South Korea fines Google ₩207 billion for forking up attempts at creating Android variants

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

It already is, bribing is just illegal if you bribe someone to break the law.

 

Depends where you are actually. There are plenty of places where all kinds of bribery is illegal.

 

@LAwLz It's a US vs Europe thing. The US holds company rights, (and individual freedom), in much higher regard than Europe where the good of society is held up as more important. it's allways going to produce a strong cultural disconnect.

 

 

[poochyena]

47 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

There are plenty of places where all kinds of bribery is illegal.

Just depends on how you are defining bribery. It has a very loose definition.

[CarlBar]

4 hours ago, poochyena said:

Just depends on how you are defining bribery. It has a very loose definition.

 

Actually no, it's often very well defined legally speaking. What you really mean is it includes interpretations in some places that you don't approve of. And thats cool. I'm not going to stop you. But it doesn't make it poorly defined legally speaking. 

 

At the end of the day different parts of the world have varying standards of what is and is not acceptable built on centuries of independent cultural evolution.And that means they have standards of what is and is not acceptable that are shaped by unique situations. The US for whatever reason has developed very differently to the rest of the 1st world. Companies outside the US face much more in the way of restrictions on how they do business, thats the nature of what these other places have decided is acceptable behaviour in their backyard.

[LAwLz]

42 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

At the end of the day different parts of the world have varying standards of what is and is not acceptable built on centuries of independent cultural evolution.And that means they have standards of what is and is not acceptable that are shaped by unique situations. The US for whatever reason has developed very differently to the rest of the 1st world. Companies outside the US face much more in the way of restrictions on how they do business, thats the nature of what these other places have decided is acceptable behaviour in their backyard.

But in this case poochyena is even debating wanting even more freedom and lack of responsibility for companies than what is allowed in the US. He basically wants anarchy. No laws or regulations for companies. They are free to do whatever they want. Even the US, which bends over backwards to please large companies, have quite a few laws and regulations regarding this. For example the Intel vs AMD example I made earlier was not just taken from thin air. It was a real thing that happened (with some minor details changed, such as it happening a long time ago) and the US government punished Intel for it.

 

poochyena wants laws and regulations that exists in every single modern and civilized country gone.

It's like talking to a Neanderthal who doesn't understand the purpose of laws at all.

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, poochyena said:

that isthe same. whats different is "I am using this stick to hit someone" and "I painted the stick"
first one is using the object, 2nd one is doing something to it without using it.

I don't see how that applies here.

Google is not doing something TO Android in this case. It was using Android to threaten LG and others. That's using android, not doing something to Android.

If Android is the stick, then Google is using the stick to hit LG.

 

Maybe it's easier for you to understand if we make a little bit more 1:1.

 

LG is an employee and Google is a owner of the company. Google is responsible for LG getting a salary. 

One day, Google asked LG to suck his dick or else LG would get fired. According to you, this should not be against the law, because it's Google's money. Google is not obligated to keep LG employed unless LG does exactly what Google says. Also, LG clearly has been given a choice. Suck dick, or get fired. So since LG has been given a choice, it's up to her to decide and live with the consequences of her choice. It's not Google's fault, right?

 

 

8 hours ago, poochyena said:

I don't get it. Are you suggesting business threats are the same as physical threats? Like, a business threatening to boycott another business is just as bad as someone threatening phsyical harm to someone?

It depends on the circumstances and some details (like how powerful the company is that is threatening a boycott and the reason for the boycott) but yes. 

Financial harm can be as bad as physical harm. 

 

 

8 hours ago, poochyena said:

hey, their business, their choice.

Except it's not.

It's not AMD that made the decision in my example, yet it is their business that gets affected. So it's not AMD's choice. It's also not Intel's business that gets hurt from their choice, so I don't really think you can say it is their business either. "Their business, their choice" doesn't work when the choice affects another business and that business has no say in the choice being made.

 

When your business decisions harms other businesses you can no longer just use the excuse of "my business, my choice", just like you can't hit someone and say "my hand, my choice".

Have you heard of the saying "my right to swing my first ends where your nose begins"? There are plenty of other variations of it such as "your rights end where mine begin" as well.

 

 

8 hours ago, poochyena said:

It already is, bribing is just illegal if you bribe someone to break the law.

