However, antitrust enforcers in the U.S. and Europe remain concerned about Google’s commitment to license key Motorola patents to competitors on fair terms, those people said, and are likely to closely monitor Google’s use of the patents. The European Commission has set a deadline of Monday to decide whether to approve the acquisition.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Reuters reports that the EC will likely make that decision by March. “I will receive comments from the case team towards the end of the first quarter,” said EC antitrust commissioner Joaquin Almunia. “I do not expect anything sooner. Let us see.”

Let us see, indeed. There are rumblings that the EC is compiling a Statement of Objections detailing Google’s various alleged abuses of its market dominance and could drop it in CEO Larry Page’s lap sometime this spring.

Of course, Google is facing regulatory scrutiny in the United States as well. Last week, the Federal Trade Commission said it would expand its antitrust probe of the company to include its controversial “search, plus your world” feature, which introduces social content from the company’s Google+ service into users’ search results.

The Hankook Ilbo reports that the Korean Fair Trade Commission believes Google interefered with a KFTC raid of its South Korean headquarters by deleting pertinent documents instructing its employees to work from home. The agency had been looking for materials supporting complaints that Google is allegedly limiting access to local search engines on Android smartphones.

If the agency determines that Google did indeed obstruct its investigation, it could slap the company with a fine of up to 200 million won. Which, aside from the negative PR that would accompany it, isn’t nearly as bad as it sounds — about $172,000 at current exchange rates.

Reached for comment, Google said that it is cooperating with the KFTC, but flat-out denied accusations that it deleted documents or instructed employees to telecommute to impede the investigation. The company also said it has not been told that the Commission is considering fines.

(Image courtesy of Flickr/toughkidcst)

Samsung, Hitachi, Sharp, Chimei Innolux, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Epson Imaging Devices and HannStar Display, as well as some of their affiliates, will pay $538 million to settle allegations brought by eight state attorneys general that they conspired over eight years to fix prices on LCDs used in everything from computer monitors and notebooks to televisions and mobile phones.

Of that sum, about $501 million will be used to subsidize a refund program for consumers. The remainder will be distributed to the state governments of Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New York, West Virginia and Wisconsin to settle their penalty claims. The settling companies have also agreed to participate in antitrust compliance programs.

(Image courtesy of Flickr user Frank Gruber)

U.S. District Judge Leonard Stark on Friday canceled a Feb. 14 trial in the high-profile case filed by New York’s attorney general, who charged Intel with monopolistic tactics in the market for microprocessor chips.

The order followed a letter to the judge from Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who proposed dropping the federal case in view of recent developments that reduced the amount of damages that New York could seek. Mr. Schneiderman said his office would instead pursue damages in New York state court to address “Intel’s egregious and illegal conduct.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The company characterized the request as routine and shrugged off the notion the deal could be blocked.

“We’re confident the Commission will conclude that this acquisition is good for competition and we’ll be working closely and cooperatively with them as they continue their review,” Google said in a statement to AllThingsD.

Motorola shareholders have already approved selling to Google, though the transaction awaits antitrust approvals in the United States, EU and elsewhere.

With the Federal Communications Commission threatening to block the deal, and the Justice Department already suing to do the same, AT&T last month pulled its application before the FCC, in hopes that a court would take its side in the DOJ case. The company said it would deal with the FCC once a court heard its case with the Justice Department.

However, the DOJ one-upped the telecom giant on Friday, arguing that the court case should be put on hold, now that AT&T has yanked its application to the FCC to acquire T-Mobile’s licenses.

Check.

Your move, AT&T.

Update: For its part, AT&T general counsel Wayne Watts says the company is “anxious to bring to the American consumer the benefits of increased wireless network capacity and efficiencies that can only arise from combining the resources of AT&T and T-Mobile USA,” and is “eager” to present its case in court.

At a congressional hearing, Sharis Pozen, the Justice Department’s acting antitrust chief, said: “We are also investigating the electronic book industry, along with the European Commission and the states attorneys general.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Industry sources expect the Department of Justice, who had been reviewing the $400 million transaction for antitrust violations, to approve the deal in the next couple weeks, perhaps as early as this Friday.

It’s unclear whether the DOJ will impose any restrictions on the deal. But Web ad players, reading tea leaves and DOJ body language, are betting the sale goes through unhindered. No comment from Google; I’ve yet to hear back from a Department of Justice rep. UPDATE: “Our investigation is ongoing,” a DOJ spokeswoman emails.

