Arthur Levinson resigned from the board of Google Inc. under pressure from the Federal Trade Commission, which is still “investigating” Google and Apple Inc. for having “overlapping” directors. Levinson and Google CEO Eric Schmidt previously served on both the Apple and Google boards. Since the FTC views the two companies as direct competitors, the agencies believe Schmidt and Levinson’s double-service violated the Clayton Antitrust Act.
FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz gloated over his latest victory:
Google, Apple, and Mr. Levinson should be commended for recognizing that overlapping board members between competing companies raise serious antitrust issues and for their willingness to resolve our concerns without the need for litigation.
In other words, the FTC — four unelected lawyers appointed by former president George W. Bush — can unilaterally decide who may serve on a corporation’s board of directors without any form of due process (aka “the need for litigation”). Merely opening — and indefinitely prolonging — an investigation is enough to force a change in the makeup of a corporation’s board. It’s not about what’s good for a company’s shareholders, or even its customers, but about “the concerns “of four unelected lawyers appointed by George W. Bush.
And of course, Google’s concession here won’t open the door for future antitrust intervention in the company’s affairs. Oh, wait, that door was already opened by the unelected antitrust lawyer appointed by Barack Obama.
{ 10 comments }
Varney’s reasons for stalking Google are complete malarkey. She wishes to punish Google, more or less, for delivering a product which people want and acquire. Perhaps Google is limiting interoperability, but obviously nobody but Varney actually cares (or else Google would have been put out of business already).
Fortunately, I think that the Google’s case is seen much more clearly by the public, and I don’t believe that Varney will get far (I wrote a small blog entry on Varney and Google in August, and some of the comments I got through the blog and through email gave me hope, even though many of them were not from libertarians or free-market minded people: http://www.economicthought.net/2009/08/antitrust-is-a-violation-of-property-rights/ ).
“Fortunately, I think that the Google’s case is seen much more clearly by the public, and I don’t believe that Varney will get far.”
I wouldn’t be so sure. Remember, the FTC and DOJ aren’t just responsible for themselves; they have to keep the entire antitrust industry employed. Google is simply too tempting a target to simply bypass. The mere “investigation” of Google means thousands of billable hours for hundreds of lawyers — not to mention future employment for DOJ lawyers who can sell their “expertise” working on the case. It doesn’t matter if the case produces any tangible results (Microsoft never did).
The only way to thwart this is for Google to preemptively wage an aggressive campaign against the antitrusters. History suggests they won’t. Google is already too embedded with the Obama White House politically to rock the boat, and Google’s own attorneys will put the appeasement of the DOJ ahead of their own clients, as every antitrust lawyer does.
Four lawyers? 50 cents a bullet? Problem solved for $2.00.
> Problem solved for $2.00.
Sadly, even though it would certainly be emotionally gratifying (look up the video “America’s Largest Street Gang”), all such an action would do is validate the militarization of “law enforcement”.
“They” are already terrified of the masses, as evidenced by the fact that any politician of any note (save Ron Paul) travels only with armed bodyguards. Police wear body armor routinely and instantly jump to the defense of any cop without regard for what is the actual situation.
The “standing army” our forefathers warned us about is here and now.
And as in the words of Gene Wilder, “Don’t shoot him, it will only make him mad.”
So long as it’s only random bureaucrats getting hurt, all it will do is make leviathan more angry and destructive. If an uprising in the US reaches the point of a general movement, then violence against bureaucrats won’t be needed.
So let’s just read “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross, enjoy the fantasy, and then get back to work on education.
And I believe the Clayton Antitrust Act violates my rights to have an iAndroid.
Seriously though, any “Act” should just be the shorthand name of a codification of some actual crime/breach/tort as applied to some situation. There is no underlying crime here, no breach of any duty, not even any obscene behavior – so aside from not obeying some magic incantation by the DC wizards, can anyone make a good argument that Schmidt and Levinson did anything wrong?
Does anyone in DC (besides the good doctor) see the problem here?
Curt Howland,
You spoken true words of a coward indeed.
Education ? LOL !
I’m sure jews tried to “educate” their Nazi executionners and we all know how far that got them.
And don’t get me started about the holocaust “lessons learned”.
There has been Rwanda, Serbia, China, Cambodge, Russia.
Education doesn’t work and brutes only understand force.
Bill St-Clair,
“Four lawyers? 50 cents a bullet? Problem solved for $2.00.”
1) Since when do lawyers make the law ?
2) Given that this solution would only cost $2.00 and given that Google has BILLIONS of $$$$ in spendable cash, it’s a miracle that rich and powerful companies bullied by the government don’t respond in kind.
Those guys make more money than heavily armed druglords. So they could purchase their own private army and thereby earn the government’s respect.
“You spoken true words of a coward indeed.”
It’s obvious that anyone advocating the killing of bureaucrats in a public forum knows nothing about a) IP address tracking, b) effective insurgency, or c) cowardice.
The term agent provocateur comes to mind.
“The term agent provocateur comes to mind.”
The name “Gil” comes to my mind. Nice post, Curt.
HELLO THIS IS NONSENSE
Comments on this entry are closed.