As one of the first to testify that Google was transforming into a monopoly, Scott Cleland continues to question the effect that Google’s actions have on the market, especially the repercussions for budding technological innovators and, ultimately, the consumer. Serving as President of Precursor LLC, an industry and policy consulting firm, he publishes a significant amount of research on Google and antitrust law at Googleopoly.net. Scott Cleland also publishes Googlemonitor.org, which maintains surveillance on Google’s activities.

1. HOW GOOGLE STUNTS
INNOVATION AND
HARMS CONSUMERS
SCOTT CLELAND

2. INTRODUCTION
• AS ONE OF THE FIRST TO TESTIFY THAT GOOGLE WAS TRANSFORMING INTO A MONOPOLY, SCOTT
CLELAND CONTINUES TO QUESTION THE EFFECT THAT GOOGLE’S ACTIONS HAVE ON THE MARKET,
ESPECIALLY THE REPERCUSSIONS FOR BUDDING TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATORS AND, ULTIMATELY,
THE CONSUMER. SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF PRECURSOR LLC, AN INDUSTRY AND POLICY
CONSULTING FIRM, HE PUBLISHES A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RESEARCH ON GOOGLE AND
ANTITRUST LAW AT GOOGLEOPOLY.NET. SCOTT CLELAND ALSO PUBLISHES GOOGLEMONITOR.ORG,
WHICH MAINTAINS SURVEILLANCE ON GOOGLE’S ACTIVITIES.
SCOTT CLELAND BELIEVES THAT GOOGLE USES ITS WEALTH OF RESOURCES EARNED FROM ITS
MONOPOLY ON SEARCH ENGINE ADVERTISING TO OFFER A NUMBER OF INNOVATIVE TOOLS. WHILE
THESE FREE TOOLS CERTAINLY HELP USERS, USERS PAY A HIDDEN PRICE IN GIVING UP THEIR
PRIVACY AND SECURITY. OTHER COMPANIES DO NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY TO SUBSIDIZE THEIR
PRODUCTS FOR FREE.

3. GOOGLE
• MANY STARTUPS MUST WRESTLE WITH THE QUESTION, “WHAT IF GOOGLE COPIES THIS?” THIS QUESTION HAS
THWARTED FAR TOO MANY ENTREPRENEURS. UNFORTUNATELY, THE CONSUMER ENDS UP LOSING BY
SUPPORTING THE GOOGLE PRODUCT, AS GOOGLE ULTIMATELY ANSWERS TO ADVERTISERS, NOT THE USER.
OTHER COMPANIES THAT WOULD PROVE USER-ALIGNED NEVER HAVE THE CHANCE TO BRING THEIR PRODUCT
INTO EXISTENCE.
GOOGLE CONSISTENTLY MAKES ITSELF APPEAR AS IF IT HAS THE CONSUMER’S BEST INTERESTS AT HEART; IT
HAS AMASSED A SIZEABLE, LOYAL FOLLOWING. REALISTICALLY, CONSUMERS HAVE BECOME GOOGLE’S
PRODUCT, AS IT CAPITALIZES ON THEM THROUGH ADVERTISERS AND PUBLISHERS. ADVERTISERS PROVIDE THE
MAJORITY OF GOOGLE FUNDING, AND THE COMPANY THUS ANSWERS TO THEM IN THE END. CONSUMERS TRUST
GOOGLE WITH THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION AND PRIVACY, BUYING INTO THE COMPANY’S PROJECTED
IMAGE. CLELAND CONTENDS THAT GOOGLE MAKES ITS MONEY FROM THAT VERY SAME PERSONAL
INFORMATION. CERTAINLY, CONSUMERS BENEFIT FROM THE FREE PRODUCTS THAT GOOGLE ALLOWS THEM
ACCESS TO, MAKING IT APPEAR TO BE A SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP.

4. CONCLUSION
• HOWEVER, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THESE FREE PRODUCTS ELIMINATE MARKET
COMPETITION AND STUNT ANY FORM OF INNOVATION THAT IS NOT “GOOGLE INNOVATION.” AS A
RESULT, SPECIALIZED PRODUCTS WILL BECOME VIRTUALLY NONEXISTENT, SINCE GOOGLE
INNOVATES FOR THE MASSES. IN ADDITION, THIS ELIMINATES ANY FORM OF QUALITY CONTROL
THROUGH COMPETITION. MANY USERS WILL LIKELY CHOOSE A LOWER-QUALITY GOOGLE
PRODUCT RATHER THAN SPEND MONEY ON A SUPERIOR ONE. CONSUMERS ALSO PAY THE PRICE
WITH CONSUMER SERVICE, WHICH WOULD PROVE MUCH MORE HELPFUL WITH A PAID-FOR
PRODUCT. WHO CAN COMPLAIN THAT THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED ASSISTANCE WITH THEIR FREE
PRODUCT? GOOGLE LARGELY WIPES ITS HANDS OF THIS RESPONSIBILITY TO THE USER.
INDIVIDUALS MAY FIND MORE INFORMATION ABOUT SCOTT CLELAND AT SCOTTCLELAND.COM
AND THE GOOGLE MONOPOLY AT GOOGLEOPOLY.NET.