Pretty interesting interview with Google’s Senior VP Amit Singhal on where search technology is headed.  In the article, Singhal describes the shift from a content-based, keyword index  to incorporating links and other signals to improve query results.  The most interesting part of the interview is about what is next.

Google now wants to transform words that appear on a page into entities that mean something and have related attributes. It’s what the human brain does naturally, but for computers, it’s known as Artificial Intelligence.

It’s a challenging task, but the work has already begun. Google is “building a huge, in-house understanding of what an entity is and a repository of what entities are in the world and what should you know about those entities,” said Singhal.

In 2010, Google purchased Freebase, a community-built knowledge base packed with some 12 million canonical entities. Twelve million is a good start, but Google has, according to Singhal, invested dramatically to “build a huge knowledge graph of interconnected entities and their attributes.”

The transition from a word-based index to this knowledge graph is a fundamental shift that will radically increase power and complexity. Singhal explained that the word index is essentially like the index you find at the back of a book: “A knowledge base is huge compared to the word index and far more refined or advanced.”

Right now Google is, Singhal told me, building the infrastructure for the more algorithmically complex search of tomorrow, and that task, of course, does include more computers. All those computers are helping the search giant build out the knowledge graph, which now has “north of 200 million entities.” What can you do with that kind of knowledge graph (or base)?

Initially, you just take baby steps. Although evidence of this AI-like intelligence is beginning to show up in Google Search results, most people probably haven’t even noticed it.

For example:

Type “Monet” into Google Search, for instance, and, along with the standard results, you’ll find a small area at the bottom: “Artwork Searches for Claude Monet.” In it are thumbnail results of the top five or six works by the master. Singhal says this is an indication that Google search is beginning to understand that Monet is a painter and that the most important thing about an artist is his greatest works.

When I note that this does not seem wildly different or more exceptional that the traditional results above, Singhal cautioned me that judging the knowledge graph’s power on this would be like judging an artist on work he did as a 12- or 24-month-old.

Check out the whole article.  Counterfactuals are always difficult — but its difficult to imagine a basis for arguments that the evolution of search technology would have been — or will be — better for consumers with government regulation.

Filed under: google, Internet search, technology

The Institute for Competition Law and GW Law have put together the Antitrust Writing Awards.  You can vote on academic or business articles here.  I’m very pleased to report that one of my articles — Does Antitrust Enforcement in High-Tech Markets Benefit Consumers?  Stock Price Evidence from FTC v. Intel (Review of Industrial Organization) — was nominated in the “economics” category.

Here is a description:

The Antitrust Writing Awards’ goal is to promote antitrust scholarship and competition advocacy by recognizing and awarding the best articles published in the antitrust law and law & economics fields in the last 12 months. The Awards feature two different categories of articles: Academic and Business. The Academic Articles category comprises articles published in academic journals, whereas the Business Articles category features articles published in professional magazines or newsletters. The articles are selected by a jury and by readers. The jury consist of a Board, an Academic and a Business Steering Committees composed of the leading academics and counsels. Readers contribute to the selection process by voting for articles. The Institute of Competition Law – the publisher of the Journal Concurrences and the e-Competitions Bulletin – and George Washington University Law School, are organizing these first of their kind Antitrust Writing Awards with the support of partners. The Awards ceremony will take place in Washington DC on 27 March 2012.

The Board ultimately selects the winners with input from reader votes and steering committees (I am a member of the academic steering committee).

Lots of interesting articles nominated; go check them out and vote.

Filed under: antitrust, economics

I’ve posted a new project in progress (co-authored with Angela Diveley) to SSRN.  In “Do Expert Agencies Outperform Generalist Judges?”, we attempt to examine the relative performance FTC Commissioners and generalist Article III federal court judges in antitrust cases and find some evidence undermining the oft-invoked assumption that Commission expertise leads to superior performance in adjudicatory decision-making.  Here is the abstract:

