Alex Zaharov-Reutt
Saturday, 31 May 2008 17:15
Opinion and Analysis
Page 2 of 3
AuctionBytes quotes part of the ACCC submission as follows: “eBay's real purpose, or one of eBay's substantial purposes, is to substantially lessen competition in the Market for Online Payment Processing Services, by preventing or hindering competitors of PayPal from competing effectively against PayPal in that market.”
The submission continues, in part: “eBay and PayPal are related bodies corporate. eBay is acting to increase PayPal's share of the Market for Online Payment Processing Services, thereby increasing the revenues to the eBay group as a whole.”
AuctionBytes also notes that the “submission also called the public benefits of the PayPal-only policy ‘illusory’.”
As AuctionBytes poster “dimes”
noted, Google and eBay
signed a “multi-year agreement to connect users, merchants and advertisers around the globe”.
This appears to be a pretty good reason why Google might not have wanted eBay to realise who had made the submission, especially considering the 38-page Google submission to the ACCC is very detailed and professionally written, clearly with plenty of resources to hand.
The August 28, 2006 press release about the agreement (linked above) says, in part: “Google Inc. (Nasdaq: GOOG) and eBay Inc. (Nasdaq: EBAY) today announced a multi-year agreement to benefit both companies' collective communities of users, merchants, and advertisers around the globe. The agreement consists of two primary components involving text-based advertising and "click-to-call" advertising functionality.”
The press release continues: “Specifically, Google will become the exclusive text-based advertising provider for eBay outside the United States. In addition, eBay and Google plan to integrate and launch "click-to-call" advertising functionality that leverage both Skype and Google Talk globally in each company's respective shopping and search platforms. The companies said the financial terms for certain components of the deal involve revenue sharing, but did not disclose specific details.”
So, why else might Google have wanted to remain anonymous? Please read on to page 3.
