Google: Acquisitions and antitrust

Washington Post's columnist Steve Pearlstein asked whether Google, with a dominant share in Web search, should be able to use its near monopoly and its profits to win dominant positions in adjacent or complementary markets. Our answer is "yes."

1. All companies make 'build vs. buy' decisions. Sometimes it’s possible to develop a new product in-house; other times a company decides it can bring a new product to market faster by acquiring another company.
2. Google is competing against other companies for acquisitions. Those companies not only have substantial cash or equity that they use to make acquisitions, they also regularly compete against us and other companies to acquire leading startups.
3. Acquisitions are typically good for consumers and the economy. Antitrust law is designed to protect consumers, not competitors, and Google's acquisitions have created great things for consumers. For startups, getting acquired is often the path to success (especially given the difficult IPO market), so stopping large companies from making acquisitions would only deprive startups of another potential bidder and investors of a potential return on their invested capital. You can't be both pro-economic growth and anti-acquisitions.
4. Courts and regulators recognize efficiencies in mergers into new spaces. They also have approved many deals where the leader in one category acquired the leader in a separate category.