or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › FTC begins antitrust investigation into Google Android, web services
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FTC begins antitrust investigation into Google Android, web services

post #1 of 51
Thread Starter 
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has served Google with broad subpoenas to collect information about how the company conducts business with its Android licensees and the company's liberal borrowing of competitor's information before pushing them out of view.

The investigation, detailed by a report in the Wall Street Journal, states that the FTC is working with "several state attorneys general," looking into "whether Google prevents smartphone manufacturers that use its Android operating system from using competitors' services."

In addition to examining Android, the investigation is also probing Google's alleged involvement in taking information collected by rivals (such as customer reviews published by Yelp) to use on its own "Places" business listings or "Shopping results."



The company is also accused of demoting competitors services in its own search results after harvesting their data, promoting its own services in their place, using competitors' own content.

"When the FTC probe first became official in June," the Journal report stated, "Google said it wasn't clear what the agency was concerned about. But the early focus of the investigation suggests a potential threat to Google's plans to expand its commercial success beyond its current cash cow: the Web-search engine."

Google is also facing a parallel antitrust investigation in Europe by the European Commission, which started its own probe last year. The EC previously acted to impose restrictions on Microsoft after the United States failed to take any real action to prevent the company from leveraging its Windows monopoly to quickly dominate and erase competition in other areas.

Google maintains that it hasn't done anything wrong and that antitrust investigations are simply the result of competitors complaining about its growth into new markets. "

We understand that with success comes scrutiny," a Google spokeswoman was cited as saying in the report. "We're happy to answer any questions they have about our business."

Google's Android business is also under scrutiny for allegations it willfully infringed upon Oracle's Java as well as being involved in a series of suits covering copyright, trade dress and patent infringement involving Samsung, Motorola, HTC and other Android licenses.
post #2 of 51
Google apologists will now claim that Apple and Microsoft bought some FTC officials as part of their grand anti-Google conspiracy...

Crybabies.
post #3 of 51
"Not evil."

Pfft.
post #4 of 51
This sort of clarifies Google's behavior with Android vis-Ã*-vis iOS and the iPhone. They merely applied their core business model--harvesting content from others and re-branding it as their own--to hardware and software. I failed to recognize that connection before.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #5 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Google maintains that it hasn't done anything wrong and that antitrust investigations are simply the result of competitors complaining about its growth into new markets. "

Then how come there isn't similar antitrust investigations against other competitors in the market, just Google? Perhaps, maybe, because, possibly, the FTC (and similar bodies) have good reason to believe Google is actually guilty? Or is it just a conspiracy by every other competitor, who would still be competing with each other without Google, to take just Google down?

Hmm...
post #6 of 51
I find that Yelp graphic to be interesting. That's just wrong to take stuff like that and re-use it. OMG how stupid.
post #7 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by trex67 View Post

"Not evil."

Pfft.

Remember the golden rule: When Google does it, it's Not Evil(TM).
Also the Golden Corollary: When someone else does it to Google, they're Evil because they are conspiring against Google.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #8 of 51
It seems this site isn't just about Apple but Apple plus anything anti-Google (or Android). Well truthfully it's more like Apple + anything bad happening to competitors (of which mostly is Google these days).
We get it, Google Evil, don't need to be told this endlessly day after day after day after...
Getting rather tired of it.
Wish it would just go back to just informing us about Apple.
post #9 of 51
If there's going to be an antitrust investigation of Google, the FTC needs to start with search + ads before they get to Android. IMO.

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #10 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermonkey View Post

It seems this site isn't just about Apple but Apple plus anything anti-Google (or Android). Well truthfully it's more like Apple + anything bad happening to competitors (of which mostly is Google these days).
We get it, Google Evil, don't need to be told this endlessly day after day after day after...
Getting rather tired of it.
Wish it would just go back to just informing us about Apple.

The headline was pretty clear what the article was about.

