Google Cleared in FTC investigation

[kennyc]

Google accused of 'anticompetitive conduct' in how it ranks search results
• FTC finds 'evidence does not support' that claim
• Google's use of patents will change so that 'essential' patents will be licensed.
• Rivals fear US regulators will let search giant off lightly.
• European verdict in similar case expected later this month.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...dict-live.html

[kennyc]

More followup:

FTC: Google does not violate antitrust laws


Google hasn't violated any antitrust laws, the Federal Trade Commission announced Thursday, but it has agreed to make some changes in how it treats its rivals as part of a settlement to end the 19-month investigation into its business practices.

The FTC's investigation focused on allegations that Google has been abusing its dominance in Internet search. Google's rivals say the company has been highlighting its own services on its influential results page while burying the links to competing sites.

Google Inc. has fiercely defended its right to recommend the websites that it believes are the most relevant.

The FTC said it voted unanimously to close the investigation on whether Google's algorithm unfairly favored itself because there was no evidence that Google violated antitrust laws.

"Although some evidence suggested that Google was trying to eliminate competition, Google's primary reason for changing the look and feel of its search results to highlight its own products was to improve the user experience," FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz said to reporters Thursday.
...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-...ntitrust-laws/

[PatNY]

kenny, I'm glad Google is vindicated here. First, I think it's Google's right to order the results in any way it sees fit. If we as consumers don't like it, we can use Yahoo or Bing or whatever other search engine is out there. Second, Google can hardly be described as selfish. It seems they forgo considerable potential profit by distributing their android OS without charge and many of their apps as well. Frankly, I've never understood why they do this.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by PatNY

It seems they forgo considerable potential profit by distributing their android OS without charge and many of their apps as well. Frankly, I've never understood why they do this.

They needed to create a viable alternative to iOS for mobile devices, or they risked being squeezed out of the mobile advertising market. It is all about the advertising, the other services just feed into that.
Also, they do make money from distributing the non-free portions of Android to smartphone manufactures.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

They needed to create a viable alternative to iOS for mobile devices, or they risked being squeezed out of the mobile advertising market. It is all about the advertising, the other services just feed into that.
Also, they do make money from distributing the non-free portions of Android to smartphone manufactures.

But how would a small fee have stopped its growth? They could have started out charging a small fee for each handset with android sold, and then dropped the fee if sales weren't strong.

And what are the non-free portions of android that the OEMs put on their phones?

--Pat

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by PatNY

But how would a small fee have stopped its growth? They could have started out charging a small fee for each handset with android sold, and then dropped the fee if sales weren't strong.

For most brand-name devices, they do get a small fee per device sold. [Or at least could, they might negotiate a flat fee instead.]
For off-brand devices, they don't.
Now with the rise of devices like the Kindle Fire, that don't include the full 'Android experience', the 'not' proportion has grown to include 'prestige' devices, rather than just cheap ones.

And what are the non-free portions of android that the OEMs put on their phones?

Google Play and the other Google apps.
The OS is open-source and free, the apps are not.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

For most brand-name devices, they do get a small fee per device sold. [Or at least could, they might negotiate a flat fee instead.]

A fee for what? Where did you read this?

Google Play and the other Google apps.
The OS is open-source and free, the apps are not.

Access to Google Play is free. The OEMs are not charged a fee for offering this on their phones. Most Google-branded apps are also free. Sure, Google charges a percentage for each third-party app sold, but that's not what I was referring to. It seems to me that they left a lot of profit on the table by forgoing fees for both the Android OS and for Google-branded apps. Which is why I said they are not a selfish company.

--Pat

[holymadness]

So selfless. Giving away so much all out of the goodness of their little hearts. Bless them, every one.

Takeaways from this story:

1. Google will no longer be able to abuse Motorola's SEP portfolio. Good news for Microsoft and Apple who will be able to licence them at FRAND rates.

2. Lobbying pays off.

[rdfry]

How about Apple is also prevented from abusing patents.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by PatNY

A fee for what? Where did you read this? ...

Access to Google Play is free. The OEMs are not charged a fee for offering this on their phones. Most Google-branded apps are also free.
--Pat

from http://source.android.com/faqs.html#...y-and-branding

"Android Market is only licensed to handset manufacturers shipping devices."

"The Google apps for Android, such as YouTube, Google Maps and Navigation, Gmail, and so on are Google properties that are not part of Android, and are licensed separately. Contact android-partnerships@google.com for inquiries related to those apps."

i think that licensing is where the idea comes from

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

from http://source.android.com/faqs.html#...y-and-branding



i think that licensing is where the idea comes from

But the question is, do they charge a fee for them? They license their Android OS, but do not charge any fees for it.

--Pat

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by holymadness

So selfless. Giving away so much all out of the goodness of their little hearts. Bless them, every one.

Takeaways from this story:

1. Google will no longer be able to abuse Motorola's SEP portfolio. Good news for Microsoft and Apple who will be able to licence them at FRAND rates.

2. Lobbying pays off.

Damn Google! (I like them better than Apple, but I feel particularly contrarian today.)

1. Where they trying to help Microsoft and Apple or where they trying to keep Google from going blind?

2. True. Unfortunately.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by PatNY

But the question is, do they charge a fee for them? They license their Android OS, but do not charge any fees for it.

They license use of the Android name/trademark, the OS itself is available for anyone to use with no licensing required, I thought?

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

They license use of the Android name/trademark, the OS itself is available for anyone to use with no licensing required, I thought?

Semantics. They distribute the Android OS under an actual license, but it's free.

--Pat

[VaultBoy]

Good to hear.

I always thought this investigation was crap.