backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 58 comment(s) - last by eyeofwarrior.. on Feb 6 at 8:40 PM


Google Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, pictured here speaking at Stanford, has implied that Google will fight tooth-and-nail against a Microsoft-Yahoo merger.  (Source: Stanford)
Google won't let Microsoft and Yahoo merge without a fight

Late last week DailyTech covered Microsoft's landmark $44.6 billion unsolicited bid for Yahoo, which threatened to transform the online business landscape overnight.  While the outcome at first seem uncertain, opposition to the move quickly evaporated with the resignation of former CEO and Chairman at-the-time, Terry Semel. 

Semel had strongly criticized the merger as not in Yahoo's best interests.  With Semel's resignation, and landmark tough times for Yahoo, a deal seems so likely many analysts are already calling it a sure thing.

Meanwhile, Google remained quiet during Microsoft's initial announcements.  However, now the giant has come out swinging again the merger, which represents a serious threat to its online dominance.

Microsoft's hostile bid for Yahoo! raises troubling questions. This is about more than simply a financial transaction, one company taking over another. It's about preserving the underlying principles of the Internet: openness and innovation."

He implies that Google, and a pre-merger Yahoo represent openess and freedom of the Internet.  He implies that a Microsoft-Yahoo merger may mark a move towards staleness, proprietary systems, and most notably, monopolistic practices.

He adds the provocative question, "Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC? While the Internet rewards competitive innovation, Microsoft has frequently sought to establish proprietary monopolies -- and then leverage its dominance into new, adjacent markets."

He continues, "Could the acquisition of Yahoo! allow Microsoft -- despite its legacy of serious legal and regulatory offenses -- to extend unfair practices from browsers and operating systems to the Internet? In addition, Microsoft plus Yahoo! equals an overwhelming share of instant messaging and web email accounts. And between them, the two companies operate the two most heavily trafficked portals on the Internet. Could a combination of the two take advantage of a PC software monopoly to unfairly limit the ability of consumers to freely access competitors' email, IM, and web-based services? Policymakers around the world need to ask these questions -- and consumers deserve satisfying answers."

The blog, particularly coming from Google's top legal brass, seems to unmistakably imply that should Yahoo accept Microsoft's bid, Google would lobby for legal action to block the merger.

Google would likely argue that a Microsoft-Yahoo union would craft a monopoly or would open the door to anticompetitive practices.  Its strongest evidence would be in the effects of the merger on total traffic and instant messaging use.  Yahoo's properties still ranked number one in terms of traffic last year.  A Microsoft-Yahoo team would certainly be the most visited set of properties.  Further, a union between Microsoft and Yahoo would mean that Yahoo's titular messaging software and Microsoft's MSN Messenger would create a strong new leader in terms of instant messaging market share, according to Google.

Google would have a tougher time criticizing the merger in terms of advertising revenue and search engine traffic.  Even with the merger, Google would currently still control approximately two-thirds of search engine traffic.  Google would also maintain an advertising revenue lead, by most estimates.

While a Microsoft-Yahoo merger would represent a significant boost to Microsoft's power, it could also bring serious legal woes for both companies.  With a hostile legal environment in the U.S. and abroad, and pressure from Google sure to be strongly applied, the real test may not be whether Yahoo accepts Microsoft's offer, but rather whether the accepted offer can survive international antitrust courts.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Google
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2008 12:10:45 PM , Rating: 5
It's unlikely Google can make much of a case to block the merger. Google is the majority leader in the internet market compared to Microsoft or Yahoo. I don't see how they can claim Monopoly here and make the case in a court of law.




RE: Google
By omnicronx on 2/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: Google
By mcturkey on 2/4/2008 12:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
That makes no sense. The court can order that the two IM services stay separate, but Microsoft will just fill YIM with ads for MSN and stop development of that service. Besides, wasn't there a strong push a few years back for the IM services to become interoperable with each other? Why would merging two of them now be such a problem? Isn't AIM still the biggest player? Admittedly I don't use IM anymore, so I don't keep track of it much now.


RE: Google
By StevoLincolnite on 2/4/2008 1:56:45 PM , Rating: 2
You can add "Yahoo Accounts" to you're Windows Live Messenger and talk to them via that way, even if the other person is on Yahoo Messenger and you use MSN Messenger.