Admeld helps publishers sell their ads by negotiating bids from multiple buyers, and is a big player in the complicated and fractured display advertising business. Google, which has long been dominant in search advertising, has been steadily increasing its presence in display ads via acquisitions like DoubleClick and Invite Media.

So it was easy to see why regulators might give another big deal some scrutiny. In fact, at this point, every big deal Google makes will get a hard look from Washington, which is already pursuing a broad antitrust investigation. But so far regulators have yet to stop a deal, including Google’s $750 million acquisition of AdMob and its more recent deal for ITA. Next up: The $12.5 billion Googorola deal.

The DOJ first began looking at Google-Admeld six months ago, and in late July extended their review. At the time, Google published a blog post explaining why the company couldn’t dominate display ads, even while its executives told Wall Street it had big ambitions in display.

More recently, Google has gotten help making its case from competitors. Facebook, for instance, is already ahead of Google in the display ad market, at least by the estimation of some analysts.

And Yahoo, which still competes fiercely with Google for display ad dollars, has put together a battle plan designed specifically to take on Google: It has lined up a coalition of big Web players with AOL and Microsoft, and it has begun pulling back its inventory from third-party ad buyers, including Google’s Invite Media.

(Image credit: iStockphoto/alexsl)

The charge reflects $3 billion in cash and $1 billion worth of spectrum that AT&T will owe T-Mobile parent Deutsche Telekom if the deal fails to garner regulatory approval.

The companies also said they would withdraw their pending applications before the Federal Communications Commission seeking approval for the deal, though they intend to continue fighting for it.

“AT&T Inc. and Deutsche Telekom AG are continuing to pursue the sale of Deutsche Telekom’s U.S. wireless assets to AT&T and are taking this step to facilitate the consideration of all options at the FCC and to focus their continuing efforts on obtaining antitrust clearance for the transaction from the Department of Justice,” the companies said in a statement. “As soon as practical, AT&T Inc. and Deutsche Telekom AG intend to seek the necessary FCC approval.”

The FCC chairman earlier this week indicated he was seeking a hearing on the deal, which commission staff found will lessen competition and lead to fewer U.S. jobs.

AT&T is already facing a Department of Justice lawsuit seeking to block the $39 billion purchase.

Rambus had sought $4 billion in direct damages for the harm it allegedly suffered in the case, an amount that can be instantly tripled under California law. It also asked for punitive damages.

Rambus, a Silicon Valley designer of technology used in memory chips, accused Micron and Hynix of violating antitrust laws by conspiring to prevent Rambus technology from gaining traction in the market and fixing the price of memory chips.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

But not so fast. Before we can get there, we need to review some history, then engage in some speculation.

First, the past: Way, way back in 2000, EMI was supposed to merge with Warner Music Group. But the deal, which would have created a company that controlled 25 percent of the world’s music market, didn’t fly with European regulators.

And since Universal is the world’s biggest music label, and the new combination will create a company with about 40 percent of the world’s music market, you’d think antitrust types would have a problem with this one, too. (Maybe even in the U.S., which has usually let most industries consolidate, but recently perked up when it came to AT&T’s proposed T-Mobile deal.)

Bear in mind that back in 2000, there were five major music labels. Since then Sony swallowed up BMG, so we’re down to four. And Universal wants to shrink it down to three.

Universal’s answer, of course, will be that today’s music business looks nothing like it did 11 years ago when Britney Spears was selling millions of CDs, Napster was a novelty, and Apple’s iTunes store didn’t exist. Most important: Back then, music sales were a $37 billion business. By the end of last year, that number was down to $16 billion.

But simply arguing that the pie is smaller won’t convince regulators. If Universal is really going to get this deal done, it’s almost certainly going to sell off some pieces, particularly in markets like Germany and France, where a combined EMI/UMG could end up with something like 80 percent of the music market.

I think it will also work very hard to convince people that even the world’s biggest music label doesn’t have any power when it comes to Apple, which controls the world’s digital music market.

That part won’t be that hard, because it’s at least partly true. But it will still be interesting to see Universal, which has longstanding ties to Apple, go out of its way to publicly complain about the relationship, without actually straining it for real.

And in any case we’re going to have quite some time to watch this one develop. EMI CEO Roger Faxon told his staff yesterday that approvals, etc., for the split-up could go “well past” March 31, 2012, when EMI’s fiscal year ends. Music industry folks assume that a realistic timetable would be closer to 12 months from now.