Apparently you are getting so tired of these articles that not only did you click through and read it, but also went ahead and posted a comment on it...
post #11 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermonkey View Post

It seems this site isn't just about Apple but Apple plus anything anti-Google (or Android). Well truthfully it's more like Apple + anything bad happening to competitors (of which mostly is Google these days).
We get it, Google Evil, don't need to be told this endlessly day after day after day after...
Getting rather tired of it.
Wish it would just go back to just informing us about Apple.

All this weariness after three whole posts? Maybe you just came here from someplace where good news about Google and bad news about Apple is the order of the day. Just sayin', complaining newbies and lurkers don't get much cred.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #12 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

If there's going to be an antitrust investigation of Google, they need to start with search and ads before they get to Android. IMO.

As far as I can tell, I don't think Google does anything wrong just withing their search and ad business

My problem is how they liberally use their monopoly in search, and ads, to destroy other businesses and competitors (largely by promoting their services, and/or by giving away a product for free, kinda like how MS used IE to destroy Netscape).
post #13 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

This sort of clarifies Google's behavior with Android vis-Ã*-vis iOS and the iPhone. They merely applied their core business model--harvesting content from others and re-branding it as their own--to hardware and software. I failed to recognize that connection before.

Having a friend (acquaintance actually) screwed by Google with their Google Books Content Theft Project convinced me Google only cares about Google's profit and are willing to appropriate whatever IP or content they can to achieve it. Google took a very broad stroke of what they considered "orphaned" or "dead" or "out of print" works.

Prior to the Google Books project, I was a big Google fan.
post #14 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

As far as I can tell, I don't think Google does anything wrong just withing their search and ad business…

My problem is how they liberally use their monopoly in search, and ads, to destroy other businesses and competitors (largely by promoting their services, and/or by giving away a product for free, kinda like how MS used IE to destroy Netscape).

Antitrust is about misuse of monopoly power. I'd be shocked if there wasn't enough of that in most of their business since, as you say, web ad revenues fund most of the "free" products that Google uses to drive others out of business.

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #15 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermonkey View Post

It seems this site isn't just about Apple but Apple plus anything anti-Google (or Android). Well truthfully it's more like Apple + anything bad happening to competitors (of which mostly is Google these days).
We get it, Google Evil, don't need to be told this endlessly day after day after day after...
Getting rather tired of it.
Wish it would just go back to just informing us about Apple.

I agree, that the endless bashing gets tedious...

But what's to be done? These [potentially illegal] activities should not be ignored -- and Google keeps supplying new material.

Maybe Google should change their motto: Don't be Evil/Stupid -- pick one!
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #16 of 51
Apple, for the most part, appears to actually try to cover all the bases legally. Apple made deals with book publishers, music publishers and distributors and now movie distributors before announcing iBooks, Newsstand, iTunes Match and iCloud. Google and Amazon just assumed and opened up their digital music lockers with no licenses. Look at the history of Google Books for an example.

Google is sitting on probably one of the most vast stores of web information in the world. Even news agencies blasted Google over Google's News at first because it was not only scraping their sites, but was also displaying information BEHIND articles that had restricted log-ins. Google's cached sites have even been criticized because it still displayed information that might have been taken down for legal reasons.

Google is leveraging it's data way too much without giving a thought to compensation or copyright.
post #17 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I agree, that the endless bashing gets tedious...

But what's to be done? These [potentially illegal] activities should not be ignored -- and Google keeps supplying new material.

Maybe Google should change their motto: Don't be Evil/Stupid -- pick one!

Google's motto is: We're Not Evil(TM) Therefore Anything We Do Is Completely Justified, Even The Stuff We Accuse Others Of Doing.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #18 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The company is also accused of demoting competitors services in its own search results after harvesting their data, promoting its own services in their place, using competitors' own content.

"When the FTC probe first became official in June," the Journal report stated, "Google said it wasn't clear what the agency was concerned about."

Classic Google. Blatant theft of copyrighted material - and they don't understand why it's wrong.

Idiots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

The headline was pretty clear what the article was about.

