete for traffic outside of its own search box, would improve the ecosystem immensely.

  • http://twitter.com/gsterling Greg Sterling

    These exclusivity agreements are an easier and potentially legally clearer issue to tackle

  • daveintheuk

    I hope this report is wrong – if not the FTC are about to make an Insane, spineless, short sighted blunder that will harm businesses around the world.

    Google tells us to imagine search engines didn’t exist – perhaps they should imagine shareholders don’t exist, and go back to being the admirable company they once were before they got so damn greedy.

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

    Antitrust laws were created in the 1800s. LOL How can horse and buggy laws be applied to the digital world? Politicians, concerned more about reelection than their country, are mostly to blame for not giving the FTC modern tools to safeguard a fair marketplace. But I would agree the FTC is a bloated and very ineffective organization. For a government agency that is to protect consumers and businesses, it seems they are quite passive in any of their enforcement actions.

  • http://www.tylerherrick.com Tyler Herrick

    I’m glad to see the FTC wavering on this part because of vertical search. It’s human nature to categorize things, it makes sense that a few of the *most* popular queries would be split into a vertical search. Now, Universal Search can pull from across all verticals as well as organic, in attempt to surface the best results from all subsets. Sometimes an organic result is #1, and the less-confident results from verticals are placed lower. Sometimes it’s the other way around. You win some you lose some.

  • http://www.socialbakers.com/ Peter Kelly

    I can’t but agree with you, sir. These are really wise words – “Google tells us to imagine search engines didn’t exist – perhaps they should imagine shareholders don’t exist”. With your permission, I will use this sentence later on. Thanks Dave.

  • Steven Spangler

    Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/FON3E6ETYC6HLHZQIIMON5QFYY Ralph

    uptil I saw the draft 4 $8815, I did not believe that...my... brother was like really earning money in their spare time at their computer.. there mums best friend has been doing this 4 less than 21 months and resently cleard the morgage on there home and got themselves a Car. go to, A­sk25.­­com

  • daveintheuk

    Please, feel free :-)

  • Alex Murphy

    You should read up on anti-trust law. No matter your feelings about some idealistic vision of a past Google (that never truly existed), the simple fact is what Google is doing is not illegal under current laws. The FTC doesn’t have a leg to stand on, and if they go to trial they know that Google will fight, and has more money and better lawyers, and will win. And the FTC will be embarresed and their reputation possibly irrevocably damaged.

    And Google’s goal has always been to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible.” Of course with a mission like that, their boundaries and “search verticals” are potentially limitless. I think their greed is not for more money, but a never-ending appetite for data. Larry and Sergey particularly don’t seem to give a crap about shareholders, or they wouldn’t invest in all these dream profits and keep playing the long game (just like Amazon).