In the context of U.S. antitrust law, many commentators have recently called for an expansion of the Federal Trade Commission’s adjudicatory decision-making authority pursuant to Section 5 of the FTC Act, increased rulemaking, and carving out exceptions for the agency from increased burdens of production facing private plaintiffs. These claims are often expressly grounded in the assertion that expert agencies generate higher quality decisions than federal district court judges. We call this assertion the expertise hypothesis and attempt to test it. The relevant question is whether the expert inputs available to generalist federal district court judges translate to higher quality outputs and better performance than the Commission produces in its role as an adjudicatory decision-maker. While many appear to assume agencies have courts beat on this margin, to our knowledge, this oft-cited reason to increase the discretion of agencies and the deference afforded them by reviewing courts is void of empirical support. Contrary to the expertise hypothesis, we find evidence suggesting the Commission does not perform as well as generalist judges in its adjudicatory antitrust decision-making role. Furthermore, while the available evidence is more limited, there is no clear evidence the Commission adds significant incremental value to the ALJ decisions it reviews. In light of these findings, we conclude there is little empirical basis for the various proposals to expand agency authority and deference to agency decisions. More generally, our results highlight the need for research on the relationship between institutional design and agency expertise in the antitrust context.

We are in the progress of expanding the analysis and, as always, comments welcome here or at my email address on the sidebar.

Filed under: antitrust, economics, federal trade commission, scholarship, SSRN

President Obama has, as rumored, appointed Bill Baer (Arnold & Porter) to head the Antitrust Division.  Reuters reports:

Baer, who is the chair of Arnold and Porter’s Antitrust Practice Group, also previously headed the Federal Trade Commission’s competition division when it stopped a merger between Staples and Office Depot in 1997.

He will replace Sharis Pozen, the acting assistant attorney general for antitrust, who plans to step down at the end of April. Pozen succeeded Christine Varney, who left last August.

Baer’s nomination, which was widely expected, still must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

…
Baer is seen as someone who would continue the present policies of the Justice Department’s antitrust office.

The division’s key outstanding cases include the purchase of Nortel’s patent assets by a consortium led by Apple, and Google’s purchase of Motorola Mobility. It also has a number of criminal price-fixing probes.

Mr. Baer is a very well respected figure in the antitrust community and I expect this to be perceived — as it should be — as a very high quality appointment.

Filed under: antitrust

Last week Thom posted about the government’s attempt to hide the cost of taxes and regulatory fees in commercial airfares. Apparently Spirit Airlines is highlighting another government-imposed cost of doing business by advertising a new $2/ticket fee that the airline has imposed. According a CNN report yesterday:

Spirit Airlines says a new federal regulation aimed at protecting consumers is forcing it to charge passengers an additional $2 for a ticket.

The fee, which Spirit calls the “Department of Transportation Unintended Consequences Fee,” has been added to each ticket effective immediately, according to Misty Pinson, a Spirit spokeswoman.

The new DOT regulation allows passengers to change flights within 24 hours of booking without paying a penalty. The airline says the regulation forces them to hold the seat for someone who may or may not want to fly. As a consequence, someone who really does want to fly wouldn’t be able to buy that seat because the airline is holding it for someone who might or might not end up taking it.

In short, DOT is requiring airlines to give consumers a real option to change their flight plans at zero cost within a 24 hour window. Spirit rightly recognizes that options have value. Not only is there a value to consumers in ‘buying’ such an option, there is a cost associated with providing the option; in this case, the opportunity cost of selling seats that may be held for someone that will exercise the option to cancel without a fee.

Obviously, DOT head Ray LaHood is unimpressed.

“This is just another example of the disrespect with which too many airlines treat their passengers,” Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in an e-mailed statement. “Rather than coming up with new and unnecessary fees to charge their customers, airlines should focus on providing fair and transparent service — that’s what our common sense rules are designed to ensure.”

Perhaps Mr. LaHood doesn’t understand the concept of options and option value. The right, but not the obligation, to undertake an activity (particularly under pre-specified terms) is clearly an economic good.  The very notion that DOT’s new regulation is touted as “consumer friendly” recognizes that it creates additional value for consumers. That is, it’s giving something away that is of value…a property right to change one’s mind at zero cost. However, it is disingenuous of Mr. LaHood to object to the idea that giving away value imposes a cost on the one providing the value (and I don’t mean the DOT, but the airlines who must honor the consumer’s exercise of the option).