Apparently you are getting so tired of these articles that not only did you click through and read it, but also went ahead and posted a comment on it...

He had to read it. That's what Google is paying him to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

As far as I can tell, I don't think Google does anything wrong just withing their search and ad business

How much did Google pay you for that gem?

Let's see what we can come up with:
- Stealing other's copyrighted material (such as this story)
- Intentionally using Java - even when knowing that they had no right to it
- Copying books without permission from the authors
- Stealing the look and feel of iOS

There is plenty of evidence for all of the above to make a strong case for each. Google has demonstrated a very, very clear propensity to ignore everyone's intellectual property but its own.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #19 of 51
Not sure how this is going to turn out.

Google's entire business model is centered around taking other people content, repackaging it, and braining it as their own.
post #20 of 51
With Android, Google is doing the exact same thing that got Microsoft into trouble. Microsoft used its Windows monopoly to gain an unfair advantage in the web browser market by giving Explorer away for free where Netscape had to charge for it's browser. Microsoft could not have afforded to give the browser away for free if it were not for Windows. Further, Netscape owned the browser market before Explorer went free.

Google is using its wealth generated from its search monopoly to buy itself into other markets (e.g. Android) by giving products/services away free that are subsidized by the monopoly. Consumers often times view Google as the hero, as they did Microsoft, because consumers in the short term are getting product/services for free. In the long term those free products and services come at the cost of innovation and possibility higher prices when the competition is dead.

Google also acts unfairly because it favors its own products in search results again thereby gaining an unfair advantage in a new market. For instance, when you go to Google's search page, it asks if you want to use Chrome browser claiming it works better with its services.

Google has done that Places to gain advantage over Yelp. It is also doing the same with Groupon.

The only reason Google can afford to compete by giving product away is because of its monopoly in search (Google owns over 90 percent of the search market in most parts of the world).




Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

This sort of clarifies Google's behavior with Android vis-Ã*-vis iOS and the iPhone. They merely applied their core business model--harvesting content from others and re-branding it as their own--to hardware and software. I failed to recognize that connection before.
post #21 of 51
The two go hand in hand. If it weren't for it's search monopoly, Google could not afford to give Android away for free. That is what makes it a potential anti-trust violation. Anti-trust is all about using a dominant position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another.


Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

If there's going to be an antitrust investigation of Google, the FTC needs to start with search + ads before they get to Android. IMO.
post #22 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

How much did Google pay you for that gem?

Let's see what we can come up with:
- Stealing other's copyrighted material (such as this story)
- Intentionally using Java - even when knowing that they had no right to it
- Copying books without permission from the authors
- Stealing the look and feel of iOS

If you had read my entire comment, you would have realized I don't disagree with you. My point was the core search engine, and the ad engine don't seem in any legal trouble. Any website can choose for google to not index them by including a simple robots.txt file.

However, their ancillary products (which is what you mention, (2) Android (3) Books (4) Android) are what may be in trouble for copyright abuse, and/or illegally using their search/ad monopoly to destroy competition.
post #23 of 51
You were doing OK until you brought up the copying book authors works without permission. Unfair use, Google didn't need permission. I agree with most of the other things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Let's see what we can come up with:
- Stealing other's copyrighted material (such as this story)
- Intentionally using Java - even when knowing that they had no right to it
- Copying books without permission from the authors
- Stealing the look and feel of iOS

There is plenty of evidence for all of the above to make a strong case for each. Google has demonstrated a very, very clear propensity to ignore everyone's intellectual property but its own.
post #24 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

If you had read my entire comment, you would have realized I don't disagree with you. My point was the core search engine, and the ad engine don't seem in any legal trouble. Any website can choose for google to not index them by including a simple robots.txt file.

However, their ancillary products (which is what you mention, (2) Android (3) Books (4) Android) are what may be in trouble for copyright abuse, and/or illegally using their search/ad monopoly to destroy competition.

