Schmidt: Google isn't a monopoly

“I would disagree that Google is dominant [in search].” That’s what Google's former CEO, and now Executive Chairman, Eric Schmidt, said in a statement to the to the Senate antitrust subcommittee, a response to questions posed by senator's since Google's September 21st hearing.

In response to a question from Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal (D) as to whether or not it was fair to characterize Google as a monopoly. “By... hiring extremely talented engineers and working very, very hard... Google has been blessed with a great deal of success,” Schmidt said.

He went on to say that Google's market share was actually smaller than the estimates given by analysts. “Google has many competitors that are not general search engines, including specialized search engines, social networks, and mobile apps... Inferring that Google is in any way 'dominant' in search would be incorrect.” In response to a question as to whether or not Google faced competition in search, he said that Microsoft's Bing had already reached the size that Google was in 2007. “Microsoft's Bing and Yahoo! Today handle millions more queries than Google did in 2003.”

These statements come from a lengthy document released by the Senate subcommittee and available on Google Docs, a response to follow-up questions from lawmakers after a Sept. 21 hearing. At that hearing, Schmidt said that Google did fit one of the legal criteria that determines whether or not a business is considered a monopoly.

FairSearch.org, a group of companies including competitor Microsoft, said that Schmidt had failed to respond to the Senator's questions. “Schmidt continued to thumb his nose at senators' concerns about how Google exploits its monopoly power,” the group said in a statement. “Schmidt's answers show a lack of respect for the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, the nation's antitrust laws, and the importance of competition and innovation to the U.S. Economy..."

Asked whether or not they were collecting any data from smart phone users, Schmidt said that “Google respects our user's privacy,” Schmidt replied. He provided links to Google's privacy policy to describe the types of information Google collects from mobile devices.

“'Trust us is no longer an acceptable answer to serious questions about how Google uses its monopoly power to entrench its own dominance and hurt consumers, advertisers and other innovators,” FairSearch.org's statement said. “Google's denial of its own monopoly power is not only laughable, but proof that the Senate and federal, state and international law enforcement agencies must continue to search for the truth about how Google uses its enormous power to advantage itself and hurt competitors trying to reach consumers on the internet.”

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Activision: No bans for people who play Modern Warfare 3 early

Next Story

TouchPads still available from HP for WebOS developers

47 Comments

View more comments

Kirkburn said,
Yeah ... I don't think that matters, especially since it is monetized (and profitable) via ads.

Doesn't matter to whom? Speak fotr yourself.

I would suspect of anyone who a high ranked employee at a company to say that their company isn't something bad. It's not like Schmidt is going to say "Of course we're a monopoly".

Panda X said,
I would suspect of anyone who a high ranked employee at a company to say that their company isn't something bad. It's not like Schmidt is going to say "Of course we're a monopoly".

Of course. Like Microsoft has done for years too.

Schmidt's answers show a lack of respect for the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, the nation's antitrust laws, and the importance of competition and innovation to the U.S. Economy...

Wait, this coming from Microsoft? LOL. The biggest monopolist and anti-competitive company in the world?

Joey S said,

Wait, this coming from Microsoft? LOL. The biggest monopolist and anti-competitive company in the world?

No, that would be Google. Many parts of Microsoft operate in competitive markets. If you subtract them out, Google is now the largest monopolist on earth.

Joey S said,

Wait, this coming from Microsoft? LOL. The biggest monopolist and anti-competitive company in the world?

Google is the one engaged in antitrust violations lately. Microsoft hasn't been a bad boy in over 10 years.

KingCrimson said,

Google is the one engaged in antitrust violations lately. Microsoft hasn't been a bad boy in over 10 years.

Really... MS virtualization software is given away for a throw away price compared to VMware and that is not monopolist behavior. MS has no right to complain (i.e., go crying ) through fairsearch.org

TomJones said,

No, that would be Google. Many parts of Microsoft operate in competitive markets. If you subtract them out, Google is now the largest monopolist on earth.

As competitive as acting in very unethical fashion to push OOXML as an ISO standard, which is still reeking of stench from the very unethical behavior. How about MS cracking the whip in the video game console to keep back the game developers. Ever heard that no developer can use hard disk or blu-ray capacity in PS3 for multi-platform without any repercussion

So Google makes the best free web products and people go to it. Not really a monopoly. The other companies just need to be more innovative if they want to compete in this territory.

