Bid Rigging by Google's Quality Score Module


Bid Rigging via Quality Score


The above document was submitted to U.S. Courts, but the Courts just didn't care. This shows the true corruption of U.S. Courts from Federal Court all the way up to the Supreme Court - they are all corrupt. They bow down to vanity and nothingness.
They will bow down to law, soon.


The "Quality Score" Function of Google's AdWords and AdSense Systems is a Bid Rigging System that Violates the Sherman Act

To understand how to remove excessive fraud in the Maximum Price Lead Generation Industry, it is important to be skilled in the following arts:
(i) Economics;
Plaintiff has a BA in Economics from Emory University
(ii) Computer Science;
Plaintiff Completed Double Major in Mathematics / Computer Science at Emory University.
(iii) Intellectual Property and Computer Technology Law:
Plaintiff started studying such law since 1986 when he purchased "The Law of Computer Technology" and "Software Agreements", reference law books published by Warren, Gorham, and Lemont

and it is also important to understand the history and structure of the Federal Reserve and the banking system of the United States. This helps one to understand how to best implement an organizational market structure that automatically removes excessive fraud through standard architectures.

Following the discussion is how the "Quality Score" function implemented by the Defendant can only be reasonably interpreted as being a bid rigging mechanism.

It's similar to entering a store that sold apples, and the same kind of apple was priced differently for each different group of people. Wealthy people or popular people "chosen" by the store would be given a low price to buy one single apple, but some new person off the street would have to pay double the price for the same apple, even though quantity discounts were irrelevant because each apple was sold individually.

It would be the same as if someone logged on to a stock exchange, and a different market price for a stock was given to different people, based on whatever the stock exchange wanted. So if the real market price of a stock was $5, and a new user came onto the exchange, and the stock exchange gave this person a price of $9, for whatever reason, instead of $5, this would violate the fair competition laws of the United States.

One of the ways Google implements bid rigging is through their "quality score" mechanism. Leads are generally much more valuable than apples or stock. A stock may increase $1 or may double or triple in value. A good lead will typically bring in revenue in an amount of ten (10) times the price paid for the lead, or more. So if lead costs $10, and business is transacted, revenue will often be at least $100 or more. So leads are very valuable, especially if they are highly targeted.

Every company and individual is limited by resources in the number of leads it can handle by responding effectively. An individual may only be able to handle and respond to five proposals a day. The rest of the day the individual is earning hourly fees. Suppose a large company can handle 100 proposals a day.
Now suppose the large company is willing to pay $10 per lead, and the and the individual, who is in the same business, is also willing to pay $10 per lead. According to Google's architecture, the company and individual will each have a "Quality Score" based on something. What the quality score is based on is not significant. In any case, and regardless of what the Quality Score is based on, the result is always bid rigging.
Suppose the "quality score" for the big company is "8", and the quality score of the individual is "4". Here, Google's big rigging Quality Score system will calculate an "Ad Rank" of 8x10 or 80 for the big company, and 4x10 or 40 for the small company. Suppose five leads are being given out, and the organization with the 6th highest "Ad Rank" will not be given the lead.
Using the scenario across several vendors the "Ad Rank" may look like this:

  Max price Quality Ad Rank Score
Company 1 10 8 80
Company 2 10 7 70
Company 3 10 6 60
Company 4 10 5 50
Company 5 10 5 50
Company 6 11 4 44

In this scenario, even though Company 6 is willing to pay the most for a lead, $11, Company 6 is being denied the opportunity to purchase the lead at the same price as the others. Company 6 would have to pay $20 for the same commodity where Company 1 would be paying only $10. And since each lead is priced and sold individually there are no quantity discounts.

Further, through Google's analytical software, they know which leads are most valuable and most likely to generate commercial transactions, and they use the Quality Score so the best leads are pushed to their favorite organizations.

Considering Internet lead generation is now becoming vital to the survival of many businesses, big and small, Google is in essence illegally, and unfairly controlling which organizations are obtaining the best leads, while over charging organizations Google does not like.

Google claims the Quality Score is based on "the likelihood that someone will click on an ad". This is interesting but irrelevant. Whatever the basis of the Quality Score calculation, it always results in bid rigging. Google suggests that since their objective is to maximize their revenue, they should be allowed to decide which organizations get the best leads, if that decision process maximizes their revenue. But maximizing revenue is not a valid or legal permission to violate the Sherman Act and provide an unfair pricing mechanism and unfair marketplace.

Does Google still infringe on the '732 when they implement the Quality Score?
Yes. Because each lead has a maximum price, and the price paid for each lead is in between 0 and its maximum price, as in claim 1 of the '732 patent.
Since each lead is sorted by its maximum price, and the maximum price is the primary sorting variable, mathematically Google's system infringes. To infringe Google must perform the method "sometimes" and not "every time". And with pioneer patents and the doctrine of equivalents, Google's system with Quality Score still infringes according to the standards set by US Laws.
In our example if Company 6 entered in a maximum price of $30, Company 6 would be given the first lead, hence mathematically the sorting is ultimately dependent on the maximum price.

There are many ways in which a company such as Google can incorrectly implement the maximum price system which causes market confusion and fraud. Google, at least partially through its Quality Score function, successfully excludes some groups from participating fairly in Internet maximum price lead marketplaces.

The "Quality Score" function of Google's AdWords and AdSense systems clearly is a big rigging function that will be removed eventually.

The Plaintiff has the patent rights to remove the Quality Score from the marketplace to reduce excessive fraud. Thus we argue that these Quality Score facts supports the Plaintiff's position that a preliminary injunction provides needed and vital public interest benefits and should be so ordered as soon as the Court spends an hour of time ascertaining infringement.
The Plaintiff also maintains that the proposed settlement referred to in Question 2 above, is reasonable and should be so ordered permanently after infringement is fully discovered and analyzed.

Causes market confusion, excessive fraud.

If the above is found to be true by the Courts, Plaintiff respectfully requests the ability to set industry wide standards for all marketplaces using the patented Maximum Price System.