[Image via Jason Mrachina]

You gotta hand it to those geniuses over at the Googleplex, thinking up adorkable names for all their various plots and schemes.

And for its latest look-see of the Yahoo situation, it has revived an old one: “Project Porcupine,” presumably from the old joke about how you hug a porcupine.

Very carefully.

Or maybe you don’t hug it at all, which is why all the rumors about the search giant hooking up with some unnamed private equity firms have been so unclear and, well, hard to grab ahold of.

According to sources, there are three clear aspects of what is actually going on:

1. Interest in using Google’s vast cash hoard as part of an investment it would make in a deal — meaning the company was approached, which it is, often.

2. Desire of Google’s crafty Chief Business Officer Nikesh Arora to perhaps find a clever way to get ahold of Yahoo’s display inventory to add to Google’s own fast-growing DoubleClick display advertising subsidiary — meaning Arora has been making the rounds at Yahoo to gauge interest.

3. Pure enjoyment in messing with Microsoft execs — who are now allied with Yahoo via its Bing search technology — as well as getting up any price the software giant would have to fork over to be part of any consortium that will be cobbled together in what is sure to be a hopelessly complex deal.

Whether incoming or outgoing or just an early version of Mischief Night, any one of these options — while interesting to contemplate — is certainly fraught for Google.

Remember the trouble three years ago when Google tried to do a simple search-advertising partnership with Yahoo, in order to pull it out of the clutches of Microsoft?

That effort ended with a resounding oh-no-you-don’t by the Justice Department, which promised an antitrust lawsuit was awaiting such a move to bring together the No. 1 and No. 2 search services.

And if it was a no-no then, any formal relationship or even arm’s-length investment in Yahoo by Google would inevitably be more closely scrutinized this time around.

In fact, what I wrote in 2008 applies a dozen times more emphatically today:

“It is bad for advertisers, it is bad for consumers, it is bad for innovation, no matter how well-intentioned Google is.”

Fast forward to today, after Google has already played a worrisome game of chicken with regulators over a number of acquisition deals — which makes trying to bring back Yahoogle akin to reaching for the third rail.

But that’s not what it’s going to do, in truth, because — even though Yahoo is still a tempting target — there is usually only one outcome to hugging a porcupine.

Ouch.

Google and prospective partners have held early-stage discussions but haven’t put together a formal proposal and Google may end up not pursuing a bid, this person said. It’s unclear which private-equity firms Google has talked to.

Read the rest of this story at the original site ››

“In the area of consumer communications, the investigation found that the parties’ activities mainly overlap for video communications, where Microsoft is active through its Windows Live Messenger,” the commission said in a statement.

“However, the Commission considers that there are no competition concerns in this growing market where numerous players, including Google, are present.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Think about the federal government’s blocking of the $39 billion AT&T and T-Mobile merger and you might want to reread Google’s blog today, penned in reaction to the news that the Justice Department is making a second request for information about its $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility.

“This is pretty routine,” wrote Google’s Motorola integration exec Dennis Woodside. “We’ve gotten these kind of requests before.”

Maybe Google has (and it has with other purchases) — but in actuality, only four percent of transactions got such a follow-up request from regulators.

To be fair, it is much more common in high-profile, big-money deals like this one, but it means a longer closing period and more uncertainty around the Android mobile ecosystem until it’s done.

Still, Google has good reason to be patient. Despite tough criticism and brutal lobbying, it won approval from Justice for its $700 million deal to buy flight data service ITA Software in April, after nine months of scrutiny and a number of conditions imposed.

And the search giant waited out an intense six-month Federal Trade Commission approval process last year for its $750 million acquisition of mobile advertising start-up AdMob. It had an even harder time with the FTC’s nod of its 2007 DoubleClick purchase for $3.1 billion.

One that it lost — an obvious bridge too far that I dubbed Yahoogle — was Google’s 2008 effort to meld a troubling partnership with Yahoo in search advertising.

So, we’ll see soon enough which way D.C. — which just had Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt up to the Senate for an antitrust hearing chit-chat — will go.

Until then, here’s Woodside’s whole blog:

An update on our Motorola acquisition

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 5:30 PM ET

Posted by Dennis Woodside, SVP Google

Since we announced our plans to acquire Motorola Mobility, we’ve been excited about the positive reaction to the proposed deal — particularly from our partners who have told us that they’re enthusiastic about our defense of the Android ecosystem.