UndergroundWire said,
So Google makes the best free web products and people go to it. Not really a monopoly. The other companies just need to be more innovative if they want to compete in this territory.

Google IS using it's monopoly for gaining anti-competitive advantage on the competition.
Thy are beeing sued for that and you should know that.
Either you hide that or you just speak not knowing the subject. Educate yourself please.

RealFduch said,

Google IS using it's monopoly for gaining anti-competitive advantage on the competition.
Thy are beeing sued for that and you should know that.
Either you hide that or you just speak not knowing the subject. Educate yourself please.

Unlike you I know what I am talking about. People are not forced to use Google's products. They use it because it is better. The competition likes to cry Monopoly because they can't compete in this area of the web.

BOO HOO! Be more innovative.

Google is still better on things like error code searches and News results. I feel Bing is about 80% as good as Google right now. Given another 18 months and Bing will definitely surpass Google in terms of search engine. Microsoft is already close to surpassing Google's consumer cloud services.

“By... hiring extremely talented engineers and working very, very hard... Google has been blessed with a great deal of success,”
REALLY?
I thought that was simply the result of uncontrolled mergers and acquisitions done in the years while antitrust regulators were too busy chasing microsoft to finally find nothing.

So if your product beats others and most of the web traffic goes to you then you should be punished with being a monopoly? Jeez, so what? The only time a monopoly is bad is when people don't have any other choice but to spend their money on that product. Something like the AT&T monopoly of the 80's. If you wanted a home phone you only had 1 provider and they were jerks. You have the right to choose your search, email, phone, or whatever provider. No one is forcing anyone to use one service more than the other. We are become a nation where success and progress is punished. Get over it.. Make a better product. Whinners!

Duckie37 said,
So if your product beats others and most of the web traffic goes to you then you should be punished with being a monopoly? Jeez, so what? The only time a monopoly is bad is when people don't have any other choice but to spend their money on that product.

There is also a matter of killing competotion by threatening vendors to make them stop using superior competitors' products. That's what Intel did to AMD and Google did to Skyhook.

RealFduch said,

There is also a matter of killing competotion by threatening vendors to make them stop using superior competitors' products. That's what Intel did to AMD and Google did to Skyhook.

How about an easy option to set Google as search engine in IE9 search box. MS uses bing as default in the IE9 search box and one has to go through determined effort to set google as the default. Isn't windows monopoly funding the bing effort for MS? So why is MS complaining through fairsearch.org? Is MS not doing the same thing at bing.com website that MS is complaining through fairsearch.org in regards to UI design of google.com?

I believe for first time chrome user, chrome does ask what search provide you want to use as default and IE9 does not ask even one bit.

So Microsoft is complaining because they simply can't make a search engine that can out-do Google? Doesn't seem fair for Google to get the brunt of it all cause those companies want to be whiny little bitches.

Jombi said,
So Microsoft is complaining because they simply can't make a search engine that can out-do Google? Doesn't seem fair for Google to get the brunt of it all cause those companies want to be whiny little bitches.

Google is an illegal monopoly. Does your (wrong) words change that?

I would love to know how Google fits the definition of Monopoly. Having market share does not equal a monopoly. "The exclusive control or possession of the supply or trade in a commodity or service."

What exactly do they have exclusive control or possession over?

Even if Google has 65% of the search engine market that leaves 35% that they don't have. That is a far cry from a monopoly.

Anyone know how many computers currently run windows? 92%. See the difference?

nubs said,
I would love to know how Google fits the definition of Monopoly. Having market share does not equal a monopoly. "The exclusive control or possession of the supply or trade in a commodity or service."

What exactly do they have exclusive control or possession over?

Even if Google has 65% of the search engine market that leaves 35% that they don't have. That is a far cry from a monopoly.

Anyone know how many computers currently run windows? 92%. See the difference?


LOL Troll much nubs? I didn't see you going this low. Who's paying you off?

According to statcounter, Google enjoys 90% of search traffic, 97% of the mobile search traffic. That in the service terms is a monopoly because it's the traffic which defines the market share. Google has exclusive control of the Google Search Engine.

When someone has that much control of the search traffic, they have direct control over what people see on the internet. Google directs what people see and they need to be completely impartial about it because Google can change people's minds in an instant all over the world to what Google thinks is best for them. For instance, Google could point you to pages about Herman Cain being a sexual offender *all the time* in the first 10 search results to make Herman Cain an unelectable candidate instead of showing his political plan for the country. People would see this and never even listen to what he has to say. There needs to be a way to regulate this search engine service which has a very high impact on the world and that is what the investigation is about.

