Congressman Warns FTC: Leave Google Alone 303
concealment writes with this selection from Ars Technica: "A Democratic congressman who played a leading role in the fight against the Stop Online Piracy Act earlier this year has taken up a new cause: shielding Google from antitrust scrutiny. In a strongly worded letter to Federal Trade Commission chairman Jon Leibowitz, Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) praised Google's contribution to the nation's economy. He warned Leibowitz that if the FTC does choose to initiate an antitrust case against Google, Congress might react by curtailing its regulatory authority."
The congressman stuck his head out. (Score:4, Insightful)
And now it's going to get hammered.
The FTC will double their resolve, they get to help Apple while defying congress.
What could be better.
Re:Leave Google Alone! (Score:5, Insightful)
You are one hundred percent right. Google is a corporation, and corporations are people, my friend.
Re:Leave Google Alone! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ATTN: Jared Polis (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as I like Jared, I differ here (Score:5, Insightful)
Good examples are ATT, IBM and MS. Is there any proof that Google has acted like these companies did? I have not seen it.
Look at the code (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Leave Google Alone! (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Is there precedent for this? (Score:4, Insightful)
More like congressman is declaring FTC not to be above the law.
Google earned its keep fair and square and the FTC is probably in bed with Apple and Microsoft.
There are PLENTY worse players to go after and attacking google is blatantly selective, and the FTC knows it.
Re:Leave Google Alone! (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of stupid to say that they shouldn't be investigated just based off the 'boost' they give the economy. I'm sure MS gave a huge boost to silicon valley, but that doesn't mean what they were doing was right or that it should insulate them from any investigations.
If Google is innocent, then no harm no foul.
Re:As much as I like Jared, I differ here (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there any proof that Google has acted like these companies did? I have not seen it.
Nor has anyone else.
There is a witch hunt against Google because it provides a set of services that provides better value than any of its competitors. There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone else from getting into search, except the need to provide a better product. This isn't like AT&T, IBM, or Microsoft (as you rightly pointed out), where there were insurmountable barriers (ability to install competing phone lines, incompatibilities causing vendor lock-in, and [what should have been illegal] exclusivity agreements with the entire supply chain).
The only thing keeping someone from competing with Google is that people like Google. Using a competing search engine is trivially easy (you just need to go there), but Google just provides a better service.
This witch hunt is just a desperate attempt by failed competitors to get the Government to make Google less useful, because the competitors know they can't compete on their merits.
Re:ATTN: Jared Polis (Score:5, Insightful)
Not all sides.
Lobbyists only work on the money sides.
Re:As much as I like Jared, I differ here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jared Polis is one of the few.. (Score:5, Insightful)
>Are you even familiar with the Unites States versus Microsoft.
I am. And David Boies was famous for prosecuting it. a
But then what actually happened?
The went under "observation."
Big deal. They should have been broken up. It would have been better for the company and for the investors as the pieces of Microsoft were worth more than the whole.
They weren't taken seriously. QED.
--
BMO
Re:ATTN: Jared Polis (Score:5, Insightful)
Jim Taggart and his railroad were already chummy with Washington in the beginning of the book
Yeah, this point was conveniently overlooked. They've already been given tax breaks, handouts, protections, etc from the gov't. But the did it 'all on their own' and not at all at the cost of others.
I thought this was the biggest fallacy of Atlas Shrugged: Railroads aren't economically sustainable in a laissez-faire system, or even possible to build without eminent domain, so Rand's point about Nat Taggart building his railroad with nothing but his brains and braun was a bunch of bullshit. History especially proved Rand wrong: just compare the European and Asian railroads to American ones. Not only are the 'socialist' rail systems of Europe and Asia much more modern, but they're also utilized much more and provide immense opportunities not available in the States. Outside a couple large metropolises (which have 'socialist' subways and trains), in the States a person is screwed without a car. It's a Catch-22 for many: can't get a job without a car, can't get a car without a job. The U.S. has Amtrak and freight trains and that's it.
Re:Leave Google Alone! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ATTN: Jared Polis (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that Ayn's premise was flawed. Companies don't hire lobbyists because they have to, they hire them because they want to influence (purchase) favorable rules and regulations. Lobbyists are not defensive, they are offensive.
The way you brought the subject up, and the fact that you pointed out a flawed premise as if it was factual is what made you sound like you were shoe horning Ayn into the conversation. You gave the impression that you were a blind follower of her.
Note: I have read Ayn's work but disagree with a lot of her philosophy.
Re:Leave Google Alone! (Score:5, Insightful)
If Google is innocent, then no harm no foul.
"No harm"? You haven't ever been investigated, have you? You might be completely and totally innocent and still be ruined, financially and personally by an "investigation".
While Google won't actually be ruined by this, to claim that there would be "no harm" is extremely naive.
This is just like those people who say, "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from government spying."
Re:Leave Google Alone! (Score:2, Insightful)
So are the Super Rich our new Overlords?
Ha, "new"... hehe. I like you, you're funny.