FTC Defends Google Decision

The FTC defended its decision to let Google carry on with its anti-trust-like antics, while other regulations in civilized nations are planning to put the boot in.

The US Federal Trade Commission reached a settlement with Google which really did little to stop the company using its dominance to push down search results from its competitors. The move attracted considerable criticism because it followed a letter from US senators to go easy on the search engine because it was good for US jobs.  We guess they mean the jobs of US senators who Google paid campaign contributions.

Google promised to change the ways it presents some search results and runs search advertising, but was exonerated of the results bias claims. Rivals including Yelp and Microsoft claimed that Google had favored its own product results over those of its competitors and called for the anti-trust case. What makes the case look more suspect is that the EU is less frightened of actually fining Google or forcing it to behave. Indeed indications from Brussels are that it has not only agreed with the rival’s complaints but will do something about it if Google does not pull finger.

But FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz told Talking Points Memo that the agency’s decision was legally sound and would be beneficial to competition and consumers. Under facts we found, all five of us, from liberal Democrat to conservative Republican, agreed that the evidence militated against an anti-trust case,” Leibowitz told TPM.

The fact that we managed to have both Google and Google’s rivals unhappy, in an odd way that’s maybe unique to Washington, that puts us in the right place substantively, he claimed. When asked if Google’s $25 million lobbying budget for the duration FTC’s investigation helped, he said that lobbying makes the companies feel good and lobbyists feel good.

“At the end of the day, whether you want to say lobbying had any influence, or cancelled itself out because there was lobbying on both sides, if you’re going to do what lobbyists want you to do in a regulatory agency, you’re not doing your job.”

Source…

Google Ordered To Pay $660K

A Paris Court earlier this week ordered Google France and its parent company Google to pay plaintiff Bottin Cartographes 500,000 euros (about $660,000) for providing its free mapping services to companies across the country. The court also required Google to pay a 15,000 euro fine for its practice.

“We proved the illegality of (Google’s) strategy to remove its competitors,” Jean-David Scemmama, attorney for Bottin Cartographes, a company that provides mapping services to the enterprise, told the AFP in an interview earlier this week. “The court recognized the unfair and abusive character of the methods used and allocated Bottin Cartographes all it claimed. This is the first time Google has been convicted for its Google Maps application.”

According to Scemmama, Bottin has been arguing its case against Google for two years, claiming the search giant was engaging in anticompetitive practices by using its free service to take control over the online-mapping industry.

In a statement to the AFP, Google said that it will appeal the court’s decision, adding that Google Maps is still facing competition in that market.

Source…

Judge Oks Sprint’s Lawsuit Against AT&T

A judge in the U.S. on Wednesday gave the go ahead to parts of C Spire Wireless and Sprint Nextel’s lawsuits against AT&T’s proposed US$39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile USA.

AT&T and T-Mobile had moved for dismissal of the lawsuits arguing that the complaints by Sprint and C Spire, formerly Cellular South, failed to adequately substantiate that the merger would cause them “antitrust injury”.

The decision by District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia could complicate AT&T’s defense of the deal which has been already opposed by the U.S. government.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in August to block AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile, saying that the deal would significantly reduce competition, increase prices and stifle innovation. Seven state attorneys general have joined the lawsuit. That case goes on trial in February before Judge Huvelle.

Where private plaintiffs have successfully pleaded antitrust injury, the fact that they are defendants’ competitors is no bar, Judge Huvelle said before allowing Sprint and C Spire to proceed with their claim that the merger would make it difficult for them to acquire wireless devices. The companies had claimed that after the merger AT&T and Verizon would be in a better position to get exclusive handset deals, while foreclosing their access to the most innovative handsets and raise their costs.

Source…