Google in restraint of trade? 1

[chiph]

Jim Fawcette, owner of Fawcett Technical Publications (Visual Studio Magazine and others), has posted to his blog that Google is in restraint of trade:

http://www.ftponline.com/weblogger/forum.aspx?ID=1&DATE=12/15/2003

The short summary is:
Google, by distributing it's pop-up blocking toolbar, is restraining other ads, while it's own ads (which are embedded in the page) get through.

And, they have changed their EULA to retroactively demand exclusivity (you can't have ads by Doubleclick as well as Google on your site).

Opinions?

Chip H.


If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

 

[CajunCenturion]

Couple of thoughts, based solely on the posted short summary, immediately come to mind.

If blocking pop-ups, and by extension, SPAM, is considered to be restraint of trade, then I think we're facing some real problems in the very near future. If some governing body told Google what to block and what to show, then perhaps the restraint of trade claim is valid. Google is not obligated to show any ads that they have not aqreed to show and more that one TV network is obligated to show ads that the network has not been paid to show.

With respect to exclusivity, I see no problem with Google, or any other site deciding which advertisements to show, and which to block. Unless the site is funded by public monies, or the people who's ad is being blocked have paid Google for the exposure, then Google is free to do as it pleases.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[kippy13]

I agree with Cajun

"Sometimes I do not know but I try hard"- R.F. Haughty 1923

 

[wacobd]

Probably the best way to look at it is like TV Media. I know that Saturday Night Live was not shown in Iowa when Al Sharpton was hosting because Iowa felt the Equal Time rule would have required them to give 90 minutes of air time to all the other Presidental candidates. However everyone else showed the show. That was their right to do that. No pressure, no law suits, just a decision of the network affilates in Iowa.

Now if an investor of Google is saying don't let so and so advertise on here because they can take away my business, that would be another story there.

 

[Grenage]

I agree with the above, although I have never actually seen a google pop-up. Only page-embedded adverts.

These in themselves are "good" adverts as they are nothing but mere text.

 

[CajunCenturion]

Now if an investor of Google is saying don't let so and so advertise on here because they can take away my business, that would be another story there.

Why would that be another story? Don't you think that the investors in a private concern have some say in how their money is to be used?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[wacobd]

If I were the marketing guy for gadgets.com and paid Google (or whoever) to advertise my banner/website/links and they accepted my payment and has put the money in their bank and then says that the CEO of superiorgadgets.com (who happens to own some of their stock) has asked that they do not show my banners/website/links because I am a competitor, to me that is not fair.

To me this looks like they are changing their EULA rectoactive. That would be like Microsoft saying if you use Word 2003, you can not use QuatroPro for your spreadsheet because that is their competitor.

 

[CajunCenturion]

That's also breach of contract. You paid for a service and they are obligated to provide that service. If there is a clause in the contract which allows them to act in that manner, then shame on you for signing the contract.

And how is that any different from the advertiser who bought ad time for SNL and later found that the network or even an individual station chose not to air the show, thus not showing the ad in some market area. Unless the contract provided for such a situation, the network would be in breach of contract for the very same reasons.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

The sites have a choice....If they don't like the conditions then they shouldn't go with it. I don't believe google is in a monopoly situation where they are so large that others can not compete. The sites don't have to advertise google.

I understand Google. Their adds are fairly unabtrusive. If they pay a site to host their adds and that site also uses other advertising that means their adds are less effective. In a way this is like a TV station during the add break and having 4 adds on the scren at once. If I was an advertiser then I wouldn't want that. Also you'll find some places will only deal with TV/Radio stations will exclusively deal with them in their marketshare.

Personally I have no problem with what Google has done.

 

[harebrain]

If ignorance is bliss, this thread must be home to the happiest people on earth. Maybe some of you ought to read the danged article. (Aw, who am I kidding?)

Fawcette's point, which you all missed, is that:
1. Google is in the ad-server business
2. Google uses its dominance in Web searching to push tools that block ads from competing servers.

It has nothing to do with the ads on Google itself or how obtrusive the ads are. It's all about using a dominant position in one market sector (Web searching) to prevent competition in another market sector (serving ads.)

Google that!

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

Note the "exclusivity" refers to "the same page" So yo can have advertising on other pages.

Their software just enforces the EULA. If the site doesn't like it then they can drop GOOGLE adds.

I don't think I missed anything. All Google has done is sync'd up their EULA to match what their software does (ie stop other adds from working on that page). If it interfers with a page then remove the google add from that page

As far as the tracking. I'd have to investigate this further. But this sounds differnt then other tracking spy ware that globally monitors your activity. The way it is worded this tracks your usage on just sites they deal with.

"When you click on a Google ad ... where do you find a way to opt out of Google's tracking of your behavior?"

Up you opt out by not clicking on the add. What are they collecting? Are they collecting any information that is not normally accessible to them?

The article has this quote
Google's response, when we've discussed this with them, is basically is basically "trust us, we'll behave."

This is deceiving because they use quotes but notice that the quote isn't what Google's response was but the reporter's interpritation of their responce and the reporter does not provide Google's responce.

The reporter that says things have been changed "retroactively" is not proven. They've changed their EULA. A right that has in previous EULA been stated that they are allowed to do. The EULA isn't agreed upon until you "sign another End User License Agreement (EULA)".
How is this retroactive? The user at that point has the right to accept the EULA or not. I don't read anywhere here that Google is asking for payment made to this or other site be credited. The reporter keeps making refrence to the past making the reader think stuff like "they had to pay money back to Google for past services rendered"?