It could be argued, and I would support such an argument, that one should opt-in, not opt-out, of having their information examined and recorded. It's like saying it's perfectly fine for someone to go from house to house peeking in through the windows, even tearing down the shades, unless you put up a sign that says "Please don't look in my house".
post #25 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

You were doing OK until you brought up the copying book authors works without permission. Unfair use, Google didn't need permission. I agree with most of the other things.

This and the Java thing may spell trouble for Google. I am not sure I agree with this probe. Google does not charge for Android (AFAIK) and expects to make money on services.
post #26 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbarriault View Post

It could be argued, and I would support such an argument, that one should opt-in, not opt-out, of having their information examined and recorded. It's like saying it's perfectly fine for someone to go from house to house peeking in through the windows, even tearing down the shades, unless you put up a sign that says "Please don't look in my house".

Except unlike a house a website is open to visitors, it is more like driving down a street - if the street is private then the owner is responsible for explicitly showing that.

There was actually some concern back at the start of the internet era that any user accessing a website was committing a criminal offence in the UK by breaking the anti-hacking law which made it a crime to access any computer system without express permission. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed.
post #27 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Classic Google. Blatant theft of copyrighted material - and they don't understand why it's wrong.

Is it copyrighted material? I mean in the case of Yelp the material was user supplied, so there may not be any copyright. Rather like this forum thread - who owns the copyright there? Does anybody?

I don't use Yelp, for all I know they have a big terms and conditions thing that new users agree to in which all copyright is given over to Yelp itself. Can anybody shed any light?
post #28 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Except unlike a house a website is open to visitors, it is more like driving down a street - if the street is private then the owner is responsible for explicitly showing that.

There was actually some concern back at the start of the internet era that any user accessing a website was committing a criminal offence in the UK by breaking the anti-hacking law which made it a crime to access any computer system without express permission. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed.

If Google is truly scraping subscriber only info from websites as has been claimed, they don't seem to care if a street is private or not.
post #29 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

All this weariness after three whole posts? Maybe you just came here from someplace where good news about Google and bad news about Apple is the order of the day. Just sayin', complaining newbies and lurkers don't get much cred.

Lol, don't get me wrong here. I love Apple products and use them every day. Heck, I'm about to buy an MBA in a week or two. But come on...this is AppleInsider...what does this article have anything to do directly with Apple? Yes, they are a competitor...but does that mean they should start posting everything to do with all major competitors of Apple? Besides, AppleInsider doesn't report news about Google but just negative news about Google.
If this was some general tech news site, that's one thing but I thought, and I guess I was wrong, that this site was about Apple.

It's getting to the point where this site isn't for those who just loves Apple products.
It's a site for those who love all things Apple AND hate all things Google.
I.e. AppleInsider-AntiGoogleInsider
post #30 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

You were doing OK until you brought up the copying book authors works without permission. Unfair use, Google didn't need permission. I agree with most of the other things.

Bull. Copying books without permission is illegal. Google can not copy a book and put it on the Internet without the author's permission. They're TRYING to get the copyright rules changed, but so far, Congress hasn't given them permission to steal others' work.

What Google was doing is NOT fair use.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #31 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

You were doing OK until you brought up the copying book authors works without permission. Unfair use, Google didn't need permission. I agree with most of the other things.

You think it is perfectly acceptable for Google to copy the work of authors and offer huge amounts of the work available online diverting the revenue the author was making and feeding it Google and their ad engines?

Really?

Are you for real? Google's Google Book project should always have been an opt-in and not an opt-out (where they make it next to impossible to opt-out) policy.
post #32 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Except unlike a house a website is open to visitors, it is more like driving down a street - if the street is private then the owner is responsible for explicitly showing that.

There was actually some concern back at the start of the internet era that any user accessing a website was committing a criminal offence in the UK by breaking the anti-hacking law which made it a crime to access any computer system without express permission. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed.

The house may not be open, but there's nothing actually stopping you from staring in the windows, other than common decency.
post #33 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Is it copyrighted material? I mean in the case of Yelp the material was user supplied, so there may not be any copyright. Rather like this forum thread - who owns the copyright there? Does anybody?

I don't use Yelp, for all I know they have a big terms and conditions thing that new users agree to in which all copyright is given over to Yelp itself. Can anybody shed any light?

It's also important to note that Google Pulled yelp reviews from places:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-200...s-from-places/

So that point really isn't relevant anymore (though I'm sure the government will continue to harp on it) Side note on places: There is some great stuff you can do as a business owners with places, and I know of more than a few local businesses who used it as a "landing page" of sorts until they got their own website up and running. One of the reasons for this was because of the massive amount of reviews it has. Not trying to make a judgement here about whether to aggregation was right or wrong. Just saying that there were benefits to it when it came to business owners as well as consumers.

As for the android thing, I'm not sure how this is an issue. At all. Android OS is open sourced so that anyone can put it on a device of their choosing. What google has that it can control is Market Access and access to GApps. I don't see how withholding access to their apps without agreeing to their terms is somehow illegal.

As for ranking, I'm really hoping they can foster evidence instead of "My site should be higher because it's awesome" Messing with search is a serious thing, and if Google is guilty they should be taken to task about it, but I also think that IF google was filtering results, one of the countless black hat groups would've hacked them and laid out the data. That kinda publicity would be huge.
post #34 of 51
'Nuff said.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #35 of 51
Just a few days ago i saw Google putting a Link on its search front page to a FREE Google-branded Nexus S phone.

i think this may be another evidence against Google. Using it's search engine monopoly to leverage it's other business.





http://www.slashgear.com/google-offe...only-03169368/

CNN: Obamacare largest tax increase in American history

 

FORBES: ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Middle class

Reply

CNN: Obamacare largest tax increase in American history

 

FORBES: ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Middle class

Reply
post #36 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Is it copyrighted material? I mean in the case of Yelp the material was user supplied, so there may not be any copyright. Rather like this forum thread - who owns the copyright there? Does anybody?

I don't use Yelp, for all I know they have a big terms and conditions thing that new users agree to in which all copyright is given over to Yelp itself. Can anybody shed any light?

You could of course actually look at the Yelp terms of service to answer your question, where you would find that user contributed material is owned by the individual contributor, who thus also holds the copyright on it. Unless the terms of service for a site specifically state that the copyright is assigned in some way, the creator of the content is the owner and copyright holder.

So, effectively, Google engages in a distinct violation of copyright law for every user review they scrape off of Yelp and is liable for damages to each individual whose review they steal. There is no fair use exemption because fair use does not allow use for commercial purposes other than for news reporting, which this is not.
post #37 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermonkey View Post

It seems this site isn't just about Apple but Apple plus anything anti-Google (or Android). Well truthfully it's more like Apple + anything bad happening to competitors (of which mostly is Google these days).
We get it, Google Evil, don't need to be told this endlessly day after day after day after...
Getting rather tired of it.
Wish it would just go back to just informing us about Apple.


AI makes money from its customers, mainly Google. They sell us, the readers, to Google, and the more we click, the more Google pays AI. We are AI's product, not the stories. The stories are merely here to entice us into clicking them. AI's real product is you and me.

So far, it seems that AI can get more product to sell (meaning more of us who click on the stories) by running Google stories than running Apple stories. Every time DED runs his anti-Google stuff, we all provide AI with product/clicks to sell in the market. We are like farm animals gobbling up entrails, getting fat for the slaughter.

So as long as we all read these non-Apple stories and post comments, AI can sell us to Google. Stop clicking on the non-Apple stories, and they will dry up.

Or keep gobbling up the slop, and keep getting sold down the river by AI. It is our choice what to do.
post #38 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

AI makes money from its customers, mainly Google. They sell us, the readers, to Google, and the more we click, the more Google pays AI. We are AI's product, not the stories. The stories are merely here to entice us into clicking them. AI's real product is you and me.

So far, it seems that AI can get more product to sell (meaning more of us who click on the stories) by running Google stories than running Apple stories. Every time DED runs his anti-Google stuff, we all provide AI with product/clicks to sell in the market. We are like farm animals gobbling up entrails, getting fat for the slaughter.

So as long as we all read these non-Apple stories and post comments, AI can sell us to Google. Stop clicking on the non-Apple stories, and they will dry up.

Or keep gobbling up the slop, and keep getting sold down the river by AI. It is our choice what to do.

Or, you can just block all that stuff.
post #39 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Is it copyrighted material? I mean in the case of Yelp the material was user supplied, so there may not be any copyright. Rather like this forum thread - who owns the copyright there? Does anybody?

I don't use Yelp, for all I know they have a big terms and conditions thing that new users agree to in which all copyright is given over to Yelp itself. Can anybody shed any light?

Please at least learn the basics of copyright law. When you create something new (such as this post), a copyright automatically exists and you are the owner. You don't need to register that copyright, nor do you need to explicitly state that it's copyrighted. Simply creating the work creates a copyright. There is ALWAYS a copyright on original work.

Once you create a copyrighted work, you can do what you want with it. You can transfer the copyright to someone else, for example. Yelp's terms of service may actually state that you're transferring the copyright to Yelp. But it doesn't matter. The copyright belongs either to the creator or to Yelp. Google has no right to use it without permission.

If this was an isolated incident, it might be one thing. But Google's long history of violating copyrights suggests that it's not an isolated incident. Furthermore, how do you 'accidentally' end up copying Yelp posts? They had to have gone out of their way to do so.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #40 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Please at least learn the basics of copyright law. When you create something new (such as this post), a copyright automatically exists and you are the owner. You don't need to register that copyright, nor do you need to explicitly state that it's copyrighted. Simply creating the work creates a copyright. There is ALWAYS a copyright on original work.

Once you create a copyrighted work, you can do what you want with it. You can transfer the copyright to someone else, for example. Yelp's terms of service may actually state that you're transferring the copyright to Yelp. But it doesn't matter. The copyright belongs either to the creator or to Yelp. Google has no right to use it without permission.

If this was an isolated incident, it might be one thing. But Google's long history of violating copyrights suggests that it's not an isolated incident. Furthermore, how do you 'accidentally' end up copying Yelp posts? They had to have gone out of their way to do so.

Just for clarification, because it was so easy to locate, from Yelp's terms of service:

Quote:
5. Content

...

B. Our Right to Use Your Content

We may use Your Content in a number of different ways, including publicly displaying it, reformatting it, incorporating it into advertisements and other works, creating derivative works from it, promoting it, distributing it, and allowing others to do the same in connection with their own websites and media platforms ("Other Media"). As such, you hereby irrevocably grant us world-wide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable rights to use Your Content for any purpose. You also irrevocably grant the users of the Service and any Other Media the right to access Your Content in connection with their use of the Service and any Other Media. Finally, you irrevocably waive, and cause to be waived, against Yelp and its users any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content. By "use" we mean use, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of Your Content.

C. Ownership

As between you and Yelp, you own Your Content. We own the Yelp Content, including but not limited to visual interfaces, interactive features, graphics, design, compilation, computer code, products, software, aggregate user review ratings, and all other elements and components of the Service excluding Your Content, User Content and Third Party Content. We also own the copyrights, trademarks, service marks, trade names, and other intellectual and proprietary rights throughout the world (the "IP Rights") associated with the Yelp Content and the Service, which are protected by copyright, trade dress, patent, trademark laws and all other applicable intellectual and proprietary rights and laws. As such, you may not modify, reproduce, distribute, create derivative works or adaptations of, publicly display or in any way exploit any of the Yelp Content in whole or in part except as expressly authorized by us. Except as expressly and unambiguously provided herein, we do not grant you any express or implied rights, and all rights in and to the Service and the Yelp Content are retained by us.

...

And, by the way, the above is fair use in action
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › FTC begins antitrust investigation into Google Android, web services