Don't be a ****ing idiot, please.

Anybody that has >50% market share is a monopoly. Go read some economics for why that is so. Google is a monopoly created out of trade secrets. The law needs to take into account of this loophole and make them publicize the trade secret, so that we can all move on from search engines and create things that are better and open. There is no better way to get out of the mess. Giving regulatory power to the govt. to oversee what Google shows and doesn't show is only going to spread the political agendas of the ruling parties.

God damn ignorant **** like your post makes me angry.

Edited by Jebadiah, Nov 7 2011, 12:34am :

Jebadiah said,

LOL Troll much nubs? I didn't see you going this low. Who's paying you off?

According to statcounter, Google enjoys 90% of search traffic, 97% of the mobile search traffic. That in the service terms is a monopoly because it's the traffic which defines the market share. Google has exclusive control of the Google Search Engine.

When someone has that much control of the search traffic, they have direct control over what people see on the internet. Google directs what people see and they need to be completely impartial about it because Google can change people's minds in an instant all over the world to what Google thinks is best for them. For instance, Google could point you to pages about Herman Cain being a sexual offender *all the time* in the first 10 search results to make Herman Cain an unelectable candidate instead of showing his political plan for the country. People would see this and never even listen to what he has to say. There needs to be a way to regulate this search engine service which has a very high impact on the world and that is what the investigation is about.

Don't be a ****ing idiot, please.

Anybody that has >50% market share is a monopoly. Go read some economics for why that is so. Google is a monopoly created out of trade secrets. The law needs to take into account of this loophole and make them publicize the trade secret, so that we can all move on from search engines and create things that are better and open. There is no better way to get out of the mess. Giving regulatory power to the govt. to oversee what Google shows and doesn't show is only going to spread the political agendas of the ruling parties.

God damn ignorant **** like your post makes me angry.

Ok, so what do you want to do? Does the same thing then apply for MS OS market share. The rule as to apply equally for all the companies it cannot be applied selectively. If Google has too much power and can control the web pages related to Cains and if the web pages relating to his sexual offender are all true then do you want it to shown or not? A la go the way of FOX noise then? Your example is showing a bias that you want the results and not what others want it to be.

Ok, even if the results of Google are going to control by government, then should the bing results also be controlled by the government? The whole fairsearch.org exercise seems to be like asking government to help each individual companies case. And their case is not as strong as the argument made against MS in the monopoly case. Windows did not boot if it detected DR-DOS and Compaq was threatened against selling BeOS. This is abusing your monopolistic power.

If worried about the neutrality of the search engine, then should we also control the noise made by FOX news? Should each news agency/outlet/company also be monitored and controlled by the government? In the same argument I would like the FOX noise to be placed under government restriction. "To each his own"

All the things that fairsearch.org accuses Google of doing, bing is doing the same and why Google is singled out and not Bing. Right from UI design to the getting information for the other web sites for places. Google places versus Bing places are they any different. What I see is, MS trying to use government as means to get leverage against Google for Bing market share. And do not I think MS should be given a free ride on this case. Whatever solution is arrived at to counter Google monopolistic influence, the same should also apply to Bing in terms of search result requirement and make sure Bing cannot capitalize to gain unfair advantage. Google was not the first search engine like fairsearch.org wants to be believe and Google fought against the entrenched giants of those days Altavista anyone!!! It was through their innovation Google won the market and Bing can win it with their innovation not through crying Mommy/Uncle... If MS feels search is very important and needs to own, then by all means MS can dump unlimited amount of dollar to reach its market goal. In Win 8, Bing is tightly integrated into the OS (If MS did not do it then it would have been surprising). So should government control the tight integration of Bing into Win 8? MS is a monopoly in the OS market?

Going with your argument, MS is monopoly created out of trade secrets. The law needs to take into account of this loophole and make them publicize their trade secret. OOXML has to be truly open, the window code has to be open, so that OS is standardized and I can choose to use my OS vendor of choice and all my office document would be truly open. I agree with you on the regulator power but asking trade secrets of Google alone to be publicized without asking MS to do the same is not balanced.

pksha said,

Ok, so what do you want to do? Does the same thing then apply for MS OS market share. The rule as to apply equally for all the companies it cannot be applied selectively. If Google has too much power and can control the web pages related to Cains and if the web pages relating to his sexual offender are all true then do you want it to shown or not? A la go the way of FOX noise then? Your example is showing a bias that you want the results and not what others want it to be.

