Justice Dept To Investigate Google-Yahoo Deal 105
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."
Hmmmm..... (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Taxdollars wasted... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Hmmmm..... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Taxdollars wasted... (Score:5, Insightful)
Investors versus consumers (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Taxdollars wasted... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 food comes mostly from local organic farmers, I donate to animal shelters, and I offer political support to those who see and are willing to act beyond my own (or someone else's) immediate concerns or preferences. That applies to the proverbial pocketbook type issues as it does to things of a more general nature. I do not, however, wear Birkenstocks, stay as far away as possible from activists of any persuasion, and consider myself as very ordinary.
Doing the right thing, at least in principle, was something that we expected of ourselves and each other before we allowed ourselves to be redefined as self-interested mindless consumers, and selfishness was elevated to a virtue.
Re:Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
Search isn't their product.
They sell YOU to the ADVERTISERS.
Re:Investors versus consumers (Score:3, Insightful)
The role of the government is to ensure competition.
In theory at least. Sadly, that theory doesn't hold up in many cases.