And as David Drummond said when we announced our plans in August, we’re confident that this deal will be approved. We believe very strongly this is a pro-competitive transaction that is good for Motorola Mobility, good for consumers, and good for our partners.

That said, we know that close scrutiny is part of the process and we’ve been talking to the U.S. Department of Justice over the past few weeks. Today we received what is called a “second request,” which means that the DOJ is asking for more information so that they can continue to review the deal. (This is pretty routine; we’ve gotten these kind of requests before.)

While this means we won’t be closing right away, we’re confident that the DOJ will conclude that the rapidly growing mobile ecosystem will remain highly competitive after this deal closes. We’ll be working closely and cooperatively with them as they continue their review.

In a regulatory filing, Motorola Mobility said: “On September 28, 2011, Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. and Google Inc. each received a Request for Additional Information and Documentary Material from the Antitrust Division of U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding the proposed merger between the companies. The companies intend to cooperate fully and respond expeditiously to the DOJ. The transaction is currently expected to close by the end of 2011 or in early 2012.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

This is a photo that’s clearly begging for a caption, so sound off in the comments.

Remarkably, that was the gist of Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt’s testimony before a Senate antitrust subcommittee today.

“Consumers have a truly vast array of options -– some search and some not -– from which to access information,” Schmidt told regulators, citing Amazon, Facebook and Bing — “which some commentators have speculated … could overtake Google as early as 2012” — among other examples. “And most importantly, all of these options for obtaining information can be accessed without ever using Google. … Google’s success despite strong competition is based on its persistent focus on satisfying consumers –- getting them to the answers they want quickly and accurately. Keeping up requires constant investment and innovation, and if Google fails in this effort users can and will switch. The cost of going elsewhere is zero, and users can and do use other sources to find the information they want.”

In other words, Google’s business is perpetually at risk and its dominance potentially fleeting. An interesting slice of humble pie for a company with a full two-thirds of the U.S. search market to be serving up to the committee. Does Google really expect it to buy the pitch that it’s not all that important or powerful in the industry?

Ready, aim, fire — at Google at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee hearing happening right now in Washington, D.C.

It is titled: “The Power of Google: Serving Consumers or Threatening Competition?”

Here we go:

11:04 am: As usual in D.C., the Senators on the committee get to pontificate first.

Oh, joy! (I used to live there and cover Congress stuff for the Washington Post from time to time and I am having bad déjà vu right now.)

A quick cut to Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, who is appearing alone. He looks a little peaked, especially as the pols begin to describe the scary behemoth the search giant is.

And also that it is trying to force users to its other products.

Rut-roh.

11:07 am: Sen. Mike Lee, the Republican from Utah, who is a Google critic, is talking on about the search giant’s power, reading from his testimony in a dullish style.

I thought this dude was a Tea Party firebrand!

“The primary focus should be consumer welfare,” he says, blah, blah, blaaaaaaah.

11:09 am: Now, the subcommittee’s dour chairman, Sen. Herb Kohl from Wisconsin, is introing Schmidt, who is actually being introed by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

She is an Eric fan, obvi, praising his accomplishments at Google. But she also gives props to Jeffrey Katz, CEO of Nextag, who is testifying against Google later. Also, let her add, is the fabulous CEO of Yelp, Jeremy Stoppelman, another anti-Google speaker to come.

“I hope they tango rather than tangle,” says Feinstein inexplicably about those called to testify. Hey, white geeks can’t dance, although wrestling would also be hard for them too.

In any case, gotta love these everybody-loving pols!

11:14 am: Finally, Schmidt, who — of course — starts off invoking the last big tech giant who was here getting spanked by Congress.

Schmidt does not name Microsoft — classy, by which I mean not at all — but is referring to the software giant.

“We get it,” he says about the lessons Google has learned from Microsoft’s own antitrust troubles back in the day.

11:18 am: Schmidt is talking about Google and saying he welcomes the competition.

“Today it’s Google turn in the spotlight,” he says, still not uttering the word “Microsoft,” much as Microsoft execs have often not been able to say Google. “One company’s past [should] not be another company’s future.”

Now, the senators can have at him. Kohl is up first.

11:20 am: The first question is if Google is favoring its own products, via search.

Schmidt harkens back to what he calls early Google lore that it is just trying hard to get consumers stuff quicker.

The need for speed!