A better solution might be to require airlines to explicitly offer the option of a no-penalty change within a 24-hour window. Then consumers could choose whether to pay the fee and airlines might discover the true market value of that option. Spirits’ $2 may be too high. More likely, it’s too low. Many airlines already do offer the option of a no-fee cancellation and the fare differential is much higher than $2, but that option typically has a much longer maturity…any time after booking up until departure. A shorter maturity window should command a lower option value.

Spirit Airlines may be the epitome of nickle-and-diming air travel consumers, something many consumers (myself included in some cases) don’t appreciate. However, there is no denying that Spirit understands the nature of options and their value. And there’s also no denying that, based on its stock price over the past year, Spirit is doing at least as well as industry leaders in providing consumers value for the options they choose. Perhaps instead of casting aspersions, Mr LaHood and his staff should invite Spirit to teach them about this fairly fundamental concept of options and option value rather than imposing regulations with so little regard for their true costs.

Filed under: business, consumer protection, regulation, Sykuta Tagged: airlines, options, regulation

Charles (“Rick”) Rule, who represents Microsoft and is the head of the antitrust practice at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, and I had an opportunity to debate the various antitrust issues involving Google and its search engine on last week.  I didn’t have much of a chance to report here on the blog over the past week, but the Columbia Law School has done the work for me.  Here’s a recent report:

Joshua Wright, professor of law at George Mason University School of Law, took the position that there is no significant evidence that Google is guilty of antitrust violations. Even if Google, like other search engines, favors its own content when producing the results of a search request, he argued, dissatisfied customers can easily switch search engines. In other words, the competition is just a click away.

On the other side of the debate was Charles F. Rule, head of the antitrust practice at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP. Rule, who has defended Microsoft in antitrust litigation, argued that ample anecdotal evidence exists that implicates Google in a mix of practices that have had the cumulative effect of excluding competitors’ content from appearing in a Google search, as well as monopolizing advertisers. He stressed that his opinions were his own.

…

Wright discussed the evolution of search engines in the last ten years. He conceded that the allegation of search bias, in which a search engine favors its own content at the expense of rivals, is a possible violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. But Wright noted that leading case law indicates that the behavior in question must harm the competitive process and thereby harm consumers, to be dubbed “exclusionary.”

“We demand evidence of real harm to competition before we break out the antitrust hammer,” he said, “and I don’t think there’s significant evidence of that here. It’s not hard to switch to get what you are looking for.”

Rule dismissed the “just-a-click-away” argument at the beginning of his talk.

“It’s not quite that simple,” he said. “The fact is that because of some of Google’s practices, the company has made it difficult for other search engines like Bing to achieve the same level of performance.”

Rule explained that search engines make their money by selling eyeballs to advertisers, and cited statistics that establish Google’s long-time share of the search-engine advertising market at 90 percent and up. He offered detailed descriptions of specific Google practices that have had the alleged effect of excluding competitive search engines—not just by blocking their content, but also by denying them opportunities to reach advertisers.

“With respect to bias, you can see specific anecdotes where it appears that Google has allegedly blacklisted certain companies intentionally and, in a very focused way, degraded their results so they appear lower on the page,” he said. “But also on the advertising side, there are anecdotes that when Google perceived a potential competitive threat, it automatically dramatically increases the price competitors have to pay, sometimes five to ten thousand percent overnight.”

Filed under: antitrust, economics, federal trade commission, google, monopolization, technology

Keith Woolcock (Time Business) offers an interesting perspective on what economists would describe as “competition for the field” between Apple, Facebook, Google, and Facebook.  It gives a good sense of the many dimensions of competition upon which these firms compete.

The upcoming IPO of Facebook, the flak surrounding Twitter’s decision to censor some tweets, and Google’s weaker-than-expected 4th-quarter earnings all point to one of the big events of our times: The crazy, chaotic, idealistic days of the Internet are ending. Once, the Prairies were open and shared by everyone. Then the farmers arrived and fenced them in. The same is happening to the Internet: Apple, Amazon and Facebook are putting up fences — and Google is increasingly being left outside.

The old Internet on which Google has thrived is still there, of course, but like the wilderness it is shrinking. Often these days, we sign up for Facebook or Amazon’s private version of the Internet. At other times, we use a smartphone and download an App instead of using Google search.