The whole article seems skewed to me. The wording in the article seems to intentionally deceive the reader into the reporters biased opinion. There was a contract between Google and ftponline. Google through some process found out that its EULA wasn't clear. Google altered this EULA in accordance with the contract that ftponline signed. ftponline has the right to disengage from the agreement with Google. Seems they don't like the terms but still went with them.

Because of this article is bias I read it more carefully and because of the blatent discrepancies I trust the author less. Doesn't mean I'm ignorant. It means I don't blindly believe what is written in black and white.

 

[dgillz]

It is also worth pointing out that the Google toolbar is an optional download....the only people using it are the ones that want to.

Software Sales, Training, Implementation and Support for Exact Macola, eSynergy, and Crystal Reports

http://www.trianglepartners.com

 

[CajunCenturion]

Thank you SemperFiDownUnda[/n] for that response, you've made some good points. The only thing I'd change is the referring of this as an article, because it's actually a complaint letter, not a news item.

I found the following to be one of the funniest sections, and one which defined the credibility and objectivety the the letter writers opinions:
Some market research studies put Google's share at only 31%, but if you remove proprietary, closed systems such as AOL and MSN, Google's share is perhaps in the 70% range.. Some studies implies that other say differently, and as far as market share, it sounds quite analagous to something like, "if you remove Ford and Chevrolet, Chrysler has an 70% market share."

At this point, knowing that it was a complaint letter, and with statements like the above, the blissful would be those who don't recognize this letter for what it is.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[CajunCenturion]

Sorry folks, hit submit instead of preview.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Grenage]

A rediculous letter to be sure.

 

[jsteph]

Can someone clarify this? Isn't Google's toolbar something that Google sells to other sites--so if you go to say, billybobshillbillycorner.com, you might see links for road-kill recipies, moonshine distilling equimpment, etc, but at the top of that site is a Google toolbar.

So the Google toolbar then blocks ads that were paid for by other companies--paid to Billy Bob--thus giving visitors to Billy Bob's site fewer pop-ups, and those advertisers never get their pop-ups to show to their target audience. I this the case? If it is, it seems that those advertisers would know Billy Bob's site has a Google toolbar, killing their ads. They drop their account with the site. Billy Bob now must make a decision: Drop the Google Toolbar, reducing the value of his site, or let the other advertisers drop their accounts?

This sounds more like Microsoft telling Gateway or Dell that they can't sell Linux on their machines--if they do then they must pay the 'retail' price per copy of Windows for every box they sell, as compared to the exponentially smaller cost of the oem license fee. And as much as the legal wording of MS's contract to those box-builders may try to get around the antitrust laws--that is, in my opinion, illegal.
--jsteph

 

[Grenage]

Google Toolbar is a client installed piece of software that integrates into Internet Explorer.

It allows you to block popups, the user that is. It's not a server thing.

 

[ecobb]

As dgillz pointed out, the toolbar is an OPTIONAL download. Which means if someone installed the popup blocker, it's because they don't want to see popups. Plain and simple, the users that have this tool don't care who the advertisers are or what they're selling, they don't want to see it. I've been using it since it came out, and I can't recall seeing a Google popup. The popup blocker doesn't stop banner ads on web sites, so there is still a means of (less intrusive) advertisement available.

I signed up on the national Telemarketer "Do not call" registry because I do not want to be bothered. I have Spam filters because I do not want to be bothered. I have the Google popup blocker for the same reason, and if popups start getting through (even Google's) then I will find another blocker. I'm tired of everyone throwing their products, their services, and whatever else they think I "need" in my face. If I want your service I'll come to you, until then leave me alone. And no article, lawyer, or EULA is going to change my mind.

I have the right NOT to be harassed, and the Google popup blocker is helping me stop the harassment. The telemarketers screamed when the US Government started the "Do Not Call" list earlier this year, but when 23,000,000 people signed up the first week, there wasn't a whole lot they could argue about. Even when the judge in California tried to stop it, there were over 50,000,000 people signed up on it and there wasn't much he could do about it. "50 million people can't be wrong."

What this article(complaint letter) boils down do is the fact that some advertiser has realized that he can no longer "force feed" his products/services to us and that we now have a choice as to whether or not we have to see it. Bottom line, they're scared because Google provides a means to stop their harassment and they're trying to find a way to shut down Google's popup (harassment) blocker.

Hope This Helps!

Ecobb

"Alright Brain, you don't like me, and I don't like you. But lets just do this, and I can get back to killing you with beer." - Homer Simpson

 

[Kjonnnn]

I think since Google gives you the option to use or not to use the PopUp Blocker.... that theory goes out the windows.

If you don't use the blocker, you're free to view all the popups you desire.

 

[harebrain]

Oh, for crying out loud! This complaint isn't about the computer user (nobody cares whether you like ads.) It's about restraint of trade in the ad-server business. Ceding market sectors (AOL, MSN) doesn't invalidate the claim in the remaining market sectors, so the Ford/Chevy analogy doesn't stand up.

---

Let me put it this way. Say I own a business, Bliss Inc., and I want to advertise on the Web. I'm considering two ad-server outfits: we'll call them GAS and SOL-AS. Bliss discovers that GAS has distributed millions of copies of free "search-assist" software to computer users that by default also blocks reception of SOL-AS's ads, but not GAS's ads. Thousands of computer users have opted to install GAS's software because it promises to make Web searching easier.

If I, CEO of Bliss, put my ads on SOL-AS's ad-server, many of the ad placements I've paid for will never make it to the audience because GAS will block them. If Bliss signs up with GAS, no such problem.

What's the result? GAS gets the business, not because it offers a better service or better deal, but because it has denied audience access to its competitor, SOL-AS.

---

The complaint might seem a bit histrionic, but that doesn't mean that the business practice that led to the complaint isn't nefarious or illegal.