Pages

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

US anti-trust regulators to scrutinize Waze acquisition?

The New York Times reports that US antitrust authorities may yet scrutinize Google's acquisition of Israeli start-up Waze.
Normally, to acquire a company in the United States, a buyer is required to supply the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission with what is known as a Hart-Scott-Rodino filing. This notifies the agencies of the transaction so either can review it for compliance with the antitrust laws.
The filing also prompts a waiting period during which the government can delay the acquisition to begin an in-depth investigation to determine if there is an antitrust problem. This is one reason that public takeovers are completed months after they are announced: the companies involved are waiting to clear antitrust review in the United States or another country.
This is the normal process. Yet Google’s only announcement of the deal appears to say that the companies signed and closed the deal that day, leaving Google the proud owner of Waze.
According to a person close to Google, the company skipped the Hart-Scott-Rodino filing by relying on an exemption. This filing is not required if the acquisition is of a foreign company that has sales and assets in the United States of less than $70.9 million. Waze is an Israeli company with headquarters in Silicon Valley, so it comes under this test.
Waze probably doesn’t have $50 million in revenue worldwide, yet the test also looks at assets. Given that Waze is worth $1 billion, it is hard to see that the value of its intellectual property in the United States business doesn’t meet the test. And the F.T.C. has previously indicated that companies should include this type of intellectual property in informal guidance.
Nonetheless, Google appears to have taken this aggressive position and is forgoing any antitrust review, instead plunging ahead with the acquisition.
So why did Google do this?
A representative from Google declined to comment.
Google may be playing hardball with the government here. Psychologically, it may be harder for the government to undo something that is done. And once Google acquires this company, it will become harder to force it to undo any integration it may have done with its own services. (For now, Google has said it will keep Waze separate.)
Not only that, but the Waze owners may have wanted to sell precisely on this basis, avoiding this huge possibility that the United States government would reject the deal, a risk that Google may have been willing to take with Facebook and Apple hovering.
But given the publicity over the acquisition, the government will almost certainly step in to review. Consumer groups are circling, and the Consumer Watchdog Group has written the government to ask for an in-depth review. That group has noted that Google’s purchase of Doubleclick and AdMob led it to a 93 percent market share in mobile advertising.
As with previous deals, the government can force Google to sell Waze, or put other restrictions in place, if there is a problem.
Read the whole thing

One thing that's unmentioned in the article (the Times would never intimate such a thing, but I will) is that politics may come into play here. Six Google executives, including founder Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt donated $25,000 each to fund President Obama's swearing-in. Something tells me that the anti-trust investigators will eventually be called off.

3 comments:

  1. These $25k event donations are NOTHING compared to $BBBillions flowing to Israeli entities from the Obama Marcuse cannibal sharia progressives...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was going to say that. Google is so liberal. Now we know, if a tea party company had done that ....

    ReplyDelete
  3. In...Yossi, the IRS employees are getting what is it $70 mil in bonuses "in spite of the scandal," the headlines say... But iit's more like a bonus for doing such a good job eliminating multiple groups of supporters of the obstructionist Republicans, possibly forever!

    ReplyDelete