“Is really trusting Google to do the right thing sufficient?,” asks Kohl, who quotes former President Ronald Reagan’s famous line: “Trust but verify.”

That gives Schmidt the chance to talk about how quickly Google could lose out to competitors and then is onto how hard it is to do what Google does.

It takes extra-smart smartypants. Trust us, he says, as we are smartier!

11:24 am: Kohl comes back with a damning quote from Google’s famous Marissa Mayer, who apparently has said that the company favors its own products and why not?

Schmidt says he was not there when she allegedly said this, but that its own testing and intuition tells Google if consumers want a Google map or whatever tout de suite!

Kohl repeats the Mayer quote again: “We do all the work for the search page, so we put [a Google Maps link] in first.”

“I will let Marissa speak for herself,” says Schmidt, now too deep in the weeds of her verbal faux pas. Get out, Eric!

11:28 am: Sen. Lee is up, not taking any of this speedy, we-know-best business.

And he has a chart! I love a good chart. It shows Google info always ranks first in listings versus other sites it competes with.

Schmidt has not seen this poll, but thinks it is not accurate.

11:31 am: Let me note that Schmidt’s grey suit is fantastic looking. And right behind him, you can see Google’s top lawyer, the always nattily dressed David Drummond.

Back to the chart!

Lee wants to know why, according to his chart, that Google seems to come up first.

“Either way, you’ve cooked it,” claims Lee.

“Senator, I can assure you we have not cooked anything,” counters Schmidt.

(Note: Google does have an excellent cafeteria in Silicon Valley, complete with organic arugula and Kombucha for all.)

11:33 am: Hoo boy! But Lee’s time has expired, so Schmidt gets a break in the form of New York’s Sen. Charles Schumer.

I like the way he says “ee-no-vation” for innovation.

He does an expected plug for New York, of course. Somehow it is No. 1 in tech. Not so much, but brag on, Chuck!

11:38 am: Schumer is still talking about New York and its fab entrepreneurs.

Apparently, he has done a lot of jawboning with start-up dudes (likely over Kombucha) and they think Google is a positive force.

“Google is actually pretty good, we don’t see them as rapacious,” Schumer says the New York nerds tell him.

Is “rapacious” the criteria here?

Schumer is running out of time and has yet to ask a question and now is trying to get Schmidt to test Google’s broadband project in the Hudson Valley.

Now that’s rapacious!

Is there going to be an actual question here?

Yes: Oh please tell us, genius boy, what could Google do better?

Really.

11:42 am: Now, Sen. John Cornyn from Texas is on and asking about the prescription controversy Google was embroiled in recently.

Oops, I missed a bit when someone called me about the CEO mess at Hewlett-Packard I reported on earlier.

Onto Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. She is cleverly using an article about the Vikings football team to ask about how Google’s super-secret-sauce algorithm works and how it ranks results.

“Do you think companies should have a lot more certainty in how they are ranked?,” she asks.

11:51 am: Schmidt is not really answering, except to say Google is not perfect.

“We don’t know how to do it with more certainty,” he says, which is odd for a company that is perhaps the most irksomely certain group of geeks ever assembled on the planet.

Klobuchar moves to copyright issues. “There’s a real problem here,” agrees Schmidt.

Yes, and some media companies think Google is the problem and has not done enough to fix the problem.

“It’s difficult,” says Schmidt. Well, isn’t Google smartier?

“We’re under great pressure to resolve this,” he says.

11:55 am: Klobuchar is still worried about the small businesses, but she wants Google to come to Duluth.

Good lord, it’s a shakedown in plain sight. Maybe Google isn’t the scary one here! These pols seem pretty frightening.

Now Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley is saying he will attend some Google event in his state.

Of course!

Grassley makes a wishy-wishy statement, and we get to hear from Iowans on both sides.

Some are apparently concerned that Google is a troublemaker and some aren’t.

Iowans, like a lot of folks, are torn.

“We are happy to be judged,” says Schmidt.

12:00 pm: Now it is time for Sen. Al Franken from Minnesota.

“First let me say, I love Google,” he says.

Otay. I wonder if Franken knows that Google is a giant scary computer.

But, as a citizen of San Francisco, I say he should love whoever he wants!

Franken is also concerned about his love’s behavior and is taken aback by one of Schmidt’s previous answers.

It’s that irksome Marissa Mayer quote again.

When asked if the algo was unbiased, Schmidt apparently was not as sure as shootin’!

Now, it is onto Yelp and the fiery quotes from Stoppelman about how Google nefariously blocks the review site’s content.