…

The danger to Google, in other words, is that as social networking, smartphones and tablets increasingly come to dominate the Internet, Google’s chance to earn advertising revenues from searching will shrink along with its influence.

Yes, Google has the Android and Google+, but these may not be enough to fight the shift to the closed Internet. Google+, of course, has just a tiny fraction of Facebook’s scale and there’s currently little reason to think it can catch up. The Android operating system, also an attempt by Google to build its own internet eco-system, is a more conspicuous success. Most commentators focus on the rapid growth of Android and the fact that it has greater market share than the iPhone.

But this analysis misses the point: The Android may have market share, but more than half of mobile searches come from iPhone users. Google may have developed Android but, unlike Apple’s iPhone, it does not really control it. Licensees like Samsung and HTC are able to adapt Android software to their own ends. And smart companies like Amazon are getting a free ride on Android while sharing little of the spoils with Google.

Don’t get me wrong: Google is still a force, just as Microsoft, Intel and IBM are. But they are no longer at the epicentre of the zeitgeist. Like Microsoft before it, Google can fight the good fight on many different fronts. Whether it can ever find an engine of growth capable of supplanting its core business is another question.

Check out the whole thing.

Filed under: antitrust, business, economics, google, monopolization, technology

Sports Illustrated:

The Federal Trade Commission has concluded and closed a six-month, nonpublic investigation of Zuffa LLC., the owners of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, and will not take further action at this time, an FTC spokesperson confirmed to SI.com on Tuesday.

According to closing letters to parties involved that were made public Tuesday, the FTC Bureau of Competition investigation focused on Zuffa’s March 2011 acquisition of Explosion Entertainment LLC., which owned the rival Strikeforce promotion, and whether the purchase violated Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act or Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Section 7 of the Clayton Act  “prohibits mergers and acquisitions when the effect may be substantially to lessen competition, or tend to a create a monopoly,” according to FTC guidelines.

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.’’

“No action has been taken in regards to this part of the investigation,” said the FTC spokesperson, though he said the governmental agency reserves the right to revisit the matter in the public’s interest.

Zuffa purchased Explosion Entertainment, established by Scott Coker and Silicon Valley Sports and Entertainment, a sports franchise company, for a reported $40 million. Coker became the general manager for Strikeforce, which plans to hold six events on Showtime this year.

A remarkable set back for the unilateral effects enforcement agenda at the agencies to be sure.

Filed under: antitrust, federal trade commission, merger guidelines, mergers & acquisitions

The Federal Trade Commission conference announcement is below; note that public comments on the date of the conference.  This is an important space and should attract some excellent speakers.  The topics suggest a greater focus on consumer protection than competition issues.  Here is the announcement:

The Federal Trade Commission will host a workshop on April 26, 2012, to examine the use of mobile payments in the marketplace and how this emerging technology impacts consumers. This event will bring together consumer advocates, industry representatives, government regulators, technologists, and academics to examine a wide range of issues, including the technology and business models used in mobile payments, the consumer protection issues raised, and the experiences of other nations where mobile payments are more common. The workshop will be free and open to the public.

Topics may include:

• What different technologies are used to make mobile payments and how are the technologies funded (e.g., credit card, debit card, phone bill, prepaid card, gift card, etc.)?
• Which technologies are being used currently in the United States, and which are likely to be used in the future?
• What are the risks of financial losses related to mobile payments as compared to other forms of payment? What recourse do consumers have if they receive fraudulent, unauthorized, and inaccurate charges? Do consumers understand these risks? Do consumers receive disclosures about these risks and any legal protections they might have?
• When a consumer uses a mobile payment service, what information is collected, by whom, and for what purpose? Are these data collection practices disclosed to consumers? Is the data protected?
• How have mobile payment technologies been implemented in other countries, and with what success? What, if any, consumer protection issues have they faced, and how have they dealt with them?
• What steps should government and industry members take to protect consumers who use mobile payment services?

To aid in preparation for the workshop, FTC staff welcomes comments from the public, including original research, surveys and academic papers. Electronic comments can be made at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/mobilepayments. Paper comments should be mailed or delivered to: 600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Room H-113 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580.

The workshop is free and open to the public; it will be held at the FTC’s Satellite Building Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Filed under: antitrust, economics, financial regulation, technology, wireless