Among the maelstrom of criticism in the wake of Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick, the Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein offered up this pearl (get it?) of wisdom in his recent column:
But now, precisely because of its success, it’s fair to ask if Google should be barred from furthering its dominance through acquisitions or collaborations…
There may never have been a Google without the government’s antitrust suit that prevented Microsoft from crushing upstart rivals. By the same principle, isn’t it time to begin restraining Google to increase the odds another Google will come along?
Wait, wait, let me get this straight: you root for a company that grows organically and is successful for a lot of good reasons, and manages to (mostly) “not be evil”…but only up to a point. Then they should voluntarily stop growing, especially by acquiring highly successful companies like YouTube and DoubleClick with a “gusher of profits [enabling them] to outbid rivals.”
For serious?
Beyond the obvious “I only liked that indie band until they were popular” reverse snobbery, I share Paul Kedrosky‘s view:
If Microsoft could have crushed Google it would have, and the DoJ’s antitrust suit didn’t do a damn thing to stop it. Google simply out-innovated Microsoft, fair and square.
Booyakasha.
Posted by Brian Breslin on April 26, 2007 at 8:58 am
ahhh, booyakasha. well put monica. how underutilized are the great words of mr. ali G.
keep up the renewed interest in blogging.