Comments on: “We would anticipate structuring a deal to address antitrust concerns.”

By: Tom Nocera

Tom Nocera — Fri, 23 May 2008 17:12:37 +0000

Exxon Mobile said it. Rupert Murdoch must have said it more than once. Google, I hope, really means it.

By: JG

JG — Fri, 23 May 2008 15:42:18 +0000

I think I remember reading that somewhere. Google, correct?

Ah yeah, Claudio has the link, above.

What seems particularly specious to me about Schmidt's arguments is that he compares Google's ads on Yahoo's pages to Toyota making engines for GM. Or Whirlpool making appliance for Sears.

Let's assume for a moment that we accept that Googalian logic. Then couldn't Microsoft have equally argued, during its own anti-trust case, that it does not really have a monopoly? Because Microsoft doesn't really directly sell that many copies of Windows. Instead, it puts the Windows "Toyota engine" into the Dell "GM car". Or into the HP "car". Or into the Compaq "car". Et cetera.

With this argument, Schmidt seems to be defending not only Google, but Microsoft as well!

Go, Google, go!

By: Martin

Martin — Fri, 23 May 2008 03:41:53 +0000

Who else but Larry Page? concerning a hostile yahoo take over.

No, I'd say it was Steve Ballmer. But I'm guessing I'm wrong.

By: Claudio Ibarra

Claudio Ibarra — Fri, 23 May 2008 03:14:03 +0000

I wish I could guess, but I read that quote in a NYT article.

Good 'ol Eric Schmidt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/technology/22google.html?ex=1369195200&en=9d67aaf4d00d6a39&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

By: David Webb

David Webb — Fri, 23 May 2008 03:05:21 +0000

I would guess Microsoft said that. It’s certainly their sort of comment. Failing that, Google (seeing their recent partnership trial with yahoo), and then Yahoo itself.