| 3:55 pm on Dec 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Interesting how close that came.
Such a legal battle would have been costly in time, money and share price. Shrewd move by Google, imho.
| 4:51 pm on Dec 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Would have been interesting to see how far they would have dug into anti-trust and what otehr findings may have come out of it.
| 5:02 pm on Dec 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
If the DoJ got involved, do you think Search (being inherently non-monetised) would be a market you could be considered monopolistic in? And if so, would G be abusing their position by only allowing adwords to use their advertising space?
| 8:28 pm on Dec 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Here's a question: if Microsoft were under fire here instead of Google, would they have backed down?
| 9:16 pm on Dec 4, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Nah, MS rarely back down. Thats why they got such a bad reputation- they were swallowing a multi-million (dollar/pound/euro- take your pick) DAILY fine about publishing "complete and accurate technical specifications" and still fighting.
G still enjoys public affection. It would be seriously bad for them to lose this publically annointed halo. MS never cared what people thought of them- as long as people BOUGHT their product, by hook or by crook
| 1:39 am on Dec 5, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|It would have ended up also alleging that Google had a monopoly and that [the advertising pact] would have furthered their monopoly," Litvack says |
Hmmm. Google had already reached monopoly status without this deal.
That seems like the real news/reason here to me.
| 7:26 am on Jan 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Cool move, G-men!
(Nothing would have hit G's street cred like an anti-trust l/s.)