Eric “generally” disagrees with Jeremy.

At one point Google tried to buy Yelp, so this is a fraught situation.

Does Franken know about the previous Google-Yelp hookup?

Drama!

Schmidt says it is Yelp’s fault for asking to be removed from the algo. Actually, Yelp only asked Google to stop jacking its fare.

12:11 pm: Oh noz, another pol? This time Sen. Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut.

He is super-smiley, while calling Google a “behemoth.” I like that word a lot and use it for the company often, although I always like to use a qualifier like “thuggish” or “freaky.”

Back to the blabby Blumenthal, who cannot seem to get out a question.

Wait! He asks if Google can suggest some fixes to “avoid government regulation.”

I. Kid. You. Not.

12:21 pm: Kohl is back and giving Google a little more slap-a-doo.

I like the whole Kohl thang of looking over his glasses down at Schmidt.

He asks: Should we trust Google? Should we?

In my opinion: If your mother says she loves you, you should check it.

So, no!

Schmidt assures him: “We make mistakes.”

Lee is then back, asking if Google gives preference to its own products in search?

Exactly the point and a question that is still not answered properly.

12:24 pm: Lee remains troubled by Schmidt’s testimony.

He uses terms like “leverage its natural dominance” and “significant market share to disadvantage” competitors.

Sounds like, um, Microsoft. And then it is back to that niggling Marissa Mayer quote. (Memo to the voluble exec, who apparently never met a microphone she didn’t want to talk into: You might want to take a day off today at the Googleplex.)

Google-luvin’ Franken is back and he is asking about mobile search.

Where Google is dominant again! (Jellllllo, Al, we in Silicon Valley know that one already!)

He asks if all Android devices come pre-loaded with Google products. Schmidt thinks two-thirds come with it, but handset makers can choose.

12:31 pm: Back to all-smiles Blumenthal, who says he has come to no conclusion.

But lo! He is not as silly as he seems and goes into an interesting racetrack analogy about how Google owns the track and now has horses and now those horses are winning.

Hmmmm…

Schmidt disagrees, natch!

He thinks the Internet is the platform and Google is the GPS.

Metaphor contest!

I think Google is a big tasty banana cream pie we can’t stop eating, although we know it’s bad for us.

That or an alien wearing an expensive suit who will soon eat us all.

Franken comes in with a doping horses joke. Remember when he was funny on “Saturday Night Live”?

Me neither.

It goes on without a lot of really good discussion. Klobuchar asks something, but I forget it immediately. My bad!

She has a last question about advertisers and privacy. Softball!

Let me write this for Schmidt before he inevitably spits it out: Of course, Google wants to protect privacy.

12:37 pm: Finally, the second panel of critics. Sadly, I must go to an appointment in Silicon Valley to visit one of its rapacious companies.

Oops, I meant ee-no-vative.

But, no worries, John Paczkowski will take over from here once it gets going again after the break.

12:47 pm: The panel’s back in session. The first critic to take a shot at Google, Thomas Barnett, a lawyer for Expedia.

12:51 pm: Riffing on Schmidt’s earlier “We know, we get it” comment, Barnett argues the opposite.

“Google doesn’t get it,” he says, adding that the company’s ever-expanding market power is troubling.

12:54 pm: Google is a monopoly, Barnett continues, and it has a duty not to abuse that position. He concludes by saying antitrust enforcement can and should play a role in maintaining competition in the markets in which it does business.

12:57 pm: Moving on now to Nextag CEO Katz, who has some tough words for the search giant. “Today Google doesn’t play fair,” he says.

He argues that Google rigs its results to drive consumers to Google Product Search when they search for information to inform their purchases.

1:00 pm: Next: Stoppelman of Yelp, who wonders if it’s even possible to create a company like Yelp today because of Google’s massive market power.

1:04 pm: Google’s outside lawyer, Susan Creighton, takes the mic next. Having trouble with the video stream from the Senate, but as best I can tell she talked broadly about the competitive landscape and reiterated Schmidt’s “competition is just a click away” narrative.

1:08 pm: She concludes by saying government oversight of Google’s search results rankings would put the company at a disadvantage and turn its search service into something akin to a “regulated utility.”

1:09 pm: Interesting. Creighton says she doesn’t believe Google has monopoly power.

1:10 pm: “Each of you right now can test whether or not you like Google’s search results and if you don’t like them it’s free and instantaneous to try someone else.”

