Latest Tweets:
The blog of Hot Maps, maps for online-, mobile- and print-media.
ICOMP Council member,
Google EU antitrust complainant.
Mostly English, with some German and French.
Press Area (English) | Pressebereich (Deutsch) | Archive | RSS
WASHINGTON, DC – Consumer Watchdog today called on federal regulators to block Google’s proposed $1 billion acquisition of Waze, developers of a mobile mapping application, on antitrust grounds.
Read more here: consumerwatchdog.org
Read the letter to the FTC here
Read the letter to the Department of Justice here
The Guardian: Google Waze acquisition needs antitrust probe – Consumer Watchdog
Law 360: Google’s $1B Waze Buy An Antitrust Threat: Consumer Group
Hot Maps & Euro-Cities official market test response
Prof. Ben Edelman (Harvard Business School)
ICOMP submits views to the European Commission
Foundem: An Initial Analysis of Google’s Proposals
The Guardian: Comment by Tom Watson, MP
BEUC European Consumer Organisation
Rivals, including British price comparison site Foundem and German online mapping company Hot Maps, say Google’s proposals would force them to bid on links in Google, raising Google’s profit at their cost and increase merchants’ dependency on Google.
“After, we will analyse the responses we have received… almost 100 percent we will ask Google: you should improve your proposals,” Commissioner Almunia told lawmakers during a Tuesday hearing at the European Parliament.
“We have received a formal complaint regarding some aspects of the Android ecosystem. We are working on it, we have not decided if we will open or not a formal investigation,” he also said.
Read more at
Reuters: EU to seek more Google concessions in competition probe
New York Times: Europe Warns Google It Could Face Further Concessions
Der Spiegel: Kartellstreit: EU will mehr Zugeständnisse von Google (German)
ARD Tagesschau: Brüssel droht Google den Showdown an (German)
Streetmap is taking legal action in the High Court in England against Google for the damage it has incurred as a consequence of Google’s anti competitive practices.
Streetmap is a small UK based tech company and an innovative provider of internet maps. Before Google’s anti competitive conduct, Streetmap was a popular UK business, used by many millions to find accurate and detailed maps.
At the centre of the case is the customer’s right to choose. This choice is distorted by Google’s dominance in internet search, and its practice of promoting its own products. In this case Google promotes Google Maps, and makes those of Google’s competitors, such as Streetmap, harder to find.
The European Commission is currently investigating these issues and is reported to agree that Google is dominant in search and its practice of favouring its in-house services is a breach of competition law. Streetmap is a complainant in the Commission’s proceedings. The High Court case is complimentary with those proceedings.
Kate Sutton Commercial Director of Streetmap said:
“This is about choice and about Google’s refusal to provide end users with a choice or to compete on fair reasonable and non discriminatory terms with smaller competitors.
We have had to take this action in an effort to protect our business and attract attention to those that, like us, have started their own technology businesses, only to find them damaged by Google’s cynical manipulation of search results.”
Background: When introduced Google Maps had little traction in the UK market. Streetmap and others were in widespread use. Through its promotion of Google maps and its practice of making other internet maps harder to find, Google places its maps in front of customers, unfairly embedding its maps in search results, and damaging competition between internet mapping companies.
Many people believe that Google searches produce unbiased results. In reality, as the self promotion and bundling of Google Maps with search demonstrates, Google manipulates the results for its own benefit.
Sidley Austin LLP, is representing Streetmap in its action against Google.
Streetmap macht Schadenersatzansprüche geltend
Der britische Online-Kartendienst Streetmap leitet wegen aufgrund Googles wettbewerbswidrigen Geschäftspraktiken erlittenem Schaden rechtliche Schritte im High Court of England gegen Google ein.
Streetmap ist ein kleines Technologieunternehmen aus dem Vereinigten Königreich und ein innovativer Dienst für Maps im Internet. Vor Googles unlauterem Gebaren war Streetmap ein beliebtes britisches Unternehmen, das Millionen von Besuchern benutzten um genaue und detaillierte Straßenkarten zu finden.
Im Zentrum des Gerichtsfalls steht das Recht aller Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher auf freie Auswahl. Diese Auswahl wird verzerrt durch Googles marktbeherrschende Stellung in der Internet-Suche und Googles Praktiken eigene Produkte zu begünstigen. In diesem Fall promotet Google bevorzugt Google Maps, und macht die von Konkurrenten wie Streetmap schwerer zu finden.
Die Europäische Kommission ermittelt gegenwärtig in diesen Fällen gegen Google und hat laut Berichten die Haltung, dass Google marktbeherrschend bei der Suche ist und, dass die Praktiken seine hauseigenen Dienste zu bevorzugen ein wettbewerbsrechtlicher Gesetzbruch ist. Streetmap ist einer der Anzeigeerstatter in dem Ermittlungsverfahren der Europäischen Kommission. Das Verfahren am High Court of England ergänzt die EU-Ermittlungen.
Kate Sutton, Geschäftsführerin von Streetmap sagte:
„Es geht hier um freie Wahl und um Googles Weigerung Verbrauchern die Wahl zu lassen; sowie Wettbewerb mit kleineren Konkurrenten zu fairen, ausgewogenen und nicht diskriminierenden Bedingungen zu führen.
