iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Eric Schmidt Defends Google At Senate Antitrust Hearing

Eric Schmidt Google Antitrust Senate

First Posted: 09/21/11 04:06 PM ET Updated: 11/21/11 05:12 AM ET

By Diane Bartz and Malathi Nayak

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Google Inc has not cooked its search results to favor its own products and listings, Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt told a U.S. Senate hearing looking into whether the search giant abuses its power.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee's antitrust panel said on Wednesday that Google had grown into a dominant and potentially anti-competitive force on the Internet.

"Google is in a position to determine who will succeed and who will fail on the Internet," said Republican Senator Mike Lee. "In the words of the head of the Google's search ranking team, Google is the biggest kingmaker on Earth."

Google has been broadly accused of using its clout in the search market to stomp rivals as it moves into related businesses, like travel search.

The Federal Trade Commission is looking into that charge and others, including whether Google manipulates its search result rankings to favor its own products.

Google is trying to convince regulators and lawmakers that it does not need restrictions placed on its growing portfolio of businesses, and that its business practices are legal and good for consumers.

Lee aggressively quizzed Schmidt over whether Google deviates from its search algorithm to boost its own listings.

He brought a chart that showed a study comparing the success rate for shopping-related key word searches. Lee said that search rankings for price comparison sites -- Nextag, PriceGrabber and Shopper -- varied while Google's shopping site consistently ranked third.

"I see you magically coming up third every time," Lee said. "I don't know whether you call this a separate algorithm or whether you've reverse engineered one algorithm, but either way you've cooked it, so that you're always third."

Schmidt replied: "Senator, may I simply say that I can assure you we've not cooked anything."

Google controls more than two-thirds of the global search market. But Schmidt argued that specialty web sites -- like those with restaurant reviews and travel search -- give Google stiff competition.

In an oblique reference to Microsoft, which faced nearly two decades of legal scrutiny for antitrust violations, Schmidt told lawmakers: "We get it. By that I mean, we get the lessons of our corporate predecessors."

Colin Gillis, an analyst at BGC Partners, said some of the senators were "gunning hard" for Google but Schmidt handled himself professionally. "He appeared well-coached to me," Gillis said.

The senators were at times frustrated by what Democratic Senator Al Franken characterized as "fuzzy" answers from Schmidt about how Google prioritizes its search results and whether it unfairly uses rivals' content.

Franken questioned Schmidt about complaints from Yelp -- which provides user-generated reviews of restaurants, shops and other local businesses -- that Google unfairly rips reviews from Yelp to build Google's competing site, Google Places.

Franken asked if Google still used Yelp's content to drive business to Google Places.

"As far as I know, not," Schmidt answered.

Franken skeptically asked, "As far as you know?"

"Again I'll have to look, but I'm not aware of any," Schmidt said.

Schmidt was Google's chief executive officer from 2001, but vacated the post to company co-founder Larry Page in April.

Schmidt now serves as executive chairman and oversees government affairs -- a position of critical importance during the FTC probe and lawmakers' reviews.

Some of Google's rivals made their case at the hearing for why Google needs to be reined in.

Jeffrey Katz, the CEO of Nextag, an Internet comparison shopping company, said Google was initially a huge help in building innovation.

"But what Google engineering giveth, Google marketing taketh away," he said in written testimony.

He argued that Google is now the Internet neighborhood bully. "Google doesn't play fair. Google rigs its results, biasing in favor of Google Shopping and against competitors like us," Katz said in written testimony. "As a result, Nextag's access is more and more discriminated against ... because we compete with Google where it matters most, for very lucrative shopping users."

Katz and Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman both said they would not start new businesses in the current environment.

"I personally wouldn't. I'd find something else to do," said Stoppelman at the hearing.

(Reporting by Diane Bartz and Malathi Nayak in Washington; Additional reporting by Alexei Oreskovic in San Francisco; Editing by Tim Dobbyn, Phil Berlowitz)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions

"Google does nothing to block access to any of the competitors and other sources of information" in Web searches, Schmidt testified. He acknowledged that Google is "in that area" of being a monopoly company but said it's up to the courts to determine the question. The company recognizes that it has a special responsibility because of its market power, Schmidt said.

The political theater unfolded against the backdrop of a Federal Trade Commission investigation that threatens to handcuff Google as it tries to diversify beyond Internet search. Just last month, Mountain View, Calif.-based Google announced by far the biggest acquisition in its 13-year history – a proposed $12.5 billion deal to buy cellphone maker Motorola Mobility.

The FTC's probe, triggered by rising complaints about perceived bias in the way Google ranks other websites, also is forcing the company to defend its pledge to make the world a better place. Google underscored that commitment by embracing "don't be evil" as its corporate motto.

The biggest concern about Google is whether the company has been manipulating its results to prominently display its own services instead of rival websites. Those rankings can make or break websites because most people rely on Google to get around the Internet. Google processes about two-thirds of U.S. search requests and handles an even larger percentage in some parts of Europe.

The hearing by the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust turned up the heat on Google. It could further embolden the FTC as it investigates the company, with several members of the panel having publicly posed serious questions about Google's practices.

Sen. Michael Lee of Utah, the panel's senior Republican, said "some of my fears have been confirmed" by Schmidt's testimony and answers to senators' questions.

Google appears to exploit its Web search dominance to reap an "unnatural and extraordinary advantage," Lee said, adding that the company has a "clear and inherent conflict of interest" in its search results.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., used a metaphor. "You run the racetrack, you own the racetrack," he told Schmidt. Google now also owns some of the horses and "you seem to be winning," Blumenthal said.

That prompted Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., to wonder whether Google might also be "doping the horses."

But Schmidt said he prefers to think of the Internet as a platform with Google the GPS system. "This is the best we know how to do," he said.

Another focus is the way Google sets the rates in the Internet's largest advertising networks. Critics contend Google sometimes rigs the system to drive up the prices that its rivals have to pay to ensure their commercial message is seen.

"Not being on Google is the equivalent to not existing," Jeremy Stoppelman, co-founder and CEO of search engine Yelp Inc., told the panel in later testimony.

"I wonder if we would have been able to start Yelp today given Google's recent actions."

Stoppelman also said Google started bullying Yelp, a 7-year-old service, after it refused to sell itself to Google in 2009.

Google maintains its prices are largely set through an open auction tied to words appearing in search requests and other Web content. The system has proven highly effective: The ads will generate most of Google's projected revenue of more than $37 billion this year.

The assertion that Google places a higher priority on boosting its profits than providing unbiased results came on the same day that Schmidt and Google's co-founders – Larry Page and Sergey Brin – were listed among the 50 richest Americans in the latest rankings released by Forbes magazine. Collectively, the trio is worth about $40 billion, with most of the wealth tied up in Google stock that usually increases in value when the company's earnings rise.

In his testimony, Schmidt stuck to a familiar script. As he and other Google executives have said in the past, Schmidt said the company always strives to provide the information that its users want so they don't become disgruntled and defect to other websites such as Microsoft Corp.'s Bing.

Schmidt's appearance before the antitrust committee was tinged in irony.

While working as a top executive at other technology companies in the 1990s, Schmidt was among the Microsoft critics who helped gather evidence that spurred the U.S. Justice Department to open an antitrust investigation that became a huge distraction for Microsoft.

While Microsoft was sparring with the Justice Department, former Stanford University graduate students Page and Brin founded Google in a rented Silicon Valley garage. Within a few years, Microsoft found itself scrambling to catch up in the increasingly lucrative Internet search market – a largely fruitless quest that has cost the world's largest software maker billions of dollars.

On Wednesday, Schmidt found himself being grilled about whether Google's behavior is reducing the likelihood that other entrepreneurs will be able to invent something as revolutionary as Google.

Schmidt urged committee members not to draw parallels between Microsoft and Google, insisting his company isn't "cut from the same cloth."

