[Politech] Ed Black and Brock Meeks on Google not being a monopoly [priv]

From: Declan McCullagh (declan@private)
Date: Tue Oct 28 2003 - 12:22:46 PST

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "[Politech] Anne Mitchell's insider reply supporting Senate spam bill [sp]"

    [Ed runs a Washington trade organization that is appealing the 
    DOJ-Microsoft antitrust settlement as being insufficiently, ah, rigorous. 
    See: http://www.ccianet.org/press/03/0505.php3  --Declan]
    To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
    Subject: Re: [Politech] Google's possible IPO draw cries of "monopoly!" [priv]
    From: "Ed J. Black" <EBlack@private>
    Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:02:40 -0500
    We know what real monopolies look like and its not Google.
    Having a competitive level playing field is very important and is a proper 
    subject for public agencies -WHEN there is a monopoly AND WHEN it abuses 
    its power AND  when there is competitive harm.
    Large market share, especially when there are no substantial barriers to 
    entry is not grounds for action.  Why some so misunderstood the Microsoft 
    case - it wasn't about being big, or even being a multi-monopolist, but 
    about breaking the law,  causing harm, and NOT competing on a level playing 
    Success and growth are not punished by our legal system.  That myth is 
    perpetuated by those who want to distort reality to protect lawbreakers by 
    trying to delegitimize the law.
    From: "Meeks, Brock (MSNBCi)" <Brock.Meeks@private>
    To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan@private>
    Subject: RE: [Politech] Google's possible IPO draw cries of "monopoly!" [priv]
    Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:52:14 -0800
    Of course this claim of "monopoly" is rubbish.  And in fact, there is 
    nothing inherently wrong or illegal about a monopoly; it's only if a 
    so-called "monopoly" uses its position to thwart competition and squash 
    potential rivals that it begins to run afoul of the law.
    Case in point: Microsoft.
    Then we must look at whether the monopoly has any competition in its 
    relevant market.  I can name a half-dozen search engines off the top of my 
    head and a few that do a BETTER job than Google.
    Google may the name recognition, but it's certainly not a monopoly.
    Privacy concerns:  with such technologies one can never discount privacy 
    concerns.  There are many fighting the good fight for privacy and that 
    should continue.  I would argue that a company going public provides more 
    opportunities for outside scrutiny than if the company were kept in private 
    Politech mailing list
    Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Oct 28 2003 - 12:33:56 PST