Justice Dept To Investigate Google-Yahoo Deal

Anonymous Oddity writes "The Washington Post is reporting that the Justice Department's investigating the Yahoo-Google advertising deal. Obviously the deal controls a massive portion of the internet advertising market. US Antitrust law isn't entirely intuitive, but it does tend to frown on large deals between companies that operate on the same level if those deals can be interpreted as restrictive of trade."

Taxdollars wasted...

Considering that both these companies are publicly traded, I think it is more important for those who are investors to consider what is best for them. If the general public thinks it might be hampered by consolidation of two large competitors, than the public should invest en masse and vote against it.

I've always been confused how publicly traded companies can be considered "monopolies" in any situation except where your governments regulate them into becoming monopolies. If you don't like how a company acts, buy some stock and get your friends and family and cohorts to do the same, then go in and work to change it.

Owning a share is owning a voting right, albeit a tiny sliver minority share. But if you want to change things, do it from within, not from outside.

Yahoo is still profitable, but they're losing market share. Why? Because Google does a better job providing their users with services they want. Duh. If Yahoo can't compete, then it's time for liquidation. There are still thousands of search engines out there, so competition will work its magic.

IBM was the monopoly, but they were chopped down by Compaq. Compaq was the monopoly, and they were chopped down by Microsoft. Microsoft was the monopoly, and they were chopped down by Google. Google's the monopoly, and they'll be chopped down by the next 18 year old college drop out startup that implants a realtime search engine in your sunglasses.

Re:

Because most people don't have the millions of dollars needed to buy enough shares to make a difference. And if they did, then they'd buy the shares and not vote to change anything because they would stand to benefit in the form of increased share value.

Re:

Because most people don't have the millions of dollars needed to buy enough shares to make a difference. And if they did, then they'd buy the shares and not vote to change anything because they would stand to benefit in the form of increased share value.

So you just proved my point!

If millions of people felt they were harmed in any way, what is the problem with each of them putting up $100 or $500 to control the so-called monopoly? Let's say that 50 million Americans would feel harmed by a merger. Let's sa

Re:

If millions of people felt they were harmed in any way, what is the problem with each of them putting up $100 or $500

To millions of people even $50 is a lot of money. Your utopia sounds great, but in reality it's not that black and white.

Re:

Only three people have voting rights in Google. Larry, Sergey, and Eric.

Re:Taxdollars wasted...

I've always been confused how publicly traded companies can be considered "monopolies" in any situation except where your governments regulate them into becoming monopolies. If you don't like how a company acts, buy some stock and get your friends and family and cohorts to do the same, then go in and work to change it.

Just because a company is publicly traded, that doesn't excuse them from monopolistic practices, sir.

Nobody I know -- even die-hard Windows fans -- likes how Microsoft acts in the business world. That doesn't stop them from buying their products, though.

None of the people I know who trade stocks trade based on the ethics of a company, either. All of them care only about shareholder value and potential shareholder value. It's all about the dinero.

The problem you have, Mr. Dada, is that you tend to assume that people care about how a company acts enough to influence their choices. But people choose based on what's best for their own livelihood (as well they should). They also don't often choose what's best for their own livelihood in the long run, but tend to look at the short-term. And in the short-term, companies maintaining a monopoly always seem to have the most shareholder value.

And, in the end, public shareholder don't always get a vote anyway. Most of the voting shares of Google are held by Sergei and Larry and guys like that. All the rest of the shareholders don't get much of a say.

Re:

The problem you have, Mr. Dada, is that you tend to assume that people care about how a company acts enough to influence their choices. But people choose based on what's best for their own livelihood (as well they should).

At the risk of sounding like a Birkenstock-wearing politically-correct social activist, I'd suggest that while that may a fair generalisation, it smacks of an orthodoxy that has its popularity and appeal founded in a comforting but simplistic view of the world.

I don't shop at Walmart, my f

Re:

I don't shop at Walmart, my food comes mostly from local organic farmers

Sure about that? If you shop at, say Whole Foods Market, for instance, most of the organic produce they sell is produced by Big Agra, not local farms.

As for Walmart, while I don't like some of their business practices, some of their other business practices are actually okay. For example, they have very good non-discriminatory hiring practices in place and they give lots of money to community non-profit organizations and schools and

Re:

While I do partially share your share your view of publicly held companies, I think you are too romantic. Cash is king on the Street and dictates just about everything, including voting rights. Most companies are held by institutional investors. They don't care about Google or Yahoo!. They care about GOOG and YHOO. When they make their buck, they move on. It's their fiduciary responsibility.

