Evidence: Additional Corroboration Links
	Do No Evil? Google's Deceptive Practices Harm Consumers (Forbes): ... Google harms consumers by misrepresenting its search results as unbiased and aligned with users’ interests when the facts show they are not. The issue will come to a head in the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust investigation of Google. Google implies it is immune to antitrust laws, because consumers benefit so much from Google’s search engine and over 500 other free products and services. This “Google is really a philanthropist, not a business” argument is not an antitrust defense, but a highly deceptive misrepresentation of their business. ... http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2011/07/15/do-no-evil-googles-deceptive-practices-harm-consumers/ (on Antitrust/Harm to Consumer) Google's 'Bait & Switch' Deception Exposed at Hearing (FORBES): ... Yesterday’s Senate antitrust hearing on Google exposed Google’s core antitrust vulnerability, that Google has perpetrated what maybe the largest “bait and switch” scheme ever. Simply, Google has baited over a billion users to implicitly trust Google Search by continuously promising that its search engine is unbiased and “always does what is best for the user.” However, as Google’s market power has grown over time, the evidence shows Google has increasingly switched its MO to biasing Google Search rankings by putting Google’s interests over users’ best interests by ranking Google-owned properties over competitors’ properties — without fairly representing this major business model shift and new clear financial conflict of interest to those affected. This core deceptive ‘bait and switch’ business practice of Google’s was effectively the overarching and recurring theme of the Senate Judiciary antitrust hearing on Google’s monopoly power. Nextag’s CEO testified that they started their business because Google offered the promise of a level playing field (the bait), but that over time that changed (the switch), as Google increasingly promoted its own content over other websites’ that Google now viewed as competitors. Yelp’s CEO testified that Google offered to work closely with Yelp as a partner (the bait), but then learned Google was really interested in learning the intricacies of Yelp’s business so that it could compete with Yelp’s business (the switch). Jeremy Stoppelman, Yelp’s CEO concisely described the switch in Google’s business model: “Google is no longer in the business of sending people to the best sources of information on the Web,” “It now hopes to be a destination market itself” per the WSJ. In his opening remarks, Senate Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman Kohl spotlighted Google’s change in business model indicating that Google’s many acquisitions have changed Google from just a search engine to a “major Internet conglomerate.” In a nutsell, unbiased search engine has become conflicted Googlomerate. ... http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2011/09/22/googles-bait-switch-deception-exposed-at-hearing/ (on Monopoly/Antitrust/Harm to Consumer, Competition) Google rival slams EU Commission over antitrust settlement proposals (PC World): ... Almunia, the Commissioner responsible for competition matters, said in February that these settlement proposals were acceptable. He has been working since to convince the complainants and his fellow commissioners of this, and expects to close the case later this year. However, Foundem said Wednesday, contrary to the Commission’s claims, the proposed rival links will consume the majority of rivals’ profits and will not be selected according to “relevance”, “merit”, or “quality”. Further, it said, the paid links will not be less expensive than existing advertisements, will not ensure that innovative new entrants can participate on non-disadvantageous terms and most certainly will generate billions of dollars of additional revenue for Google that will come at the direct expense of the European businesses and consumers the Commission is duty bound to protect. “It is now apparent that many of the spurious arguments the Commission has been making in defence of Google’s proposals were adopted wholesale from Google arguments,” it said. ... (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2457300/google-rival-slams-eu-commission-over-antitrust-settlement-proposals.html) (on Monopoly/Antitrust in EU) EU May Need Extra Concessions From Google Antitrust Probe (Bloomberg): ... Google competitors “continue to have serious concerns” about the planned settlement and need a decision that remedies past abuses and acts as a sufficient deterrent to future competition issues, said David Wood, a lawyer in Brussels representing opponents of the deal. U.K. shopping comparison site Foundem told Almunia in an open letter that the current pact’s auction of links would generate billions of dollars of revenue for Google at the expense of smaller rivals. ... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-22/eu-may-need-extra-concessions-from-google-antitrust-probe.html (on Monopoly/Antitrust in EU) Google Faces Renewed Focus by EU in Antitrust Case (eWEEK): http://www.eweek.com/enterprise-apps/google-faces-renewed-focus-by-eu-in-antitrust-case.html Earlier in July, online restaurant and business review service Yelp joined the list of settlement critics and entered its own objections to the settlement proposal as it stands, according to a recent eWEEK report. - See more at: http://www.eweek.com/enterprise-apps/google-faces-renewed-focus-by-eu-in-antitrust-case.html#sthash.uh1F26Nz.dpuf (on yelp/Monopoly/Antitrust in EU) Yelp Throws Spanner Into Google EU Antitrust Settlement By Filing Formal Complaint (techcrunch): ... “I realised Yelp’s current state as a mere witness within the DG-COMP deliberations was inadequate,” writes Yelp CEO and co-founder Jeremy Stoppelman. “In order to truly advocate on behalf of the European digital startups, our voice needed to be granted some form of official standing. As such, I have directed our government affairs team to convert Yelp into an official complainant.” This means Yelp joins other tech companies like Microsoft, as well as the consumer rights advocate the European Consumer Organisation, in a long list of complainants who believe Google is acting in anticompetitive ways in Europe — in Yelp’s case, because of the way Google gives priority to its own services in search results over those of competitors. Specifically, local search results, such as those relating to nearby restaurants. “I truly fear the landscape for innovation in Europe is infertile, and this is a direct result of the abuses Google has undertaken with its dominant position,” adds Stoppelman. ... http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/09/yelp-versus-google/ (on yelp/Monopoly/Antitrust in EU) Yelp Joins Critics of European Union Antitrust Settlement With Google (New York Times): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/technology/yelp-joins-critics-of-european-union-settlement-with-google.html?_r=0 ... BRUSSELS — Yelp, the online service increasingly popular on both sides of the Atlantic, has joined the critics formally opposing the European Union’s proposed antitrust settlement with Google. Yelp, which helps consumers find and review restaurants, shops, plumbers and all sorts of other local services, said in its filing in the long-running European antitrust case that the results on Google’s search engine favor Google Plus Local, a direct Yelp competitor. ... (on yelp, Monopoly/Antitrust in EU) Google Spent 25 million lobbying Washington during the course of the FTC probe, and it worked (TNW): ... What is stunning about the Google case is how cheap influence is in Washington, something that TNW has touched on before. Google, a company with cash and equivalents of roughly $50 billion, had to spend just 0.05% of its ready currency to fend of what could have been a nearly existential threat to parts of its core business. ... http://thenextweb.com/google/2013/01/04/google-spend-25-million-lobbying-during-the-course-of-the-ftc-probe-and-it-worked/ (on Google Lobbying) Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence (Washington Post): ... The rise of Google as a top-tier Washington player fully captures the arc of change in the influence business. Nine years ago, the company opened a one-man lobbying shop, disdainful of the capital’s pay-to-play culture. Since then, Google has soared to near the top of the city’s lobbying ranks, placing second only to General Electric in corporate lobbying expenditures in 2012 and fifth place in 2013. ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transforming-power-and-politicsgoogle-once-disdainful-of-lobbying-now-a-master-of-washington-influence/2014/04/12/51648b92-b4d3-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html (on Lobbying) Microsoft touts eye-tracking study as proof of Google’s EU antitrust naughtiness (GIGAOM): http://gigaom.com/2013/12/12/microsoft-touts-eye-tracking-study-as-proof-of-googles-eu-antitrust-naughtiness/ ... This time round, the Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace (ICOMP) – one of Microsoft’s astroturfing operations – has commissioned an eye-tracking study to demonstrate how Google’s latest suite of settlement proposals “actually makes the abuse worse.” ... (on Monopoly/Antitrust) Pornography (and what is not) on Wikipedia: ... In the U.S., a July 2014 criminal case decision in Massachusetts (COMMONWEALTH v. John REX.)[57] made a legal determination of what was not to be considered "pornography" and in this particular case "child pornography".[58] It was determined that photographs of naked children that were from sources such as National Geographic magazine, a sociology textbook, and a nudist catalog were not considered pornography in Massachusetts even while in the possession of a convicted and (at the time) incarcerated sex offender.[58] ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography#What_is_not_pornography (on Pornography/What It Is Not)
	—compiled by Dr. S Louis Martin