1:22 pm: Apologies, the Senate video feed has gone from bad to worse.

1:23 pm: Franken asks Yelp’s Stoppelman and Nextag’s Katz if they could start their companies today given Google’s market power.

Both say that’s unlikely.

1:26 pm: Terse exchange between Franken and Creighton about whether Google paid Apple to be the default search engine on its iOS devices. Lots of back and forth, but Creighton finally concedes that there’s some sort of financial deal between the two companies.

1:39 pm: Sen. Lee asks what Google might do to “level the playing field.” Stoppelman suggests separating search from its other properties. Pipe dream.

1:40 pm: Well, it looks like it may be getting near the end of the session, which is a good thing because we get it to by now.

And that is: Nothing significant is going to get said here.

The latest to do so is Fairsearch, an industry group led by former Justice Department antitrust division leader Thomas O. Barnett. Fairsearch, whose membership includes the likes of Expedia, Kayak, Sabre/Travelocity and Microsoft, has pulled together quite a collection of material with which to balance Schmidt’s reassuring testimony, including a survey showing 79 percent of Americans favor the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust probe of the search giant and “A Guide To Google Speak,” which seeks to kick the legs out from under some of the company’s favorite talking points — things like “competition is a click away” and “Google built Google for users.” As Fairsearch notes, neither of these things is necessarily true. Competition can’t really be one click away when the barrier to entry is as high as it is in search and it’s pretty clear Google didn’t build its search service entirely for consumers.

“Google says ‘we built Google search for consumers, not web sites,’” Fairsearch argues. “The assertion may come as a surprise to Google shareholders. We think it’s fair to say Google search was built for advertisers, not consumers. Google is, after all, an advertising company. It doesn’t ‘organize the world’s information’ just to be helpful.”

Tough to argue with that, though Google certainly will try. It already has in a hearing guide of its own.

Later today, Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt will appear at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee for hearings on whether Google is a search bully or not.

Schmidt, according to written testimony obtained by the Politico blog, will be trotting out the company’s longtime argument that its competitors are “only one click away” from taking Google down.

And, in what can only be described as a you’ve-got-to-be-kidding furthering of that meme, Schmidt will apparently claim that Microsoft’s much tinier Bing search service could catch and pass Google by next year.

Reads the testimony, according to Politico: “Microsoft’s Bing launched in June 2009 and has grown so rapidly that some commentators have speculated that it could overtake Google as early as 2012.”

Say what? Say ridonkulous! The Facebook worry, I get, but costing-Microsoft-a-billion-a-quarter Bing?

That’s because in the most recent market-share report from comScore, Google had 64.8 percent of the total, with Yahoo at 16.3 percent and Bing at 14.7 percent. Even combining the pair — who are currently in a search partnership — they still have less than half the share that Google has.

In any case, although the Google-as-imminently-threatened concept displays a lot of gumption, it’ll be interesting watching Schmidt try to sell it.

And also to see Google’s critics call foul.

After Schmidt appears, there will be a second panel, featuring Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman; Jeffrey Katz, CEO of Nextag; and Tom Barnett, spokesman for FairSearch.org and counsel to Expedia.

Stoppelman, who almost sold his online reviews company to Google in late 2009, has since become a vocal detractor of the search giant’s methods.

In his testimony as well as exhibits, all posted below, Stoppelman paints a more dire picture of Google:

“When one company controls the market, it ultimately controls consumer choice. If competition really were just ‘one click away’ as Google suggests, why have they invested so heavily to be the default choice on web browsers and mobile phones? Clearly they are not taking any chances.”

Stay tuned for my liveblog at 11 am PT, as well as other AllThingsD coverage of the hearings.

9.21.11 Verbal Testimony _10am final_

9.21.11 Written Testimony _clean_

9.21.11 Exhibits

In a preview of Wednesday’s Senate antitrust hearing on whether Google abuses its dominance on the Web, representatives of the sites — which help people search for information on consumer goods, local businesses and airline flights — said in interviews this week that Google has increasingly sought to drive people who use its search engine to its own specialized sites that compete with theirs.

One of the companies, Nextag, is going even further. Chief Executive Jeff Katz said Google also prevents his company’s site from bidding on the prominent ads that show up next to search results for products such as running shoes. Instead, he said, because Google sees his company as a threat, Nextag can only bid to appear in text ads lower down on the results page, limiting its exposure to consumers.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »