This blogpost includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21Eof the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These forward-looking statements generally can be identified by phrases such as Google or management “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “foresees,” “forecasts,” “estimates” or other words or phrases of similar import. Similarly, statements herein that describe the proposed transaction, including its financial impact, and other statements of management’s beliefs, intentions or goals also are forward-looking statements. It is uncertain whether any of the events anticipated by the forward-looking statements will transpire or occur, or if any of them do, what impact they will have on the results of operations and financial condition of the combined companies or the price of Google or Motorola stock. These forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated in such forward-looking statements, including but not limited to the ability of the parties to consummate the proposed transaction and the satisfaction of the conditions precedent to consummation of the proposed transaction, including the ability to secure regulatory approvals at all or in a timely manner; the ability of Google to successfully integrate Motorola’s operations, product lines and technology; the ability of Google to implement its plans, forecasts and other expectations with respect to Motorola’s business after the completion of the transaction and realize additional opportunities for growth and innovation; and the other risks and important factors contained and identified in Google’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), any of which could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements included in this press release are made only as of the date hereof. Google undertakes no obligation to update the forward-looking statements to reflect subsequent events or circumstances.
“...the notion of limiting or regulating what Google can show on its [search results pages] is a bad idea. Antitrust law is not supposed to protect companies from competitors but protect the marketplace in general and consumers in particular. Right now there’s no evidence that Google has harmed consumers. And the booming startup market suggests that innovation hasn’t been adversely affected by Google’s rise.”
“Our position then, as it is now, is that there is no antitrust case in paid search due to the way pricing is set in the market for paid search keywords. Google acts as market facilitator, not market enforcer. [...] [Google is] quite transparent when it comes to how they determine Quality Score, and advertisers who do not benefit from this understanding either have not put in the work, or are simply unhappy with the result (they are bidding on irrelevant keywords, which hurts quality score, which raises price – those are the publicized rules of the auction – play or don’t play).”
“The proponents of an antitrust investigation of Googles suggest Google is inhibiting competition by setting up barriers harming consumers. But a close examination of Google's entry into multiple consumer markets illustrates the opposite – that where Google competes, consumers benefit.”
“While the FTC may know things we don't, there is thus far no evidence in the public domain that Google is guilty of violations similar to those of which Microsoft was convicted a dozen years ago. [...] Google's market position was earned precisely because it found a way of ranking search results that is more useful for consumers, and it will quickly lose that position if someone can find an even better ranking algorithm.”
