• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Assistant Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Projects
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Is Yahoo-Microsoft Pact Enough to Fight Google?

August 16, 2009 by Reshika Dhir (IPilogue Editor)

The recent announcement of Yahoo and Microsoft’s partnership may mean more choice and transparency for consumers, advertisers and publishers. It certainly means more competition in the world of online search and advertisements. Carol Bartz of Yahoo and Steven A. Ballmer of Microsoft finally put pen to paper on Wednesday, July 29, 2009, to announce this partnership, and to make a promise of more relevant and useful search results. Currently, Google tops the list of most preferred search engines.

Ballmer acknowledges that these searches are primary gateways to all information and knowledge on Internet, and online advertisements fuel internet content and commerce. Therefore, to ensure search innovation, greater return to advertisers on their investments and more choice to the rest of the world, this partnership may play a noticeable role in shifting the market dynamics.

According to the pact, Microsoft will provide the underlying search technology on Yahoo’s popular websites. Yahoo is reported to benefit by focusing its investments on audience properties, display advertising and the mobile Internet experiences. It is also speculated to further its strategy on its strengths as a publisher of Web media sites in areas like finance and sports, and as a marketer and leader in online display advertising. Furthermore, Yahoo gets 88% of the search revenues for search ads on Yahoo’s sites. But, it gets nothing from premium advertiser clicks on Bing even though it is selling the ads. Microsoft benefits by winning a wider exposure to its newly overhauled and well-received search engine Bing.

Both Yahoo and Microsoft are deeply committed to protecting consumer privacy. Yahoo retains people’s search data, including keywords, cookie information and IP address, but no names or addresses, for three months. After that, the data gets further anonymized so that it cannot be connected to a particular person. Microsoft retains such data for 18 months, after which it undergoes complete anonymization. Google retains data for 9 months after which it makes it difficult to link IP addresses to actual people. However, the cookie information becomes anonymous at 18 months. This retention of data is an important source of insight for Google to take steps to improve its engines and searches.

Search inquiries are a sensitive issue since they hold the power to expose personal information about things like illness, financial concerns and various political and personal preferences. European regulators hold that Internet companies should not hold data beyond six months. The teaming up of Yahoo and Microsoft can further alter the approach to privacy and retention of search inquiries as the competition for bragging rights to who has the best practices is likely to increase.

For those who are either displeased by the aforementioned privacy policies of these search giants, or those who want to opt for a search tool which doesn’t keep IP addresses, some options include Ixquick, and Ask.com and its AskEraser feature.  And those who are interested in switching on the grounds of accuracy and extent of search results, the website www.blindsearch.fejus.com provides a user-friendly way of comparing search results from the three major Internet Search engines: Google, Yahoo and Bing (although sometimes the third search engine results can be found by scrolling down, instead of all three available in three parallel columns). Using this website can enable the consumers to instantly see the tool that best meets their needs. In conclusion, however, the question that only time can answer is whether the Yahoo-Microsoft merger will be sufficient to entice consumers and advertisers into re-evaluating their search engine preferences.

Posted in Innovation, Internet, Privacy

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Patent Application Filings: Fluctuations and Innovation | True, Patriot Love of the Canadian Maple Leaf – at Home and Abroad »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Events Calendar
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

 

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • bob on Bill C-32: Copyright and Education in the Digital Age
  • Stuart Freen on Sizing Privacy Harm
  • Steven Bercu on First sale and digital content
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Stuart Freen on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Christian Rock on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Anonymous on Does Fashion Need Copyright Protection?
  • Fly Intheointment on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Bart on Copyright Termination: How Authors can Reclaim their Copyrights
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • CRTC Seizes Internet Regulation Mantle
  • Brand Expectations in the Restroom: 4th Circuit Applies Contributory Trademark Infringement Doctrine to Post-Purchase Confusion Case
  • Yes, Patents Do Have Gender
  • Fashion IP Revisited: The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act
  • RIM’s Battle for Information Privacy, Market Share, and its Reputation
  • Transnational Regulation: Rough Consensus and Running Code
  • IP Osgoode: Call for Editors (2010-2011)
  • Sizing Privacy Harm
  • The Internet Age: The Culprit for a Rise in Plagiarism?
  • USPTO Issues Post-Bilski Guidelines for Patent Examiners
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Commercialization (46)
  • Contracts (36)
  • copyright reform (65)
  • defamation (6)
  • events (36)
  • General (120)
  • Innovation (79)
  • Internet (122)
  • IP (650)
    • Copyright (308)
      • CD Levy (6)
      • Digital Downloads (39)
      • Digital Locks (12)
      • Fair Dealing (25)
      • Infringement (60)
      • Internet Sharing (50)
      • Literary Works (24)
      • Movies (24)
      • Music Industry (42)
      • Originality (17)
      • Ownership (45)
        • Licensees (12)
      • Subsidiary Rights (4)
    • Patents (198)
      • Cross Border Issues (34)
      • Electronic Processes (7)
      • Infringement (37)
      • Patent Trolls (10)
      • Patentability (59)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (46)
    • Trademarks (130)
      • Domain Names (26)
      • Famous Marks (9)
      • Official Marks (8)
      • Parallel Importation (3)
      • Personality Rights (8)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • Links (3)
  • Music Industry (39)
  • Open-Source (14)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (3)
  • Privacy (111)
    • Electronic Databases (23)
    • Human Rights Issues (19)
    • Identity Theft (6)
  • Regulatory Policy (2)
  • Tech Transfer (12)
  • Technology (119)
  • Telecommunications (30)
  • Uncategorized (70)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736