>What would be a viable way for Google to fix this that doesn't hurt users?
Assuming that any of Google's business practices needs to be "fixed" (a claim that's debatable and has been rejected by U.S. FedGov), you've put your finger on the difference between the U.S. and Euro regulatory approaches.
The European approach is more inclined to protect competitors that complain about a rival -- in this case Yelp, Microsoft, etc. are doing that. Note protecting competitors from rivals is not the same as protecting competition; in fact, having bureaucrats cripple some firms and favor others can reduce competition and injects politics and lobbying and who-golfs-with-the-commissioner into the process. It also can lead to bizarre results like the lack of a reasonably viable way to "fix" things.
The U.S. approach toward dominant firm behavior (well, since the 1970s) has been different. It focuses on intervening when there's consumer harm, or at least tries to. If consumers are not harmed, the logic goes, there is likely no reason for the Feds to intervene. This is why the FTC did not proceed with its case against Google. U.S. law also emphasizes economic analysis, which stands a better chance of grounding the analysis in marketplace reality.
Note Microsoft enlisted U.S. politicians in its attempt to fend off broad EU antitrust actions; here's my article from 2004: http://news.cnet.com/U.S.-politicos-fire-at-EUs-Microsoft-ru... Google doesn't seem to have the same depth of congressional outreach, especially among Rs predisposed to be skeptical of antitrust actions.
The US's view of Google is inadmissible. Several high positioned White House staff members in tech positions are Googlers, and Google has a massive amount of cash invested in the US Congress as well. Google is at the White House for meetings on a weekly basis. The US Congress' letter to the EU Parliament asking them not to break up Google: Entirely signed by representatives paid by Google.
Are you suggesting that all of this is not publicly documented? The White House has hired multiple high-ranking Google employees in the last two years, and the campaign contributions made by Google to the Congressional representatives lobbying for them are all of public record.
> campaign contributions made by Google to the Congressional representatives...
Sigh. It is illegal for Google, like any other company, U.S. or foreign, to donate even $0.01 to any "congressional representative" (by that I take it you mean candidate for federal office or a current federal office-holder).
Google has never done so, and nobody, except you, has ever accused the company of doing so. Not only is this a slur, is the FUD equivalent of chemtrails, and it has no place on HN.
Those are individuals choosing to donate money, not Google. As I said above, any corporation is prohibited from donating even $0.01 to any candidate for federal office.
And if Sergey Brin and Larry Page and Eric Schmidt are tossing millions of dollars at the government, I'm sorry, but that's Google paying off candidates for federal office. Particularly when those same candidates turn right around and advocate for Google on the international political stage after they're elected.
And what if it's some of the many thousands of people who happen to work at Google donating money? The data you have cited is incapable of distinguishing between the two. A spot-check of the top name shows a politician who just happens to be a candidate to represent an area many Googlers would be expected to live in.
So what you want me to believe, is that the list of Congresspeople going outside of their duties to citizens and asking other governments to not regulate against Google, who also happen to have all collected substantial donations from Google employees are doing that completely objectively and coincidentally?
I'm saying that if you want to make the case that a couple of rich people are buying influence, you need to so better than "BIG NUMBER!". Like evidence on how many people that big amount of money came from. If it all came from two people, you'd have a case. If $85k came from 10000 people, your case might be a lot weaker.
Also, many people would consider advocating for the interests of their constituents to be exactly what the duties of a Congresscritter are.
Promoting local interests is part of the job. Sometimes that might mean dealing with interests in foreign locales. Local interests means the interests of the local people, which does not always mean things that take place in geographically local location.
Putting a smiley face on it doesn't mean you're right. :)
Under federal law Sergey and Larry and Eric can each give a maximum of $2,600 to any federal candidate, $5,000 to a PAC, or $32,400 to a national party committee. This is not "millions of dollars." And, again, the unsupported and false allegation of "paying off candidates" is chemtrail-istic. HN deserves better.
Or, you know, they can pay 25000 to honor a chairman of the FTC, which then proceeds to give you a clean chit in its investigation of their practices despite having previously found evidence of harm :P
Also I guess ocdtrekkie should have linked this other table on opensecrets, showing how Google spends more on lobbying than any other tech company, which is how it's "really done" as opposed to "chemtrail-istic" claims: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=B12&year...
Assuming that any of Google's business practices needs to be "fixed" (a claim that's debatable and has been rejected by U.S. FedGov), you've put your finger on the difference between the U.S. and Euro regulatory approaches.
The European approach is more inclined to protect competitors that complain about a rival -- in this case Yelp, Microsoft, etc. are doing that. Note protecting competitors from rivals is not the same as protecting competition; in fact, having bureaucrats cripple some firms and favor others can reduce competition and injects politics and lobbying and who-golfs-with-the-commissioner into the process. It also can lead to bizarre results like the lack of a reasonably viable way to "fix" things.
The U.S. approach toward dominant firm behavior (well, since the 1970s) has been different. It focuses on intervening when there's consumer harm, or at least tries to. If consumers are not harmed, the logic goes, there is likely no reason for the Feds to intervene. This is why the FTC did not proceed with its case against Google. U.S. law also emphasizes economic analysis, which stands a better chance of grounding the analysis in marketplace reality.
A colleague and I wrote about the different EU vs. US antitrust approaches here: http://news.cnet.com/Intel-probe-highlights-EU-U.S.-regulati...
Note Microsoft enlisted U.S. politicians in its attempt to fend off broad EU antitrust actions; here's my article from 2004: http://news.cnet.com/U.S.-politicos-fire-at-EUs-Microsoft-ru... Google doesn't seem to have the same depth of congressional outreach, especially among Rs predisposed to be skeptical of antitrust actions.