backtop


Print 20 comment(s) - last by lexluthermiest.. on Jan 19 at 10:55 PM

"We did what we’re paid to do and what the law requires", says Chairman in new interview

Facing heavy criticism from Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), Yelp Inc. (YELP), and a slew of other online service firms, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's Chairman Jon Leibowitz is firing back in a new interview with Talking Points Memo (TPM).  In the interview, he defends the decision to reach a settlement [PDF] with online search and services giant Google Inc. (GOOG) which called for big changes, but allowed Google to avoid a full blown antitrust lawsuit brought by the federal government (which was the approach Microsoft, et al. demanded).

I. FTC Claims That Its Google Ruling Was Fair

Responding to his critics, Chairman Leibowitz comments, "We did what we’re paid to do and what the law requires.  We went after a company [Google] where the law required us to do so, and forwent bringing a case where the law required us not to bring one."

He points out that the decision was unanimously approved by the FTC's five commissioners, including Leibowitz.  He remarks, "Under facts we found, all five of us, from liberal Democrat to conservative Republican, agreed that the evidence militated against an antitrust case.  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."

FTC Leibowitz
U.S. FTC Chairman Jonathan Leibowitz is defending his Commission's settlement with Google against critics like Microsoft. [Image Source: UPI]

He argues that the settlement is significant as it not only pushes Google to change certain search/data-mining practices its critics considered unfair, but it also pushes the company to pursue patent peace in the mobile space.  The FTC voted 4-to-1 to adopt a settlement demand that forces Google to pursue arbitration with smartphone rivals, before taking them to court and eating up judicial resources.

Explains Chairman Leibowitz, "We took a pretty meaningful step forward to stop one of the most drastic abuses in patent litigation.  [Google] won’t be able to engage in patent holdup, where the threat of an injunction is used as a 'Sword of Damocles.'"

He was pleased to note that Google had responded already, withdrawing two key patent assertions in its nearly finished legal battle against Microsoft in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.  The FTC did allow Google to sue in cases where a rival is looking to ban its products (so Google may be able to still pursue action against Apple, Inc. (AAPL)), but the Chairman calls such applications "exceedingly limited defensive uses."

He argues that the FTC's approach is consistent with both Google and its rivals in the smartphone space, commenting, "We don’t want them [smartphone makers] to be able to get injunctions, and we prohibit that except in the one-in-a-million hypothetical.  If someone makes a FRAND commitment and reneges, we will go after them."

II. Google Still Faces Antitrust Threats

In regards to media commentary that the settlement was a "win" for Google, he responds, "Reporters think of this in some ways as a horse race.  [I]t’s really about doing the right thing.  Perhaps to some extent we helped to build up expectations [by the length of the probe], but I also think complainants created great expectations of their own. I think that as time goes on, more and more people will recognize we did justice."

The Chairman also rejected the notion that the tens of millions of dollars that Google poured into lobbying officials in the federal government on both sides of the political aisle impacted the Commission's vote.  He comments, "My sense is that the 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 canceled 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."

The decisiveness of the ruling (5-0) may be enough to placate the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), but an FTC ruling does not necessarily preclude an antitrust lawsuit by the DOJ.  For example, in 1991 the FTC probed Microsoft, in an investigation that wrapped up in 1993 with a deadlock -- 2-2 vote -- effectively closing the investigation.  Despite that the DOJ would go on to independently investigate and sue Microsoft in a court battle that was considered a milestone in modern U.S. antitrust enforcement.

EU flags
The EU says it won't go as easy on Google as the FTC did. [Image Source: AFP]

And meanwhile the EU has indicated it will be substantially stricter in its settlement demands from Google.

Sources: TPM, FTC [PDF]



Comments     Threshold


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

"We did what we’re paid to do..."
By DaveLessnau on 1/14/2013 3:48:48 PM , Rating: 3
"We did what we’re paid to do..."

That pretty much covers it. I just wonder who paid them and how much.




RE: "We did what we’re paid to do..."
By sprockkets on 1/14/2013 4:23:06 PM , Rating: 1
You are more than welcome to tell us why Google deserves to be fined. With MS there were too many to count.


RE: "We did what we’re paid to do..."
By Florinator on 1/14/2013 4:59:45 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, easy one, because they [ab]use their position in the search space to push their own services to the top of search results, to the detriment of competitors.


RE: "We did what we’re paid to do..."
By sprockkets on 1/14/2013 5:12:26 PM , Rating: 3
Good. Now's the hard part: Proving that behavior harmed consumers, because that's required for anti trust violations, part of why ms got in trouble and Google isn't.


RE: "We did what we’re paid to do..."
By kleinma on 1/14/2013 5:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
The only way you would consider such an act to not have harmed consumers, would be if you consider every google service that was wrongfully promoted over the competition to be a better product than what they were putting themselves above. Some might argue that to be true, but I am sure not enough to make it a fact.

Lets see what the EU does to them...


By sprockkets on 1/14/2013 5:38:52 PM , Rating: 3
Do a search for email, tell me who is at the top.

Do a search for a city map on Google and bing, and tell me if bing gives a Google map result, and if Google gives a bing map result.


RE: "We did what we’re paid to do..."
By JKflipflop98 on 1/15/2013 7:46:40 AM , Rating: 3
That's some backwards logic there.

A company doesn't have to promote it's competitors, and to think they should is simply daft. By this weaksauce chain of reasoning, Ford should be sued for not allowing the consumer the option of ordering their F-350 with Chevy 350ci engines. McDonalds should be fined for depriving my right to Mt.Dew with my meals.


By kleinma on 1/15/2013 10:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
Sure you can make it backwards if you want to take incomparable things and try to compare them.

Lets say you owned some local business, like a car dealership which happened to the same business I am in, except I also own a billboard company, so I control all the roadside advertising in the state. You want to put up a billboard for your business near by, but I say no way buddy, my business is going up on that billboard, not yours. Your's can go waaaaay down the highway, 50 miles from here.

I will agree with you that McDonalds should be fined for depriving people of Mt Dew.


By sprockkets on 1/15/2013 1:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
Nor did I ever say that - check first who you reply to.


RE: "We did what we’re paid to do..."
By bisoy on 1/14/2013 7:49:39 PM , Rating: 3
What may look like harmless to the consumers now may come back and bite everybody in the ass if the marketplace is already ruined. This is exactly why MS was made to pay for giving away IE and media player. It is also why MS was made to reveal to competitors relevant windows APIs. I happily embraced IE when it came out because it was free and I wanted to surf the internet. It was harmless then, but IE's dominance made MS neglect web standards in favor of its own. Imagine what would have happened if the governments of the world did not clamp down on Microsoft.


RE: "We did what we’re paid to do..."
By sprockkets on 1/14/2013 9:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
Tying is what MS did; they made it impossible or difficult to remove IE or Windows Media Player. It was quite funny at the anti-trust trial that MS was caught trying to make it look that Win98 ran worse without IE integrated.

Now perhaps one can use Google search and services without needing to use the other. But, Google has made it mandatory to have a google account to sign into Youtube, thus tying something not related (email to a video site). Even MS is allowing different ways to sign into their services (used to require an MS account like hotmail but will accept yahoo and google now).

In any case, read this for yourself and decide if Google is anywhere near MS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Micr...


By kleinma on 1/14/2013 10:24:59 PM , Rating: 1
How could we possibly know, if the Wikipedia article about the day google launches skynet and wipes out the human race isn't written yet?


RE: "We did what we’re paid to do..."
By Shadowself on 1/14/2013 9:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is exactly why MS was made to pay for giving away IE and media player.
How much was MS required to pay? IIRC that amount was ZERO. MS just had to agree to stop its practices, offer a Windows OS without IE integrated directly into the OS (but still could bundle a separate IE app), and agree to outside over sight for several years. No money/fine was involved.

quote:
It is also why MS was made to reveal to competitors relevant windows APIs.
MS was required to provide APIs because it was shown that MS had two sets of APIs: fast/good and slow/poor. MS was providing access to only the slow/poor APIs to competitors and was keeping the fast/good APIs for only its in house developers (IE, Office, etc.). Since Windows was legally declared a monopoly by the courts, the courts deemed that this bifurcation of APIs was an improper use of the Windows monopoly to drive growth in the other applications. Thus the courts required MS to divulge both variants of the APIs. This even applied in the Windows Server world in the EU.

When these restrictions/postings were finally enacted due to the courts, MS already had a commanding lead in the browser world with IE. That was when MS decided to go to their historical, tried and true (at least back then) technique of "Embrace and Extend". That is, appear to embrace the open standards then add MS specific extensions that lock the customer into the MS product.


RE: "We did what we’re paid to do..."
By cbf on 1/14/2013 11:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
I challenge you to show me any substantiation about this so-called "two sets of APIs", and what finding you refer to.

When I was a Microsoft developer, I got my API documentation from MSDN, same as everyone else.


RE: "We did what we’re paid to do..."
By theapparition on 1/15/2013 11:12:07 AM , Rating: 2
The allegation was that the APIs that were provided on MSDN weren't the same as the ones MS used "in house".

Basically they gave access to the slower APIs, so 3rd party developers couldn't make programs to compete with MSs own developed programs.

Or that's how I understand the allegation. Not sure if it's was actually true or not. You'll find firm believers in both camps although I'm not sure anything was every definitively proven.


By Solandri on 1/15/2013 4:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think there were two APIs. I think what happened is that if a Microsoft coder was having problems implementing something via the regular APIs, having access to how the code behind the APIs worked made it easier for him to code around the problem.

In some cases this involved calls to "back door" functions - undocumented things which worked but weren't in the API. We had those at the software shop I worked at too. Some were bugs which weren't worth fixing because they provided some useful (albeit unintended) functionality. Others were undocumented features which were still in development or being tested. I'd find it difficult to believe Microsoft didn't have these too.

The story of a separate in-house API probably grew from that. I don't think there was anything particularly wrong with it - it's probably inevitable when writing software. But by the same token, I think that's why Microsoft should've been broken up into an OS company and an applications company - to prevent the applications side from having this unfair advantage over other companies writing Windows apps. That and the whole double-cross with OS/2 (telling software companies that OS/2 was successor to DOS, then after they'd committed to writing OS/2 versions of their apps, dumping it in favor of Windows while they worked on Office for Windows) left a really bad taste in my mouth at the time.


RE: "We did what we’re paid to do..."
By Samus on 1/15/2013 1:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
Right, thanks to Microsoft, 90% of Windows users use Internet Explorer, a wonderfully powerful and efficient web browser.

/sarcasm

I'm not saying Microsoft should INCLUDE Chrome or Firefox, but the European Commission had one great idea (rare) when they required Microsoft to offer "Browser Choice" during installation and whenever a new user logs in for the first time.


By lexluthermiester on 1/19/2013 10:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
90% of Windows users use Internet Explorer


This has not been true for OVER a decade.


By unimatrix725 on 1/18/2013 1:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
I must say WTF? It is a search engine giant, if you want Yahoo or Bing go to their site! There is no antitrust/misuse/abuse whatever here. Lets say you own your own company. Will you promote your competitors freely?


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki