Could Bing search results soon appear in your Google? Maybe — but only if you’re in Europe.

In response to the claims that its abusing its dominant marketshare position, Google has proposed some major changes to how it presents its search results.

In one of these proposed solutions, which were submitted a few weeks ago, Google said it could link directly to rival search engines like Bing and Yandex in its search results. Google said it will also more clearly label which results come from services like YouTube and Google Maps, and which of its search results are promoted ones. 

The European Union is giving interested parties a month to comment on the proposals, though it’s very likely companies like Microsoft are going to want a bit more out of Google.

Other measures would let websites more easily prevent Google from indexing their content, which means that a site like VentureBeat could  prevent Google from using its content in, say,  Google News. (Though who knows how many sites would be nutty enough to do that.)

Perhaps the most interesting proposal, however, is the last one. Google said it will  ”no longer impose obligations that would prevent advertisers from managing search advertising campaigns across competing advertising platforms.” If the European Union was looking for evidence of anti-competition, it’s certainly found it with that particularly tactic.

Of course, all of these measures only affect Google’s operations in Europe, where the company commands roughly 90 percent of the search market. Reaction to Google’s practices in the U.S., where its marketshare is closer to 67 percent, is a tad more subdued.

The higher Google climbs, the more desperately Microsoft tries to bring it down.

FairSearch, an anti-Google group that includes Microsoft, Nokia, and Oracle, is shifting its attention from search to mobile with a complaint to the European Union. It’s claim? Android is Google’s latest vector to dominate the tech world.

“Google’s predatory distribution of Android at below-cost makes it difficult for other providers of operating systems to recoup investments in competing with Google’s dominant mobile platform,” FairSearch says.

Basically, in FairSearch’s view, Google’s mobile strategy is inherently anticompetitive. Selling Android devices means also selling default apps like Maps YouTube, and Google Play — all of which plug directly back into Google.

Microsoft’s distaste for Google is deep and somewhat embarrassing.

Of course, Microsoft’s position here is a bit ironic, given that it was recently charged with a $731 million fine by the European Union for limiting browser choice in Windows. So this a bit of a pot-kettle-black situation in that regard.

More broadly, Microsoft is essentially preaching to the choir here. Not only has the EU been on Google’s case for a while, but the organization is fresh off an investigation into Google’s unified privacy policy. It knows what’s going on.

Google’s response to the claims is not much of a response at all. “We continue to work cooperatively with the European Commission,” a Google spokesperson told us.

While any investigation into Google only helps to keep it honest (in theory, anyway), it’s tough not to whip out the cynicism-tinted glasses when those investigations are being pushed by the company’s competitors.

This is especially true when it comes to Microsoft, a company whose only defense against Google has been a series of feeble attack ads that have hurt Microsoft’s reputation more than Google’s.

Worse, by appealing to the EU, Microsoft is taking its Google beef to an embarrassing new level. Rather than topple Google by outperforming Google on products, Microsoft is trying to get regulators to do its job for it.

If Google is Mozart, Microsoft is Salieri — only this story probably won’t end the same way it does in Amadeus.

Microsoft has been fined $731 million (561 million euros) by the European Union for failing to offer consumers a choice of which browser to use and making Internet Explorer the default, the EU announced today.

The EU said Microsoft failed to live up to a commitment it made in 2009 to give European consumers a choice in what browser they wanted to use. Microsoft eventually developed a “browser choice screen” so people could choose between using Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, or Opera. But a “technical error” on Microsoft’s part prevented that screen from being part of Windows 7′s Service Pack 1 and therefore users were still defaulted to Internet Explorer.

There were early reports that Microsoft could be fined up to $7.9 billion by the EU for the “technical error,” but the total ended up being much less. Still, $731 million isn’t just pocket change, so this could act as a warning for other tech companies that might try to skirt EU orders.

“Legally binding commitments reached in antitrust decisions play a very important role in our enforcement policy,” Joaquin Almunia, the EU’s competition commissioner, said in a statement. “Of course, such decisions require strict compliance. A failure to comply is a very serious infringement that must be sanctioned accordingly.”

