Pearlstein hits back at Google on antitrust
Google picked apart a column by The Post's Steven Pearlstein about growing antirust concerns swirling around the search giant.
Post Tech wanted to hear more and asked Pearlstein to respond. Here's his take:
Google has done a good job at reciting the predictable antitrust lawyer talking points (efficiency, good for consumers) to support the proposition that it should be allowed to buy any company not in their core business area. The problem for Google is that it is so good it now has what, for all intents and purposes, amounts to a monopoly in the key Internet portal market for web search. That means the law requires that it be treated differently. Not true in the case of many of the other acquirers it cites. Is this unfair? Does this punish a successful company? Yes and yes. But the basic premise of the anti-trust law is that this degree of unfairness is a reasonable price to pay to maintain robust competition in other markets. In the short run, consumers may be denied the benefits of the new products or the lower prices that might result from such a non-horizontal merger. But that does not end the conversation in the case of a monopoly buyer, because there is a larger issue involved -- one that goes well beyond the competitive dynamic of the small market niche of the acquired company, which is the limit of most Hart-Scott-Rodino analyses. The point of the column was to suggest the proper analysis is now the larger market for Internet search and services, for which Google is a dominant portal.
Google in its posting essentially admits that there are synergies that come from these non-vertical acquisitions. One plus one equals three. And this benefit accrues not only to consumers, as Google would like you to believe, but also to the competitive benefit of Google in both its core business and in the new business it is entering. We have lots of examples of this, but Google cites one that makes the point magnificently: Google's entry into the mapping space that eventually brought us Google Maps. It’s a wonderful service and we all appreciate it. But it would be hard, as a factual matter, to argue that this has not helped to strengthen Google's search monopoly. And the fact that Google Maps was able, rather quickly, to blow past MapQuest, the previous dominant firm in that space, is a pretty good indication of what is likely to happen in any adjacent market that Google wants to enter.
For the moment, I'm not proposing that Google be prevented from entering these adjacent markets -- as I said, I think the industry is so dynamic and fast-changing that this kind of structural remedy is unwise, at least at this point. But I do believe a less onerous structural remedy -- preventing Google from buying its way into an adjacent market -- is reasonable, if for no other reason than it forecloses the possibility that another major player might acquire the company in order to achieve the scale and scope necessary to challenge Google. As Google's lawyers know full well, foreclosure is a well-recognized argument in assessing the competitive impact of a merger, particularly one done by a monopolist.
This posting tells me that Google is not yet interested in joining a serious discussion of what the rest of us should do about its legally obtained monopoly. The company wants to grow and produce great new products and services and make more money -- all perfectly legitimate and healthy instincts. From an economy and industry-wide perspective, however, it would be better to let some other companies grow and some other companies come up with these great new products. Google's aggressive acquisition strategy, combined with its dominance, makes this unlikely. The tipping point has now been reached.
Time to loosen Google's grip?
| December 16, 2010; 1:40 PM ET
Categories: Antitrust, Google
Save & Share: Previous: Obama Administration calls for 'Privacy Bill of Rights'
Next: Lawmakers take up debate on net neutrality rules
Posted by: amiller5 | December 17, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse