Antitrust question with regards to the EU and handhelds

[Sniperfox47]

15 minutes ago, TheFlyingSquirrel said:

and no one is selling in the linux environment it is either FOSS or GNU

tons of companies sell Linux environments. Ubuntu has the Ubuntu Certified Partners program which sets hardware and software environment requirenments for certification and licensing: https://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/partners

 

And if you want a more conventional example see SUSE and RHEL.

 

16 minutes ago, TheFlyingSquirrel said:

You seem to have strong views about EU anti trust law, why?

I have strong views about the fact that everyone should be held to the same standards, and because the EU seems to like to slap Google with these ridiculously large fines over trivial issues.

 

I mean if we're going to set a precedent that software license collections can't be packaged together because "competition" then we should hold that true across all levels of software. If we're going down that road, Microsoft should be required to break up the licensing of Windows and Apple should be required to do the same with iOS and then have to license it out. If the law is going to set rules for software those rules should be the same across the board.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

The IE case was the IE case because Microsoft was aggressively developing proprietary add-ons to the open web standard to push web vendors out of the market though.

I think your lack of understanding of the IE case may be hindering your ability to understand this case then.

The proprietary add-ons have nothing to do with the abuse of dominant position case, and would not be addressed by the "choose your browser" popup.

The relevant case was: you sell one product, and you have 90% market share with it. Now you have another product with strong competitors, and you are trying to drive them out by bundling product 1 with product 2.

 

2 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

 

If these apps were mandatory to be bundled with Android I'd totally be on board. But they're not. At all. In the slightest. Google is just saying "If you want to buy some of our apps on Android they come as a bundle pack and you have to include all of them".

So it is bundling. As long as Google has a dominant market position with one piece of the bundle, it could be under attack from competitors of the other pieces.

 

2 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I don't know why people keep on bringing up the IE case. Nobody here is saying that browser vendors are being shunted out of the Android market.

That wasn't part of the abuse of dominant market position case either. I don't think you are familiar with the EU vs MS case (see above). 

That is, however, something Apple routinely does in is app store. it probably has Android's market share to thank for getting away with it.

 

You are right in that I mentioned Netscape, while Netscape was long dead by the last ruling, although I believe the 2009 ruling was at least partially based on infringing a previous ruling, for which Netscape my have had something to do (or not). Either way, it was a case of bundling.

 

 

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I mean if we're going to set a precedent that software license collections can't be packaged together because "competition" then we should hold that true across all levels of software. If we're going down that road, Microsoft should be required to break up the licensing of Windows and Apple should be required to do the same with iOS and then have to license it out. If the law is going to set rules for software those rules should be the same across the board.

As explained, it would indeed affect everyone considered to abuse its dominant market position, that is, a key component of the bundle should have a quasi-monopolistic position within its relevant market.

In that sense, Apple won't have to worry for the foreseeable future.

[Sniperfox47]

35 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

As explained, it would indeed affect everyone considered to abuse its dominant market position, that is, a key component of the bundle should have a quasi-monopolistic position within its relevant market.

In that sense, Apple won't have to worry for the foreseeable future.

But the point is that if we're putting into place legislation that is designed to mitigate the abuse of dominant market position why should that only apply to individuals in that dominant market position? Why should smaller companies be allowed to engage in an act the court has deemed monopolistic, while bigger companies are penalized for it? Particularly when there's not any actual legislation that formally says what they're doing isn't allowed and it's up to the subjectiveness of the courts? That doesn't seem fair to all players in the market. That doesn't seem like *justice*.

 

I have no love for big players, but selectively targeting one of the players just because they're in a majority position, and then setting a ruling that selectively affects only that player while ignoring others doesn't seem like it's in any way punishment to fit the crime. Especially with an 11 billion dollar price tag tacked on...

 

P.S. on that note I cannot fathom why Apple wasn't also required to offer a browser choice selection menu with MacOS and iOS... And why Google wasn't required to with Android. Again if you're going to set a requirement, that requirement should apply to all persons equally.

 

P.P.S. or for that matter why it only applied to browsers. How is them bundling a display server with their OS not anticompetitive in that it pushes out other developers trying to develop a display server for their OS, with an OS being a bundle of software.

[mr moose]

On 6/8/2018 at 9:14 PM, Peskanova said:

Rather "eu" policies than usa  
corrupt and full of bullshit well what country isnt? i think usa is worse and dont look at south of any  

Antarctica.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

 Why should smaller companies be allowed to engage in an act the court has deemed monopolistic, while bigger companies are penalized for it?

 

This is where me and the EU part ideals.   They shouldn't. the law should apply to everyone or no one.  I believe that unfortunately as a side effects of excess wealth and security we are starting to see a lot more social ideals come into the play. some are good and some are just insane and will undermine fair trading.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

But the point is that if we're putting into place legislation that is designed to mitigate the abuse of dominant market position why should that only apply to individuals in that dominant market position? Why should smaller companies be allowed to engage in an act the court has deemed monopolistic, while bigger companies are penalized for it?

There is no such thing as a monopolistic act. There are only monopolistic positions within a market. Hence, the courts have not deemed any act "monopolistic".

What the courts have said is that certain companies, while enjoying a quasi-monopolistic position, have engaged in activities that constitute an abuse of said position. The difference with small companies is crystal clear: you cannot abuse what you don't have.

 

Regulation of things such as "dominant market position" exist to give private markets a chance: in principle, from an efficiency perspective, for social welfare, for capitalism to work as intended, etc, so such dominant position should exist. However, a strict enforcement of such principle would lead to way to many markets either shut down or limited to public provision. Hence, a more lenient approach is adopted, by which private companies, even if operating under far from competitive conditions, are left to take care of the good/service provision, provided they don't impose "too large" losses to society as a consequences (there's always a social loss from monopolies, oligopolies, etc). As a result, companies in such circumstances are watched, and actions that qualify as an abuse (i.e., that harm society "more than necessary" to have private provision in that market) are prohibited and punished.

 

Asking why only companies with a dominant market position are judged for abuse of dominant market position is like asking why only drivers are tested for alcohol and other substances, instead of everyone, even pedestrians, facing random alcohol controls. It would contribute nothing to prevent the harm that the norm is seeking to prevent.

 

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Particularly when there's not any actual legislation that formally says what they're doing isn't allowed and it's up to the subjectiveness of the courts?

There is indeed such regulation, prohibiting the abuse of dominant market position. What the courts decide, as always, is whether the proven facts fit in the law's typification. (as a side note, continental law leaves much less open to subjective perceptions of justice and precedents than common law).

 

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

That doesn't seem fair to all players in the market. That doesn't seem like *justice*.

It is equal to all of them, though. All of them are equally subject to restrictions on what they can do if they successfully corner the market and become monopolists or close to. The fact that they are not in such circumstances today, and therefore they can't possibly abuse anything, doesn't mean that the law doesn't apply to them. Coming back to the previous example, the fact that I won't be stopped for an alcohol test as a pedestrian doesn't mean that I don't have the same probability of being tested as everyone else the moment I drive a car.

 

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

 

I have no love for big players, but selectively targeting one of the players just because they're in a majority position, and then setting a ruling that selectively affects only that player while ignoring others doesn't seem like it's in any way punishment to fit the crime.

See above why it's not like that at all.

 

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

P.S. on that note I cannot fathom why Apple wasn't also required to offer a browser choice selection menu with MacOS and iOS...

Again, MacOS is splitting that <10% share with Linux and others... Not exactly something that fits in "dominant market position".

Remember that this is anti-trust law, not OS regulation: the regulation is based on market position, not on the product. The former is good, the latter would be terrible. We don't want to tell us what an OS should look like, but we do want laws that prevent companies that already are "the lesser evil" due to uncompetitive markets to become "the greater evil".

 

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

And why Google wasn't required to with Android.

We seem to be moving there now. Early on, there was no market, and later no dominant player, until the dust settled. Again, fortunately, these aren't laws about operative systems, these are laws about monopolies, trusts, and the like. The dominant market position must come first, everything else later. If no mobile OS had achieved any such dominant position, then we would have first best and no need for action of any kind. The idea is not to micro-manage what private companies do with their products, it is to only intervene when an actual abuse arise. The EU in this case is the referee, not the coach. If no foul, there's no need for it to tell anyone what to do.

 

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

P.P.S. or for that matter why it only applied to browsers. How is them bundling a display server with their OS not anticompetitive in that it pushes out other developers trying to develop a display server for their OS, with an OS being a bundle of software.

As stated above, the boundaries of an OS was the whole contentious point in the IE case, and you can find hours of footage of Bill Gates being interrogated on the subject. Where the boundaries lie was the make or break argument prosecutors and defendant argued about.

On your first question, though, you are free to argue that the display server is another abuse of dominant position and that it harmed competing developers. Of course, the burden of proof falls on you, as in the IE case, and you will have to show actual competitors being harmed. Because, again, there is no law against bundling, there is a law on abusing a dominant position to restrict competition in other markets , and that is what have to be proved.

[Thaldor]

14 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

-snip-

Google Play Store has probably 100% market share within Android and at the moment Android has 85% market share on smartphone OSs. Google quite clearly has dominant market position and it changes the ruleset quite a much because Google can possibly force the markets and competition just with bare force.

 

Good thing you brought Jolla and Fail- Sailfish up. There you can see a clear example what kind of power Google really has. There was one huge problem in Sailfish when Jolla released their phone (and the problem still stays), even when Sailfish can run Android applications they don't have Play Store access and this is because Jolla didn't want to ship their phone with Googles other apps. For general population that is like a full set of nails on coffing because Jolla had only their own storefront that was more like a skeleton of what Android and iOS has and it's not that common knowledge how to sideload apps. Cutting many corners and simplifying too much, Google caused Sailfish to become Failfish and only because Google has dictator-like policy that if you want to get access to the Play Store, you must ship your phone with the app bundle.

 

There really wouldn't be any problem if Googles bundled apps were as stripped down and "useless" as notepad and wordpad. Microsoft got trouble with their +90% market share and bundling Windows with IE that someone saw as a real competitor that could tip the browser markets just by being bundled with Windows. No one really sees notepad or wordpad as competitors, but if Microsoft was to give free license to Office with every Windows, I would count hours before Microsoft would again be convicted from misusing dominant market position. I don't really think the problem is something like Google+, but something like Gmail app, Google Maps, Google Calendar and other really good apps that also have real competition, like for example Jolla would probably more likely ship their phone with HERE rather than with Google Maps and that's it, Jolla again wouldn't access Play Store, they could ship it with both, but that's just it, Google forcing their app to the manufacturers with access to the Play Store.

 

You can argue that it's not necessary for the phone to have Play Store access, but then again can you really have a gaming PC without Windows? There is options (like Samsungs Galaxy App Store) but are they really viable is the real question. Have you seen someone advertising their app being available in other storefronts than Play Store and AppStore? I haven't and that is what makes it quite the same to have an Android phone without Play Store as having a gaming Mac (even if it has games, it's just a fairly marginal amount compared to games available on Windows).

 

Why the rules are different for a dominant company and the rest? Because "who cares". Apple is a real dictator, but with their market strategies they will never have the dominant market share and if they some very impossible day would have, oh boy, would they be sued and sentenced and brought to the ground. But as long as there's Google and Microsoft with their extremely dominant market shares, Apple doesn't need to worry, because Google and Microsoft really have some extreme dominance on their respective markets. If something like a Jolla was to decide that in their phone you can only use apps made with Flash, the general markets wouldn't care, but if Google was to force that every Play Store app from now on must be made with Flash, Flash would make a very stormy and flashy comeback and it would affect every other player on the markets, probably even Apple would need to make at least some support for Flash at that moment. And that is something is being tried to weaken, that all the other players on the markets would have some cahnce to against Google and that if not by common sense than by court rulings Google is kept away from dictatorship.

[AntiTrust]

On 6/10/2018 at 6:37 PM, SpaceGhostC2C said:

snip

someone was paying attention in their econ class. haha

 

great posts