I think this is probably the greatest aspect and most tragic flaw of the Street. It's also why the market can b

Re:

I think this is probably the greatest aspect and most tragic flaw of the Street. It's also why the market can be so fun and so painful all at the same time!

And what makes a stock jump or fall?

Let's look at General Motors... For decades they were booming in stock price. Why? Because individual consumers such as yourself went out and bought their merchandise. Sales of vehicles were up -- but not because you, a GM buyer, saw they had a high stock price. You bought their vehicle for decades because you lik

Re:

I agree totally with you on this point. I thought you were talking about proxy fights!

Re:Taxdollars wasted...

So first you argue that we don't need oversight because consumers can fight monopolies then you give an example of how consumers buy competitor's products to affect a corporation's stock value? Here's the catch, when there is a monopoly, the lowly consumer does not have the choice to go buy another product.

Fill me with confidence

I just hope it's as exhaustive as their investigation into the Valerie Plame leak or O.J.'s hunt for the real killer.

Re:

"I just hope it's as exhaustive as their investigation into the Valerie Plame leak "

You mean how they found the source of the leak (Richard Armitage), but didn't prosecute him?

Re:

I'm sorry, we can't comment on that--as the investigation is still ongoing.

Hmmmm.....

Strange how when Microsoft offered a deal to outright buy Yahoo, DoJ remained silent, but when Yahoo and Google want to team up, they're all over them.

<sarcasm>But there wouldn't be anything shady going on at the Justice Department, oh, no. You can trust those guys.</sarcasm>

Re: Shady

That's because Marshall Mathers has been spending his efforts at the **AA's.

Re:

Microsoft isn't the market leader in internet advertising and internet search advertising. Microhoo still would have been the second place company behind Google.

Re:

Microsoft isn't the market leader in internet advertising and internet search advertising.

That's a red herring. They are still the market leader in desktop operating systems and, at the end of the day, they intend to leverage that to knock Google out of business because Google has been threatening their core business, especially with Google Apps.

Microsoft going after Google isn't about Microsoft expanding its market, it's about removing a potential threat to their core OS and office suite usiness.

Re:

Strange how when Microsoft engages in big deals they're called monopolists, yet when Google takes over advertising from the only real competition it has, you act all surprised the the DoJ raises an eyebrow.

Microsoft was the geeks' darling 15 years ago. Is it going to take us another 15 years to realize that Google is just another Big Corp that will bite, scratch and steal its way into a position where it can dictate our lifestyles to suit its profit agenda?

Investors versus consumers

I've always been confused how publicly traded companies can be considered "monopolies" in any situation except where your governments regulate them into becoming monopolies. If you don't like how a company acts, buy some stock and get your friends and family and cohorts to do the same, then go in and work to change it.

So people who don't have money to invest will have no say in how the economy is run, even if their life depends on how the economy is run? Great Idea, dude. 80% of the wealth in the country is concentrated in the hands of 20%. And recursively 64% (80% of 80%) of wealth in the hands of 4% (20% of 20%). So these rich people can get together, buy all providers of a service that is crucial for the population and tell rest of them pay an arm and leg for the service as consumers or pay an arm and a leg to buy shares? You are very confused.

The role of the government is to ensure competition. To enable the consumers not investors to vote with their dollars. Truth in labeling laws, truth in advertising laws, fair competition are all essential part of the free markets. Yes, The current top dogs of capitalism will bitch moan and bellyache. But unless we have the second tier dogs snapping at their heels, we all will be screwed dude.

Re:

The role of the government is to ensure competition.

In theory at least. Sadly, that theory doesn't hold up in many cases.

Microsoft?

Why are they "investigating" this when there is a giant monopoly in the operating system and office suite markets? Maybe they should do something about monopolies that have existed for >15 years before looking at google and yahoo, especially when the former actually provides a good product. It's tough to be "overpriced" or "exploitative" when you give away your product for free.

Re:

Search isn't their product.

They sell YOU to the ADVERTISERS.

Oil companies?

Let me paraphrase that MadMoney guy, hoping not to get it wrong. The merger between Serius and XM radio has gone on for almost two years, and now they also want hearings on internet advertising as a monopoly? They didn't even have one hearing when several huge oil companies merged a few years back. Any push against Yahoo and Google, I bet, can be traced back to some lobbyist (probably from Microsoft).