On the possible Murdoch-Microsoft deal:
I don't think there is a legal or regulatory question here. But there should be.
Murdoch's properties are not that important to the Google experience or revenue stream. So it's Murdoch's loss to gamble on BING. BING is all about shopping, so WSJ would be an odd fit over there.
Basically, Murdoch is just bluffing and blustering while trying to get a better global deal from Google.
It does point out the need for search-standard regulations because if it were to succeed and spread, the fracturing of Web content among exclusive deals with search engines would severely disrupt the quality of the overall Web.
RSS Feed
Comments (1)
Your last paragraph has two statements which would benefit from proof. You say there is a need for search standard regulations. I suppose you mean state imposed regulations. If that is what you mean then:
1. Why are standards, for private actors, arrived at through legislative or judicial fiat superior to standards created through the chaos of the market?
2. The market created Google and Bing and Newscorp and what have you. How do you draw the line where the market is no longer up to the task of sorting it all out?
3. What if I as a citizen of a state don't agree with where you or even a majority of citizens of said state want to draw the line?
4. Do the private actors earn any special compensation as a consequence of the collective will being imposed on them?
You allege that "fracturing of Web content among exclusive deals with search engines would severely disrupt the quality of the overall Web." How so? Can one really predict the future with any certainty? Even if they were harmful(however you define harm) I can't even imagine how such exclusive deals would remain exclusive for any length of time.