Posted May 14, 2013 8:13 am by with 0 comments

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on FacebookBuffer this page

google-logoIt’s official.

The deal that was deemed a ‘non-starter’ by opponents back in April is now officially deemed inadequate by Google rivals. This time though it appears they actually had something to read vs. just complaining about what was rumored. At least that’s a step in the right direction….. I think.

Of course, those complaining are the same who have been making these claims against Google (otherwise known as ‘advertising through litigation’ or ‘we can’t do anything ourselves so we will force people to know about us by whining’ approach). At least that’s what we think since the Financial Times reports gives an indication of just how spineless these opponents actually are.

Another rival, which declined to be named, attacked the concession as producing “orphan links” that would be too small and lacking in detail to attract much traffic.

Declined to be named. That’s real courageous.

Of course, the lead dog in the ‘Let’s compete in the EU through the courts’ is Foundem. They aren’t bashful because this whole process is apparently part of their marketing plan.

In some circumstances, Google has agreed to include links to rival sites in the panels at the top of its search results pages, which currently display links to its own services. However, where these panels show results that advertisers have paid to have included – as happens with Google’s shopping service – rivals will also have to pay to be included among the new links.

These paid links are “a potentially catastrophic escalation of Google’s abuse, providing a new and immensely powerful anti-competitive tool, which in many cases would hand Google the majority of its rivals’ profits,” according to Foundem, a UK shopping comparison company that has been one of the most vociferous critics of the deal.

This activity is getting old so we won’t waste your valuable time getting into the details. You can get more information from the FT article.

But let’s go over this one last time. Competition happens in the market and not in the courts. Depending on government to be fair in regulation is a ridiculous notion. Sure the free market isn’t perfect but it’s a better option than dumbing everything down to a government regulated middle at best.

One man’s opinion. What’s yours?