Google has also attracted scrutiny from the EU over antitrust concerns related to search. In 2010, the EU began investigating Google for its control of 90 percent of the search market in the U.K.

Euro banknotes via vinz89/Shutterstock

After all, Santa knows who’s naughty and who’s nice.

Google, which makes over $100 million each and every day, has added so much advertising and sponsored results in the past year that some have called its actions a “war on free clicks.” Most troubling of all are the prominent positioning of Google’s own services — especially for local search and shopping results — at the top of Google search engine result pages (SERPs).

Now, however, Google is planning to change its business practices in at least two ways, according to a Bloomberg story. The search giant will apparently promise to stop copying data from “rival websites” and will give advertisers the ability to compare data on Google ad campaigns with data on marketing efforts on other sites and search engines.

It’s not clear, however, whether those two actions would address a key issue: Google favoring its own solutions in its search results — such as content featured in Google+, its social network.

For example, Yelp has been one of the most prominent opponents of Google, with Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman saying last year that “Google has acted anti-competitively in at least two key ways: by misusing Yelp review content in their competing Places product and by favoring their own competing Places product in search results.”

That’s also a concern of the European Union, which has investigated similar issues in the travel space, where Expedia and TripAdvisor have complained about anti-competitive behavior by Google in flight and travel search results.

When I contacted Google for a statement, a representative emailed me with this:

“We continue to work cooperatively with the Federal Trade Commission and are happy to answer any questions they may have.”

photo credit: Thomas Hawk via photopin cc

As Bloomberg reports, the search giant routed almost $10 billion in revenues to its Bermuda shell company. And that’s not because Larry and Sergey like to fly their private jets to the island paradise for beach vacations and mai-tais.

It’s because using the Bermuda shell company saved Google $2 billion in taxes, slicing its overseas tax bill in half.

Bermuda is a well-known “tax haven,” making a Forbes list of the world’s best places to avoid paying taxes. Some companies have moved their entire head offices to the island nation because Bermuda requires corporations to pay absolutely no tax. The country began that policy way back in 1935 as an attempt to bring in offshore companies to develop the local economy.

Google and other companies move money to the tax haven via strategies such as the Double Irish, in which one corporation is set up in Ireland but located in Bermuda, thus being tax-exempt by Irish rules. This first company acquires the international intellectual property rights from the U.S. mother corporation and licenses them at an enormous rate to another Irish company, locally resident, which then takes the profits from all the other European subsidiaries.

But because the second company makes very little money (due to the huge IP licensing rates) it pays very few taxes. And the first company, which is incorporated in Ireland but resident in Bermuda, collects the tax-free cash.

The result of Google moving its revenue to Bermuda?

Google payed an effective tax rate of 3.2 percent of its profit earned overseas last year — a ridiculously low number. Most of the revenues moved to Bermuda are from European countries, which, of course, are not entirely satisfied with the arrangement.

This policy is not unique to Google. Apple employs similar strategies, as do Facebook and Microsoft.

While you can hardly blame a company for taking whatever steps it can to minimize tax burdens, it’s clear that the UK, France, and other countries would like to see income earned locally taxed locally.

Expect European Union nations to take steps to try to recapture some of the tax revenue they see as belonging to them.

photo credit: smallscreen via photopin cc

Turns out that domestic and Asian suppliers are fair targets as well, as the EU imposed a total of $1.9 billion in fines on Netherlands-based Philips, Korea-based LG and Samsung, Japan’s Panasonic and Toshiba, and France’s Technicolor for price-fixing and under-the-table market allocation deals.

The anticompetitive behavior that actually prompted the fines is ancient history in the fast-paced consumer electronics industry. Focused on yesterday’s fat TVs — yes, the CRT ones that actually aimed electron guns at viewers — the price-fixing actually ended six years ago. But while the wheels of justice may move slowly, they do move, according to EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia.

“These cartels for cathode-ray tubes are ‘textbook cartels’: they feature all the worst kinds of anti-competitive behavior that are strictly forbidden to companies doing business in Europe,” Almunia said in a statement.

Philips earned the biggest fine, €313 million, as one of the ringleaders, while LG was fined €295 million. Panasonic’s penalty was smaller but still very substantial, at €157 million, and Samsung will be forced to pay €151 million.

Samsung and LG are repeat offenders, having recently been involved in an LCD TV price-fixing cartel.

A very real question for some of the companies is whether they can afford to pay.

While Samsung is flush with cash from the smartphone business, other companies — particularly Japanese ones — have failed to make as successful a transition to newer, higher-margin electronics. Panasonic’s stocks is at a three-year low right now and is fresh off a $10 billion annual loss. Toshiba is also in difficult circumstances, and near a five-year stock low.

photo credit: alles-schlumpf via photopin cc

The European Union could soon show Microsoft how serious it is about web browser choice.

EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said on Thursday that the organization could press formal charges against Microsoft over the company’s alleged anticompetitive behaviors, Reuters reports.

As part of a 2009 settlement with the EU, Microsoft was supposed to give Windows users a clear choice between its own Internet Explorer browser and competing products. Microsoft followed through on the agreement up until the release of Windows 7 service Pack 1, which did not feature the screen.

Microsoft’s defense? It was a “technical error.”

Engineering mishap or not, the broken promise could cost Microsoft up to $7.4 billion, which is roughly 10 percent of its revenues from last year.

All of this comes as the Google’s Chrome browser siphons away at Internet Explorer’s market share. As of August, Internet Explorer commanded 33.85 percent of the browser market, slightly lower than Chrome’s 33.59 percent share, according to StatCounter.

But while Google is winning the browser wars, it could be the next target of the EU, which says that the search giant also engaged in noncompetitive behaviors with its search engine results.

Photo:Shutterstock

The European Union’s antitrust chief has given Google a final chance to settle matter related to anti-competitiveness with its main search engine, according to a Reuters report.

The EU first opened up an investigation in November 2010 after rival companies like Microsoft accused Google of abusing its dominant position in the search market to boost up its own advertising services. If Google is found guilty, it could face a fine of up to 10 percent of its global financial turnover.

EU antitrust chief Joaquin Almunia said both regulators and Google are eager to reach a settlement, thus avoiding lengthy proceedings that risk becoming obsolete due to the rapid growth of technology, according to the report.

“I believe that these fast-moving markets would particularly benefit from a quick resolution of the competition issues identified. Restoring competition swiftly to the benefit of users at an early stage is always better than lengthy proceedings,” Almunia said. “Google has repeatedly expressed to me its willingness to discuss any concerns that the Commission might have without having to engage in adversarial proceedings, this is why today I’m giving Google an opportunity to offer remedies to address concerns that we have identified.”

In a letter to Google, Almunia is said to have given the search giant a matter of weeks to come up with a first proposal that would satisfy all the EU’s issues regarding anti-competitiveness.

EU flags photo via jorisvo/ShutterStock

Back in November 2010, the European Commission first opened up an investigation about the matter after rival companies like Microsoft accused Google of abusing its dominant position in the search market. If Google is found culpable, it could face a fine of up to 10 percent of its global financial turnover.

“We are concerned that the dominant search engine, Google, may have abused its position in the search market to direct users to its own services and secondly to reduce the visibility of competing websites and services,” wrote head of the BEUC Monique Goyens in a letter to EU antitrust commissioner Joaquín Almunia. “Google continues to expand its areas of activities and develop its own services and products. Given its role as gatekeeper to the internet, Google is in a unique position to restrict access to its competitors and direct traffic to its own services.

The BEUC is one of many groups pressuring the EU to submit its findings sooner rather than later, in order to minimize damages to other European businesses if Google is found guilty.

