Google, antitrust, and the 'Copygate' hypocrisy

'We can copy. But you can't'

Comment Google built a multi-billion-dollar advertising empire atop a service that does little more than copy information from other sources. And yet it chastises others when they do the copying.

It's an irony that could land the company in some very hot water.

Google made (countless) headlines last week when, after an intricate "sting operation", it accused Microsoft of "copying" its search results. Many missed the irony of "Copygate", but others quickly picked up on what can only be described as painfully obvious. It's not just that Google has made made multi-billions selling ads alongside content copied from across the web. The company has also been known to "copy" Bing's iconic background images – if only briefly. And we would argue it quite blatantly copied the iPhone in building Android.

No doubt, Google would deny such things. And even if it didn't, it would argue that Bing's copying is different. According to Google's sting, when netizens search Google on certain Internet Explorer browsers, there are cases where Microsoft automatically lifts the results and plugs them straight into its own search engine. Granted, this isn't the wisest move. At the very least, it gives miscreants an easy way of gaming Microsoft's search engine.

But the irony is still there. Google is a company built on all sorts of copying. With its Google Books project, Mountain View copied millions of library books without asking permission from the authors and publishers.

On the surface, this seems little more than a source of amusement. But we've seen this irony before. The same Google attitude plays a significant role in the European Union's ongoing antitrust investigation into the company's search and ad practices.

The European Commission is probing Google after receiving complaints from a trio of companies that includes Foundem, a UK-based vertical search engine that focuses on comparison shopping. Foundem accuses Google of "exploiting its dominance of search in ways that stifle innovation, suppress competition, and erode consumer choice".

The company's complaint makes two overarching claims. It says that in some cases, Google uses "discriminatory penalties" to remove sites from its search-results engine regardless of how relevant they are to a user's query, and it says that Google's Univerisal Search setup is unfairly promoting the company's own services – including Google Maps, YouTube, and Google Product Search – over those of its competitors.

In 2006, Google effectively removed Foundem from its "organic" search results, and all but barred the company from purchasing search ads on Google AdWords. For more than three years, Foundem fought for a return to Google's search engine, and Google obliged only after Foundem took its story public in late 2009. Despite being reinstated, Foundem went ahead with its EU complaint.

Before the EU formally announced its investigation in November, Google made light of Foundem's complaint without actually addressing the issues at hand, subtly criticizing the makeup of the company's site. But then, the day the probe was announced, the company rolled out a new tactic. A Google spokesman told us that Foundem's site was a problem because 79 per cent of its content is "duplicated" from other sites. And the company told The Guardian something similar, saying the site was de-indexed because about 87 per cent was "copied" from elsewhere.

There's that word again.

According to The Guardian, Google explained that a high level of copying "leads to automatic downgrading in its search results". This seems rather odd, however, when you consider that Google copies its content from elsewhere. Part of Google's defense of Universal Search is that it's not showing its own content, only the content of others. (This isn't true, but it's the company's defense nonetheless).

When we pointed out that he was criticizing Foundem for "un-original" content while arguing that Google was immune to criticism because of un-original content, the company spokesman told us that Google's situation was different. But he didn't exactly say how it was different.

Certainly, there are some types of copied content you don't want on a search results page. Just before accusing Microsoft of copying its search engine, Google rolled out a new algorithm designed to reduce "webspam". Google search guru Matt Cutts pointed to a pair of programming-centric queries where the change had an effect. Originally, both were giving preference to a site called efreedom that had copied content from But after the change, the original stackoverflow links rose to the top.

This is only reasonable. It's welcome, in fact. A search engine, by design, should limit the sort of shamelessly pilfered content efreedom is throwing at people.

But in describing the webspam he was going after, Cutts used much of the same language Google has used to describe Foundem. "The algorithm change," Cutts said on his personal blog, "primarily affects sites that copy others’ content and sites with low levels of original content.”

This wasn't lost on Foundem, which – in a blog post of its own – was quick to point out that while some copied content is unwanted, other copied content can be very useful indeed. Foundem does copy a majority of its content, but it's a search engine. "Copying, organising, and presenting the content of others is a defining characteristic of any search service," Foundem said, "including Google’s own."

