decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Suggestion for next petition | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Petition at Whitehouse.gov -- signed!
Authored by: hardmath on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 12:28 PM EDT
I'd suggest the Justice Dept. look into the financial
background of the FTC "staff" who recommended this crusade.


---
Recursion is the opiate of the mathists.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Yeah, so no.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT
I don't agree with the current FTC slant on Google.

However, this petition basically argues "anything a search
engine like Google does is PER SE protected speech and hence
exempt from any and all regulation, now and forever."

That's a really dangerous premise. What's to stop (for
example) Google from taking money to increase paying
customers in rankings, and not disclosing that fact? What's
to stop them from dropping companies from the search they
don't like? Or dropping companies unless they pay some
amount of money?

To be clear, NONE of these are practices Google has today.
But they ARE things a company with a dominant share of the
search market COULD do. And you're arguing the government's
ability to regulate this CAN AND SHOULD be "not at all."

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Petition at Whitehouse.gov - signed
Authored by: jrl on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 05:53 PM EDT
Quite happy to use Google for search,
but even if Google went away, my next
stop would not be Bing...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Suggestion for next petition
Authored by: artp on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 08:43 AM EDT
Enforce the existing antitrust laws against Microsoft.

$50 billion can do a lot of damage as the Borg slowly
explodes into splinters.

The irony of the enforcement actions against Google is that
the antitrust laws have hardly been enforced at all since
1980, whether the administration was Democrat or Republican.
The actions against Microsoft so far have barely scratched
the surface of their anticompetitive actions, and have
produced no relief for citizens.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )