7 ms·

That's the real problem; they don't know what to do about it, but they'll rather do anything instead of nothing. Either it's gonna be a lot of hot air or turn o

That's the real problem; they don't know what to do about it, but they'll rather do anything instead of nothing. Either it's gonna be a lot of hot air or turn out for the worse. What's funny is that Google already operates as separate legal entities in different European countries (though some countries share one HQ and hence legal identity). How they plan to further "break it up" I can't imagine.

arethuza 12y ago
I don't think HQ location has much to do with legal entities - don't you need a local legal entity in a country if you actually have any "operations" there (offices, staff etc.) as you need to comply with local statutory reporting etc.
rtpg 12y ago
It says it right there: break the search engine component from the rest of the company. This would mean that Gmail and Yahoo Mail would be on the same playing field if someone searches for "free webmail client". I can't even begin to imagine the engineering nightmare that would be though, especially now that accounts are unified.
soneil 12y ago
I don't think the aim is geographic boundaries, but functional boundaries. eg, Google Advertising is the only ad network allowed on Google Search. To use a loose analogy with the Microsoft trials; msft having a monopoly on the desktop wasn't the problem. They earned it. Using that monopoly to create a second monopoly in the browser space, was the issue. Hence the unbundling. In this case, Google having a monopoly in search isn't the problem - again, they've earned it fairly. But using that monopoly to prop up additional monopolies in, eg, advertising, is problematic. I don't think they'll actually try to split Google up. It's so-far sabre rattling, and this decision just ensures they actually have a sabre to rattle. But if, eg, third-party advertisers were allowed to compete with Google on Google's own properties? That'd be interesting.

arethuza 12y ago

I don't think HQ location has much to do with legal entities - don't you need a local legal entity in a country if you actually have any "operations" there (offices, staff etc.) as you need to comply with local statutory reporting etc.

rtpg 12y ago

It says it right there: break the search engine component from the rest of the company. This would mean that Gmail and Yahoo Mail would be on the same playing field if someone searches for "free webmail client". I can't even begin to imagine the engineering nightmare that would be though, especially now that accounts are unified.

soneil 12y ago

I don't think the aim is geographic boundaries, but functional boundaries. eg, Google Advertising is the only ad network allowed on Google Search. To use a loose analogy with the Microsoft trials; msft having a monopoly on the desktop wasn't the problem. They earned it. Using that monopoly to create a second monopoly in the browser space, was the issue. Hence the unbundling. In this case, Google having a monopoly in search isn't the problem - again, they've earned it fairly. But using that monopoly to prop up additional monopolies in, eg, advertising, is problematic. I don't think they'll actually try to split Google up. It's so-far sabre rattling, and this decision just ensures they actually have a sabre to rattle. But if, eg, third-party advertisers were allowed to compete with Google on Google's own properties? That'd be interesting.