Google vs. YahooSoft
February 4th, 2008 by Peter SudermanWell, I suppose it was inevitable. Looks like Google’s taking action to try to block, or at least delay Microsoft’s potential merger with Yahoo.
Google’s lobbyists in Washington have also begun plotting how it might present a case against the transaction to lawmakers, people briefed on the company’s plans said.
…In Google’s statement on Sunday, it said that the potential purchase of Yahoo by Microsoft could pose threats to competition that needed to be examined by policy makers.
Google’s broadly worded concerns lacked detailed claims about any anticompetitive effects of the deal, and the company did not publicly ask regulators to take specific actions at this time.
“Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC?” asked David Drummond, Google’s senior vice president and chief legal officer, writing on the company’s blog.
Oh yes, it’s very scary, in a legal-jargon sort of way. Inappropriate! Illegal! …Erm, possibly! Let’s be straight here: Google isn’t trying to block this merger out of any honest fear for the well being of the world’s netizens, nor out of real concern for the health of the competitive marketplace. They’re in this because a MicroHoo, or a YahooSoft, or a MiYa, or any other permutation indicating that the two tech titans have joined forces, represents a substantial threat to Google’s business. This isn’t charity work, nor anything of the sort; it’s a company hoping to get a helping hand from the government and use regulation to protect its own business model. And I can’t help but suspect that it’s also designed as payback against Microsoft for attempting to derail Google’s own merger with DoubleClick, which was recently approved by the FTC.
At the end of the article, Carl Tobias, a Richmond law professor, indicates that anti-trust review of the deal could easily bleed into the next administration. I don’t doubt that this is the case, but I have to hope that, as Cord Blomquist notes over at TLF, the recently approved Google-DoubleClick might serve as precedent allowing any review to go through quickly.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I don’t really understand the entrepreneurs/executives at Google and Microsoft who took advantage of the benefits of the free market and create huge successful companies, but lobby for anti-free market policies that could hurt everything they’ve built.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
It’s unfortunate, but it’s simply the way a lot of modern business works. Build a business model that works, then try to get the government to protect that business model through rules and regulations. It’s called regulatory capture, and it’s depressingly common these days (Tim Carney wrote a whole book about it: “The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money.” Highly recommended.)
February 4th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Didn’t seem to bother you guys in Oregon two years ago, though. FW bankrolled a ballot measure that would have regulated what attorneys could charge for contingency fees. Not necessarily a bad idea, but you guys were still advocating regulation, pure and simple. Since your position is that government regulation is bad no matter what, I wonder how you guys justify your actions in Oregon in 2006 and square them with your opinions here.
February 5th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
It might be called regulatory capture these days, but crony capitalism has been around since the beginning of times pretty much.
That is the fastest way to make money, get your friends at government to protect your business model. Just ask the sugar industry for instance or the telecom carriers, or the pharmaceutical companies, or cable operators or the music and movie industry, or… (does this list have an end ?)