Google is well aware of the distinction between webspam and a vertical search engine. After all, the company offers its own price-comparison engine, Google Product Search, and it received prominent placement on the company's primary search engine thanks to Universal Search. And Google indexes various other vertical search engines, including – as of the end of 2009 – Foundem. This despite its somewhere between 74 and 87 per cent copied content, or whatever it is.

"The difference here is between service and content. Clearly, there are all kinds of services that aren’t required to author content," Foundem cofounder and CTO Adam Raff tells The Reg. "Google used to talk about a ‘lack of original content’, but lately seems to have made a strategic shift to calling it ‘copying content'," he said.

"'87 per cent of their content is copied from other sources', [Google will say of Foundem]," Raff told us. "They make it sound like a cheap form of spam where a site simply copies somebody else's content wholesale and runs Google ads on it to monetize it. But of course, for any legitimate search service, the vast majority of its content will have been copied from others."

Raff actually defends Google's claims that Microsoft is copying its search results, denying there's any hypocrisy at play. "The word ‘copy’ has a lot of different meanings," he says. "Using clickstream data to effectively copy a result from Google to Bing ... is, at the very least, a mistake. Apart from anything else, it’s a way to game Bing’s results."

The real hypocrisy, he says, lies elsewhere. "Another kind of copying altogether is the copying that any search engine does," he explains. "In the context of a search engine, this kind of copying is not only legitimate, it is essential. The real hypocrisy here is that Google has started attacking vertical search services by suggesting that this perfectly legitimate form of copying is somehow illegitimate for all vertical search services other than its own.”

It's a hypocrisy that may not sit well the European Commission. Google is keen to end the Commission's investigation, but it continues apace. ®

Other stories you might like

  • Google has more reasons why it doesn't like antitrust law that affects Google
    It'll ruin Gmail, claims web ads giant

    Google has a fresh list of reasons why it opposes tech antitrust legislation making its way through Congress but, like others who've expressed discontent, the ad giant's complaints leave out mention of portions of the proposed law that address said gripes.

    The law bill in question is S.2992, the Senate version of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA), which is closer than ever to getting votes in the House and Senate, which could see it advanced to President Biden's desk.

    AICOA prohibits tech companies above a certain size from favoring their own products and services over their competitors. It applies to businesses considered "critical trading partners," meaning the company controls access to a platform through which business users reach their customers. Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta in one way or another seemingly fall under the scope of this US legislation. 

    Continue reading
  • Makers of ad blockers and browser privacy extensions fear the end is near
    Overhaul of Chrome add-ons set for January, Google says it's for all our own good

    Special report Seven months from now, assuming all goes as planned, Google Chrome will drop support for its legacy extension platform, known as Manifest v2 (Mv2). This is significant if you use a browser extension to, for instance, filter out certain kinds of content and safeguard your privacy.

    Google's Chrome Web Store is supposed to stop accepting Mv2 extension submissions sometime this month. As of January 2023, Chrome will stop running extensions created using Mv2, with limited exceptions for enterprise versions of Chrome operating under corporate policy. And by June 2023, even enterprise versions of Chrome will prevent Mv2 extensions from running.

    The anticipated result will be fewer extensions and less innovation, according to several extension developers.

    Continue reading
  • Azure issues not adequately fixed for months, complain bug hunters
    Redmond kicks off Patch Tuesday with a months-old flaw fix

    Updated Two security vendors – Orca Security and Tenable – have accused Microsoft of unnecessarily putting customers' data and cloud environments at risk by taking far too long to fix critical vulnerabilities in Azure.

    In a blog published today, Orca Security researcher Tzah Pahima claimed it took Microsoft several months to fully resolve a security flaw in Azure's Synapse Analytics that he discovered in January. 

    And in a separate blog published on Monday, Tenable CEO Amit Yoran called out Redmond for its lack of response to – and transparency around – two other vulnerabilities that could be exploited by anyone using Azure Synapse. 

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022