RE: Google
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2008 3:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "The court can order that the two IM services stay separate, but Microsoft will just fill YIM with ads for MSN"

Assuming there was a court-ordered silo status for YIM, the above would never fly. Management would have to treat YIM as a separate entity, that would deal with MSFT on an equal basis with any other competitor.


RE: Google
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/4/2008 1:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like the court would move to block the merger before it would do that. Typically antitrust judgements have focused on opening not closing interoperability.

If anything, a lesser judgement might be a judge ordering that while MSN/Yahoo could share networks, they would also have to make their products transparent and interoperable with Google's messenger or AIM.

This would still suck somewhat for Microsoft as they would have to devote resources/money to maintain protocol docs, etc. However at least they'd have their merger.


RE: Google
By TomZ on 2/4/2008 12:21:10 PM , Rating: 1
I agree, it seems that Google doesn't have any legal grounds here (although I am not a lawyer...). But I actually think that Google wants to win in the "court of public opinion," which is their next best goal, if they can't actually block the merger.


RE: Google
By Polynikes on 2/4/2008 12:34:23 PM , Rating: 4
The truth is, they don't care about a potential "evil" monopoly, they just want to maintain their dominance and make money.


RE: Google
By Shining Arcanine on 2/4/2008 3:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
Google is just being anticompetitive. I do not think there should be, but there are laws against that. The downside to having such laws is that they foster anticompetition, as Google being a business, will do anything to get ahead of its competition, even if that means going to court.

This is a bit of a repeat of what happened to Microsoft in the antitrust case against them, as its competitors, looking to get ahead, arranged for an antitrust lawsuit. Because of that case, all new computers are loaded with garbage from the factory.


RE: Google
By VahnTitrio on 2/4/2008 12:43:46 PM , Rating: 4
Microsoft and Yahoo! had their names mentioned somewhere, Google just didn't want to feel left out.


RE: Google
By eman7613 on 2/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: Google
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2008 1:14:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
With M$ already having been declared a monopoly by the law courts, its not a far shot for Google to block this.

First off, cut out the M$ stuff. Your not doing yourself any favors.

quote:
Even w/o that, there are lots of grounds legally (in the US at least) by which Google could win, and thats mainly b/c M$ is attempting to buy a direct competitor, while Google is not.

Incorrect. Microsoft has been declared a monopoly in the Desktop PC Operating System market. The fact is that Microsoft is buying Yahoo which ties in with MSN which holds less than 10% to bring their combined market share up to about 33%. Google controls roughly 70%+ making Google the only one who could be considered monopolistic in this market. Google's argument hinges heavily on the MSN Messenger and Yahoo Messenger market share, as well as the Hotmail and Yahoo Mail market share. Both are quite high. However for MSN and Yahoo messengers you have to consider AIM which I think is still the majority leader there. Google mail also competes against Hotmail and Yahoo mail, and has a large number of accounts there too. Meaning that if the merger goes through you get Hotmail/Yahoomail competing with Google Mail and MSN/YahooIM competing with Gtalk and AIM. Therefore no monopolies would be created by the merger.

The fact that MS is the dominant PC OS vendor will be largely irrelevent to this case.


RE: Google
By EntreHoras on 2/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: Google
By ImSpartacus on 2/4/2008 3:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
I still favor microsoft products and call them M$. Some people take that stupid little joke too seriously.


RE: Google
By EntreHoras on 2/4/2008 4:08:38 PM , Rating: 5
So, why don't use also Googl€, ¥ahoo or £inux?


RE: Google
By TomZ on 2/4/2008 4:27:05 PM , Rating: 1
LOL!


RE: Google
By eman7613 on 2/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: Google
By Donkeyshins on 2/4/2008 1:46:21 PM , Rating: 1
Oy.


RE: Google
By ajfink on 2/4/2008 1:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
It seems unlikely to be blocked. Google can't say much about monopolizing things on the Internet, regardless of how open and benign their policies and strategies seem.

I'm indifferent to this merger, as a lover of Internet freedom.


RE: Google