The findings from the commission will essentially be a list of objections it has to Google’s practices. The search giant will then have a chance to respond to those objections prior to any official ruling.

But despite pressure from outside groups, EU chief Almunia said a decision won’t be reached until after the Easter holiday on April 8.

“Maybe after Easter we will have some more clear consideration,” Almunia said in a statement reported by Reuters. “We want to advance in our investigation but we want to advance on a solid basis, not because of a letter or some pressures.”

EU flags photo via jorisvo/ShutterStock; Via TechCrunch

The European Union announced today that it will ask the European Court of Justice for a legal opinion on the highly protested Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

For those not familiar with the trade agreement, ACTA is an international treaty aimed at giving countries the ability to stop copyright infringement and other forms of intellectual property theft — a standard framework so that all countries around the world can charge and prosecute digital piracy. However, many Europeans have protested against the trade agreement under the claim that it could stifle free expression on the Internet while not directly addressing the problem of piracy in a meaningful way. ACTA has also come under fire due to the secrecy behind getting EU trade partners to sign the agreement without consulting the public.

The court is being asked to determine if ACTA — as well as its implementation — complies with the EU’s fundamental rights and freedoms, according to EU trade head Karel De Gucht.

“Let me be very clear: I share people’s concern for these fundamental freedoms … especially over the freedom of the Internet,”  De Gucht said in a statement reported by the BBC. “This debate must be based upon facts, and not upon the misinformation and rumour that has dominated social media sites and blogs in recent weeks.”

ACTA has already been signed by 22 EU member states, including the U.S., U.K., Japan, and Canada. More recently, countries like Germany and Denmark have refused to sign the agreement due to the widespread protest across the continent. Since ACTA is intended as a universal framework for stopping digital piracy, having a few key democratic countries that do not comply will likely weaken the overall effectiveness of the trade agreement.

Image via kihupotru

Networking technology giant Cisco has filed an appeal with the European Union today over the October approval of Microsoft’s $8.5 billion acquisition of Skype.

Cisco, along with Italian VoIP provider Messagenet SpA, is challenging the decision to approve the merger because the European Commission failed to place important conditions on the deal regarding interoperability of video communication. The main worry from Cisco is that Microsoft will exclusively integrate Skype’s video communication into its enterprise-level Lync video and voice communication software. Thus, consumers and businesses using competing software (like those offered by Cisco) wouldn’t be able to communicate.

“Imagine how difficult it would be if you were limited to calling people who only use the same carrier or if your phone could only call certain brands and not others. Cisco wants to avoid this future for video communications,” wrote Cisco SVP of Video and Collaboration Marthin De Beer in a letter posted on the company blog. “We believe standards-based interoperability will accelerate innovation, create economic value, and increase choice for users of video communications, entertainment, and services.”

And while Cisco may be sincere in its advocacy of open standards, the company was rumored to have been unsuccessful in forming an agreement with Microsoft to provide interoperability between Cisco video services and Skype, according to an AllThingsD report. This might explain why Cisco has waited until now to voice its concern over the EU’s decision in October.

Cisco is quick to point out that it doesn’t oppose the merger, but argues that tougher conditions are necessary to avoid any one company controlling all video communication standards.

You can read the full letter from De Beer about Cisco’s decision to file an appeal with the EU below.

In the past decade video communications has moved out of the realm of science fiction to become commonplace in our homes, at work, and on mobile devices. Yet we remain some distance from the goal of video calls being as easy and ubiquitous as phone calls are today – across any network and between all devices.

Imagine how difficult it would be if you were limited to calling people who only use the same carrier or if your phone could only call certain brands and not others.  Cisco wants to avoid this future for video communications, and therefore today appealed the European Commission’s approval of the Microsoft/Skype merger to the General Court of the European Union.  Messagenet, a European VoIP service provider, has joined us in the appeal.

We did not take this action lightly. We respect the European Commission, and value Microsoft as a customer, supplier, partner, and competitor. Cisco does not oppose the merger, but believes the European Commission should have placed conditions that would ensure greater standards-based interoperability, to avoid any one company from being able to seek to control the future of video communications.

This appeal is about one thing only: securing standards-based interoperability in the video calling space. Our goal is to make video calling as easy and seamless as  email is today. Making a video-to-video call should be as easy as dialing a phone number. Today, however, you can’t make seamless video calls from one platform to another, much to the frustration of consumers and business users alike.

Cisco believes that the right approach for the industry is to rally around open standards. We believe standards-based interoperability will accelerate innovation, create economic value, and increase choice for users of video communications, entertainment, and services.

The video communications industry is at a critical tipping point with far reaching consequences. Just three years from now the world will be home to nearly 3 billion Internet users, the average fixed broadband speed will be 28 Mbps, and 1 million video minutes (the equivalent of 674 days) will traverse the internet every second. As video collaboration becomes increasingly mainstream, multiple vendors will have to work together to enable global scale and broad customer choice.

For the sake of customers, the industry recognizes the need for ubiquitous unified communications interoperability, particularly between Microsoft/Skype and Cisco products, as well as products from other unified communications innovators. Microsoft’s plans to integrate Skype exclusively with its Lync Enterprise Communications Platform could lock-in businesses who want to reach Skype’s 700 million account holders to a Microsoft-only platform.

At the heart of this opportunity is a question about the model for interoperability. One approach allows each vendor to decide how they will interoperate. Another approach aligns the industry around open standards defined by non-partisan governing bodies. The answer will be critical to whether and how quickly video calls become “the next voice.”

When vendors implement their own protocols and selectively interoperate, they push the burden of interoperability to the customer.   We respectfully request that the General Court act on our concerns and for the European Commission to ensure the proper protections are put in place to encourage innovation and a competitive marketplace.

[Image illustration by Tom Cheredar via The Drill Down]

Regulators had put the deal on hold in both the U.S. and EU pending investigation for possible antitrust issues.

“We’re happy that today the European Commission approved our proposed acquisition of Motorola Mobility, which we announced in August,” wrote Google VP and deputy general counsel Don Harrison today on the company blog.

“This is an important milestone in the approval process and it moves us closer to closing the deal. We are now just waiting for decisions from a few other jurisdictions before we can close this transaction.”

The proposed deal put a $12.5 billion price tag on the Motorola property. Motorola also introduced a hefty $2.5 billion breakup fee, showing that company’s concern that the deal might not get through federal regulators.

Officials with the U.S. Department of Justice and other international governing bodies were initially given pause by Google claims that, even after the acquisition was complete, Motorola would not be given unfair advantages, such as early access to the Android codebase, over other Android handset and tablet manufacturers.

EU regulators halted the acquisition process in December 2011 when officials asked for more time to conduct a thorough review of the deal.

However, Google has proven — at least to EU officials — that it is in the company’s best interest to carefully skirt any antitrust activities in order to maintain the peace in the Android ecosystem while gathering the legal stockpile of patents necessary to protect Android manufacturers from the myriad lawsuits in which many are currently embroiled.

“The combination of Google and Motorola Mobility will help supercharge Android,” said Harrison in conclusion. “It will also enhance competition and offer consumers faster innovation, greater choice and wonderful user experiences.”

Rumors are swirling that the Justice Department may approve the acquisition as soon as this week, but for now, those rumors have yet to be confirmed.

Image courtesy of laihui

Google has the majority of all search traffic requests, but an “abuse of dominance” is not the same as dominance itself, said EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia Friday.

In November 2010, the European Commission first opened up an investigation about the matter after rival companies like Microsoft accused Google of abusing its dominant position in the search market. If Google is found in violation of abusing its dominance, it could face a fine of up to 10 percent of its global financial turnover.

And Google wouldn’t be the first to suffer from such a ruling. In the past, the EU has fined both Microsoft and Intel with massive billion dollar violation fees for an abuse of dominance in the market.

According to the report, there are nine other antitrust complaints filed with EU regulators.

Google has allegedly lowered the ranking of competitive vertical search sites — mostly price comparison sites — in favor of its own in the main body of search results as they appear on a Google search results page. These results are “natural”, or unpaid search results as opposed to the paid ads which appear on the top and the right-hand side of the page.

Vertical search sites specialize in a specific kind of search, like travel, health, or shopping. Some appear designed to game Google’s algorithms and benefit from free traffic from the Web search engine rather than providing a genuine service to users, while others offer a legitimately helpful service.

The EC is also looking into claims that Google has manipulated its internal “quality score”, which determines the amount of money an advertiser has to pay for an ad that appears on Google’s search results page. And finally, the Commission is investigating whether or not Google is also trying to stop websites from accepting rival ads, making the company sound like quite the online bully.

While the EC has opened an investigation into the matter, it doesn’t mean there is proof of any wrongdoing on Google’s part–yet. The EC states simply that it will “conduct an in-depth investigation of the case as a matter of priority.”

According to various outlets such as the BBC, BusinessWeek, and the New York Times, Google responded with a statement saying that it has “worked hard to do the right thing by our users and our industry.” Google said it has marked ads clearly and has allowed advertisers export their data from its service to other services easily. Google also said there is always “room for improvement”, and the company will be working with the commission to “address any concerns.”

There is no legal deadline for the investigation, meaning that it is likely to take months, if not years for the EC to reach a conclusion in what will be a highly complex case.

The EU has a history of taking on giant companies before, hitting Microsoft with a fine of 497 million euros, or $794 million, in March 2004 over antitrust issues, and, more recently, the regulator fined Intel 1.08 billion euros, or $1.38 billion. It is apparent that the EU is not a pushover when dealing with multinational companies and therefore this could mean trouble for Google, should the company be found to be using anti-competitive practices.

[Photo credit: Carlos Luna]

NRG Energy has announced it will invest $300 million over the next three years in BrightSource’s planned 392-megawatt Ivanpah solar thermal project (model rendering pictured). Brightsource also received a $1.4 billion loan guarantee from the government for the project and power purchase agreements from SoCal Edison and PG&E. Construction has started, and all three phases of the project are expected to be fully operational by 2013.

The European Union is tackling so-called “vampire energy” in a multimillion-dollar project that will research more efficient transistors, CNET writes. Project Steeper aims to create electronics that operate 10 times longer on battery charge and don’t suck energy while plugged in but not in use (the energy that leaks from electronics that are not in use is called vampire energy).

Global photovoltaic panel production will grow 92 percent in 2010, reaching 15 gigawatts, according to a new GTM Research report. Subsidy cuts in markets like Germany — which have industry watchers worried — will slow growth in 2011, but the GTM Research forecasts panel production will exceed 25 gigawatts by 2013. And certain solar technologies will be able to lower manufacturing costs to $1 per watt by 2012.

Residential solar company SunRun has announced a new round of financing from U.S. Bancorp to expand its residential solar business. U.S. Bancorp today committed tax equity to develop 1,900 new home solar projects. This is SunRun’s fourth transaction with U.S. Bancorp. No dollar figure was disclosed. SunRun has previously raised $300 million in project financing from U.S. Bancorp and PG&E.

Oregon-based electric vehicle company Barefoot Motors will close its factory doors. The company made all-terrain electric vehicles for utility and agricultural uses, according to the Medford Examiner. On the company website, CEO Mary Gresens said a  ”critical interruption” in their supply chain ultimately caused the factory’s closure.

Are you a green executive or entrepreneur? If so, sign up now for GreenBeat 2010 — the year’s seminal conference on the smart grid — November 3-4 at Stanford University. World leaders in smart grid initiatives will debate how the new “Super Grid” is creating huge opportunities in cars, energy storage, and renewables. GreenBeat 2010 is hosted by VentureBeat and SSE Labs of Stanford University. Go here for full conference details and to apply for the 2010 Innovation Competition. Register by October 22nd and save 30%.