After spending a decade as Google's CEO, Schmidt was replaced by Page in April. Schmidt remains Google's chief liaison with the government, enabling the aloof Page to focus on running the company.

___

Liedtke reported from San Francisco.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

By Diane Bartz and Malathi Nayak WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Google Inc has not cooked its search results to favor its own products and listings, Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt told a U.S. Senate h...
By Diane Bartz and Malathi Nayak WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Google Inc has not cooked its search results to favor its own products and listings, Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt told a U.S. Senate h...
Filed by Catharine Smith  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 164
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
EcnelisDoogod
B the change you want 2C
05:56 PM on 09/25/2011
I find it interesting that a company instrumental in making our freedom loving democracy more transparent and accountable is under attack. Google has realized the most successful algorithmic ranking system. If only Diebold machines had that reputation...

Many attempts to game the Google search results have failed. Time and again, users have had a choice in which search engine to use, and have voted with their clicks.

Who and what is the opposition to Google's continued success? It certainly is not the consumers in this unique case.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Max Shaw
My micro-bio is no longer empty.
03:21 PM on 09/22/2011
Ssssuuurrreee ya didnt...That would be unethical, right?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dyan Campbell
01:21 PM on 09/22/2011
Of course they "cook" their results. When Google first came out, I (like probably millions of others) loved it because I found things that I never imagined existed. And now? ALL I get are results that take me to someplace that is selling a product, and usually it's the same two or three places. No matter what I'm looking for, no matter how I frame and re-frame my search, I get the same flipping results that end up being someone trying to sell somethng.
12:24 PM on 09/22/2011
What a crock. The algorithm used by Google is designed to "cook" the results. For example, search for "dining room tables" and click on a result that features modern-style tables. Search for "dining room tables" again and sites featuring modern-style tables will be moved up the results list. In other words, any subsequent Google search comes up with the results that the algorithm predicts that you want, even if you do not want them. That is, Google shapes its searches for every individual and does not search the universe of possibilities.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
becky bradshaw
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth
01:00 PM on 09/22/2011
Google's shaping its results is not a problem unless:
1. Google gives preference to results in which they have a financial interest, and they fail to disclose those interests.
2. Google does harm to individuals based on their race, sex, etc.

There is evidence that both #1 and #2 are true.
photo
durant
Editor & publisher of Europeforvisitors.com
12:13 PM on 09/22/2011
Something to think about: According to ComScore, Google has about 65 percent of the U.S. search market (a slight decline since last year), while Microsoft has about 30 percent (a slight increase). This hardly suggests a "monopoly" that's worth the U.S. Senate's attention. After all, 65% is far less than, say, Apple's percentage of the MP3-player market or Microsoft's share of the PC market. (Or, for that matter, your cable company's share of the local CATV market.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
becky bradshaw
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth
12:42 PM on 09/22/2011
Microsoft has already been defined as a "monopoly" and is under restriction. Many people defended Microsoft.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Apple's control of the MP3 player is similar to the Google market share (70% vs 65%). Usually not only must a monopoly be demonstrated, but damage must also be shown. Along those lines, the music industry has claimed harm. Jon Bon Jovi says that kids are missing out on the magical experience of buying records, but this might not be enough.

Cable TV is usually regulated by local governments, so it is more of a utility. Even so, Satellite TV is an option, and in many markets, the phone companies are offering TV service.
12:03 PM on 09/22/2011
not to worry he has been coached by holder what to say
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
becky bradshaw
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth
11:26 AM on 09/22/2011
As executive chairman who oversees government affairs, Schmidt will avoid knowledge of issues that might be unethical or illegal. It is called plausible deniability. Note his answers to key questions:
"As far as I know, not,"
"I'm not aware of any."

Google's algorythm can be approximated with reverse engineering. This method was used earlier this week to reveal that Google modified search results based on a user table that included race, sexual preference, and intellectual level.

Reference: http://sustainablejournalism.org/mlda11/uncategorized/is-google-using-racial-profiling-for-ads-sales

Google is still perceived as a benign power, and there is still little evidence of evil, but

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
08:55 AM on 09/22/2011
Of course, that's his cutesy-oh-did-I-do-something-wrong spiel. The evidence is pretty incontrovertible.

The DOJ needs to intervene and do the same it did with Microsoft by appealing to the rule in the Sherman Act against tie-in sales. That's what this boils down to - sure they aren't 'forcing' you to buy their product, nor are they 'forcing' you to use Google at all. But as Schmidt said, Google's dominance gives it special responsibility.
12:22 PM on 09/22/2011
Show me the evidence.

All they have are jacked up assumptions based from absolutely 0 knowledge of the technology world and assumptions on how they think code and algorithms work.
12:42 PM on 09/22/2011
In the end it does not matter how their algorithms work. All Google needs is a few more lines of code, more or less of the form "if [query] = related to [Google service], rank high results from [Google service]." Schmidt says that they don't do that, but it's so blatantly obvious that they do. Here's something I just posted:

Let's do an experiment­. Put "restauran­t reviews" into Google and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky." What's the site that comes up? You might have noticed the recent (very public) acquisitio­n of this service by Google. ;)

Now search that site and the #2 ranked site on Alexa.com. One does not make the top 10,000 sites in web traffic (and barely top 3,000 in the US). The other is #170 (#38 in the US). How does the former make the #1 spot in Google's services? And why is it there when #2 is far more inclusive, has far more useful content, and more user contributi­ons? And why does #2 have more than 10x as many websites linking to it?

I can tell you one thing - it won't stay that way for very long once Google's done with Zagat (which it will eventually smash to pieces once it builds a strong enough brand in restaurant reviews and no longer needs the Zagat name). After all, Google only just bought Zagat.
08:34 AM on 09/22/2011
The questioners had their prepared conclusions and didn't know enough about the technology, the business, the complaints to make the hearing anything more than a billboard for their cluelessness. Good job Google for sticking to the truth and not getting drawn into never-never land of hypotheticals and miscontructed gotchas. Listening to the Rebublican shills concluding they were correct even when they had been clearly informend that their "evidence" was faulty explains a lot about how they are dirving the nation to ruin.
07:17 AM on 09/22/2011
How about somebody grilling the Senators on how they squandered a half a billion of taxpayer funds on Solyndra? These self righteous, malignant prima donnas in Congress never cease to amaze.
07:14 AM on 09/22/2011
Stoppelman is complaining about "filtered" results? Priceless!
gted1954
The right seldom is...
06:52 AM on 09/22/2011
Maybe someone in the Senate Googled "Santorum" and was offended?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gfs5541
05:57 AM on 09/22/2011
If you don't like Google, then use Bing or Ask.com
09:04 AM on 09/22/2011
People like Google plenty. That's not the issue. The issue is that they trust that Google will give them unbiased results. Google has gained people's trust and is now betraying it - not only ethically wrong, but legally wrong.

By the same ethical principle, Twitter requires you to disclose any deals you have with a company if you advertise for them (highly-followed users can get thousands for a single tweeted endorsement). By the legal principle, the FTC requires you to.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gfs5541
12:46 PM on 09/22/2011
That may have some truth, but then again there's Rick Santorum's call for Google to resolve "his Google Problem" . . . uh Not Google's fault (LOL).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Danio Jr
Sales and Business Consultant
03:17 AM on 09/22/2011
They were in control and unbeatable in search this days that is why they command..
chuckl4826
Give the Country away.. Vote Democrat.!
12:54 AM on 09/22/2011
When is there going to be a committee looking into the Obama administration's $535 Billion Solyndra taxpayer loan? How about the Light Square controversy?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wstepp2250
08:07 AM on 09/22/2011
Blame Obama for your Stupidity? What school did you attend and in what 3rd world Counrty? $536 Million becomes $536 Billion? Can you admit being IGNORANT?