Ok, even if the results of Google are going to control by government, then should the bing results also be controlled by the government? The whole fairsearch.org exercise seems to be like asking government to help each individual companies case. And their case is not as strong as the argument made against MS in the monopoly case. Windows did not boot if it detected DR-DOS and Compaq was threatened against selling BeOS. This is abusing your monopolistic power.

If worried about the neutrality of the search engine, then should we also control the noise made by FOX news? Should each news agency/outlet/company also be monitored and controlled by the government? In the same argument I would like the FOX noise to be placed under government restriction. "To each his own"

All the things that fairsearch.org accuses Google of doing, bing is doing the same and why Google is singled out and not Bing. Right from UI design to the getting information for the other web sites for places. Google places versus Bing places are they any different. What I see is, MS trying to use government as means to get leverage against Google for Bing market share. And do not I think MS should be given a free ride on this case. Whatever solution is arrived at to counter Google monopolistic influence, the same should also apply to Bing in terms of search result requirement and make sure Bing cannot capitalize to gain unfair advantage. Google was not the first search engine like fairsearch.org wants to be believe and Google fought against the entrenched giants of those days Altavista anyone!!! It was through their innovation Google won the market and Bing can win it with their innovation not through crying Mommy/Uncle... If MS feels search is very important and needs to own, then by all means MS can dump unlimited amount of dollar to reach its market goal. In Win 8, Bing is tightly integrated into the OS (If MS did not do it then it would have been surprising). So should government control the tight integration of Bing into Win 8? MS is a monopoly in the OS market?

Going with your argument, MS is monopoly created out of trade secrets. The law needs to take into account of this loophole and make them publicize their trade secret. OOXML has to be truly open, the window code has to be open, so that OS is standardized and I can choose to use my OS vendor of choice and all my office document would be truly open. I agree with you on the regulator power but asking trade secrets of Google alone to be publicized without asking MS to do the same is not balanced.


WTF. Monopoly is about having too much control over a commodity. In legal terms, more than 50%. In the search engine case, the commodity is traffic, not the search engine. If you get a traffic of more than 50%, you are monopolizing what the traffic sees on the internet. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand here.

Do you know how software patents work? Microsoft cannot release an OS that doesn't use its own or use licensed patents. It's CLIENT side software. SERVER side software has no requirement of being patented, unless Google chooses to, such as Google's search engine algorithms, per current IP laws. Google doesn't have to tell you anything they do inside their buildings no matter how ugly or disturbing it might be because they call it a "trade secret". This is tantamount to taking undue advantage of being able to use people rights as a corporation. Such practices should be illegal. If you had read any of Schmidt's previous comments about client and server side software, you would understand what I was saying and what kind of an ******* Schmidt is.

I agree that MS should also not be allowed to embed Bing into their products because their OS has that monopolistic influence on people. Let's not repeat history with what happened when they tried to push IE and WMP in the EU. The ballot for browser choice and search engine choice must be a 100% requirement for MS in whichever market Windows OS has >50% market share.

I said regulation. Regulation is not the same as giving govt. 100% power. If you had read my post carefully, you would have understood what I said. I would never let search engines get into the hands of the govt. because it would only spread the ruling party's political agendas. Right now Google's spreading it's own agendas, which is equally bad.

Google is being singled out because 90% of the search traffic on the Internet comes through their search engine. Again if you had read my post, you would get that. Bing can't be singled out in this case because it has a meagre 3-4% market share.

Herman Cain was only an example. I could give you any number of such examples. If you search "Herman Cain", you should get the first result that tells you about Herman Cain. The first result should be who he is. Not that he had sexually offended someone. His sexual offense was not what I was looking for, but that's what Google showed me. It could have been the 3rd or 4th or 5th result, but it was the 1st one instead. Do you understand what unbiased search results are? That's exactly what Google and Bing are not providing.

Facebook also falls under the exact same defintion for being a monopoly in the social networking market. They enjoy a healthy 80+% of all social networking traffic - views, clicks, posts, ads, searches, etc.

Edited by Jebadiah, Nov 7 2011, 10:00am :

Jebadiah said,

.....

Yup.

Plus to those above who claim google is 'free', it's NOT! If something is FREE, you are not the customer, but the product.

Google is selling your eyes (screen reader/etc) to companies who are vyying for your dollars.

And you're all happily opting in.

Commenting is disabled on this article.