Wir waren gezwungen diese Schritte zu ergreifen, als Versuch unser Geschäft zu schützen und Aufmerksamkeit für Firmen zu gewinnen, die wie wir ein Technologiebusiness führen, nur um sich durch Googles zynische Manipulation der Suchergebnisse geschädigt zu finden.“
Hintergrund: Als Google Maps eingeführt wurden, hatten sie zunächst wenig Beliebtheit im britischen Markt. Streetmap und Andere waren bei Usern weitverbreitet in Benutzung. Durch seine Bevorzugung von Google Maps und die Geschäftspraktik andere Maps schwerer zu finden zu machen, bringt Google seine Maps in den Blick der Verbraucher, unfairerweise seine Maps in Suchergebnissen einbindend, und den Wettbewerb von Internet Mapping Firmen schädigend.
Viele glauben Google-Suchen produzieren unparteiische Ergebnisse. In Wirklichkeit, wie die Selbst-Promotion und das Bundling von Google Maps mit der Google Suche demonstriert, manipuliert Google die Suchergebnisse zum eigenen Vorteil.
Dear Vice-President Almunia,
RE: COMP/C-3/39.740 - Foundem / Google and associated cases
We are writing to express our common views on the European Commission’s ongoing settlement negotiations with Google. The Commission opened proceedings more than two years ago, and we are becoming increasingly concerned that effective and future-proof remedies might not emerge through settlement discussions alone.
The first point we would like to raise is that the anti-competitive impact of search manipulation far outweighs the Commission’s three other areas of concern regarding Google’s business practices. In addition to materially degrading the user experience and limiting consumer choice, Google’s search manipulation practices lay waste to entire classes of competitors in every sector where Google chooses to deploy them.
The second point we would like to raise is that there are two equally important aspects to Google’s search manipulation practices: the systematic promotion of Google’s own services, and the systematic demotion or exclusion of its competitors’ services. Any effective remedies will require explicit commitments to end both aspects; remedying one without remedying the other would simply allow Google to recalibrate the un-remedied practice in order to achieve the same or equivalent anti-competitive effect.
Thirdly, we are convinced that Google’s strict adherence to the following overarching principle would ensure an end to both aspects of Google’s search manipulation practices:
Google must be even-handed. It must hold all services, including its own, to exactly the same standards, using exactly the same crawling, indexing, ranking, display, and penalty algorithms.
We will respectfully withhold judgement on Google’s proposed commitments until we have seen them, but Google’s past behaviour suggests that it is unlikely to volunteer effective, future-proof remedies without being formally charged with infringement. Given this, and the fact that Google has exploited every delay to further entrench, extend, and escalate its anti-competitive activities, we urge the Commission to issue the Statement of Objections.
Yours sincerely,
Shivaun Raff,
CEO and Co-Founder, Foundem
Helmut Verdenhalven,
Director Government Relations, BDZV Federation of German Newspaper Publishers
Dr. h.c. Hans Biermann,
Chief Executive Officer, Euro-Cities AG
Brent Thompson,
Senior Vice President Government and Corporate Affairs, Expedia Inc.
Michael Weber,
Managing Director, Hot Maps Medien GmbH
Kate Sutton,
Director, Streetmap EU Ltd
Seth Kalvert,
Senior Vice President, General Counsel, TripAdvisor
Bastien Duclaux,
CEO and co-Founder, Twenga
Dr. Christoph Fiedler,
Managing Director European Affairs and Media Policy, VDZ German Federation of Magazine Publishers
Heiko Hanslik,
President, VfT Verband freier Telefonbuch und Auskunftsmedien e.V. (Association of Independent Directory Publishers)
Robert Maier,
Founder and Managing Director, Visual Meta GmbH
ICOMP’s Spokesperson in France, Marie Anne Gallot le Lorier posed a question to Commissioner Almunia following his speech on finances, energy and telecommunications at the ‘Concurrences Journal’ conference in Paris this morning. The question resulted in a news cycle reporting on revealing comments by the Commissioner on expected timing for the Google investigation.
Marie Anne Gallot le Lorier, ICOMP France: “We represent a professional network of companies from the online sector. What are the next steps in your investigation on Google to ultimately restore competition in the marketplace?”
Commissioner Joaquin Almunia:
“I first want to underline that this is the only question that I have been asked by some journalists taking part in this seminar, during the welcome breakfast. And I am wondering why people are only interested in Google? But, of course, I will answer the question since I did not mention the investigation in my speech this morning. The investigation we launched is focusing on 4 elements: Google’s processing of “vertical search” ; Google’s use of content from third parties ; exclusivity contracts with certain partners ; conditions imposed by Google on certain companies that purchase advertising services. At one point, I offered Google to circumvent the antitrust procedure and find an agreement instead with legally binding solutions. The objective was to find solutions and remedies faster.
At the end of January 2013, Google came to Brussels with concrete offers. We are currently analyzing them. If we determine that the solutions offered are sufficient, we will engage in a market test and depending on the results, we will be looking at an agreement after the summer holidays. This is only provisional but it gives you a good idea of the timetable I would like. Bear in mind we have not yet decided on the procedure, even though a negotiated agreement is still my preferred option. If no agreement is found the Commission will notify Google under article 7, but I would rather follow through on article 9. Furthermore, we have received more complaints against Google but we have yet to decide to run a parallel procedure.”
(Source: i-comp.org)
‘Could mean more people sucked in, not less’ Reda the whole piece at The Register