No, you are 100% wrong here. You can bribe someone to do something legal, and still be sentenced for breaking the law.

There are details such as it depends on who is being bribed, but it is completely and utterly false that bribing is only illegal when the one who was bribed ends up breaking the law because of the bribe. 

Legal Information Institute - Bribery

Quote

Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty. This type of action results in matters that should be handled objectively being handled in a manner best suiting the private interests of the decision maker. Bribery constitutes a crime and both the offeror and the recipient can be criminally charged.

 

 

8 hours ago, poochyena said:

no, thats specifically what i'm against. I support businesses and individuals having choices in their actions. Those things take away choices. I see no reason to why a business should be forced to work with a business they don't like. Would you be ok forcing a vegetarian restaurant to do business with a slaughterhouse? If a company doesn't want to sell another companies's products, they shouldn't be forced to.

I noticed that you skipped "discriminations". Is that because you think that should be legal?

Anyway, the problem with your logic is that once outside forces start influencing decisions it is not actually the business choosing to do something. In my example it is not like Newegg choose to stop selling AMD products. They were threatened and forced to. "either you stop selling AMD or we make you go bankrupt" is not actually a choice just like "give me your money or I'll stab you" isn't a choice either.

As for the vegetarian restaurant example, that just shows how little understanding you have of laws and why they exist. I would be okay with a vegetarian restaurant not doing business with a slaughterhouse, because there is a lot of competition in the restaurant business. That is also not a restaurant using their power to manipulate the actions of another business.

 

If there were only 2 restaurant chains in the entire world (and no individual restaurants), one vegan with 70% market share and one grill house with 30% market share, and the vegan company went to all farmers in the entire world and said "stop raising animals we eat or else we will stop buying vegetables from you", then I would actually be against it.

 

 

8 hours ago, poochyena said:

ok what is with you? Why do you consistently bring up physical violence? Did I miss something? Is google threatening physical harm to someone? They are just saying "we won't work with you if you don't follow these rules", which is no different than any other business or even the LTT forums.

You don't seem to grasp more intangible threats but seem to understand physical threats so that's why I keep bringing those up.

Google is threatening financial harm to someone, which can be just as bad as physical harm.

They are not "saying" something. They are making a threat. A robber isn't just saying "give me money or I'll stab you" just like Google isn't just saying "do what we say or we'll financially harm you"

And there is a difference between Google threatening a company and the LTT forum threatening someone. The difference is the amount of power. The more power you wield, the more restrictions you have on you how you can use that power.

[Mark Kaine]

5 hours ago, CarlBar said:

Actually no, it's often very well defined legally speaking.

Yes, but usually "donations" are allowed, not without rules either,  but the outcome is basically the same... 

[poochyena]

10 hours ago, CarlBar said:

Actually no, it's often very well defined legally speaking.

ok.. whats the legal definition then? The definitions I see are broad, saying its when you convince someone to do something by giving them something in exchange. Basically what a job is.

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Google is not doing something TO Android in this case.

they are, they are giving other developers access to it.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It was using Android to threaten LG and others. That's using android, not doing something to Android.

Not, that is threatening to do something. They didn't use android to harm them in some way, they threatened to not allow them access to it.

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

One day, Google asked LG to suck his dick or else LG would get fired. According to you, this should not be against the law, because it's Google's money. Google is not obligated to keep LG employed unless LG does exactly what Google says. Also, LG clearly has been given a choice. Suck dick, or get fired. So since LG has been given a choice, it's up to her to decide and live with the consequences of her choice. It's not Google's fault, right?

Right. No one is at fault for anything in that scenario.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Financial harm can be as bad as physical harm.

No. Threatening to beat someone is not similar to stop doing business with someone. The better analogy would be stealing money from someone, which isn't the case here. Otherwise, any business you don't pay money to, you are financially harming.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

There are details such as it depends on who is being bribed, but it is completely and utterly false that bribing is only illegal when the one who was bribed ends up breaking the law because of the bribe. 

Any examples of that? Where bribery is illegal but not for bribing someone to break the law?

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I noticed that you skipped "discriminations". Is that because you think that should be legal?

yes. I believe companies should be able to discriminate against any customer just like its legal for customers to discriminate against businesses for any reason.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

In my example it is not like Newegg choose to stop selling AMD products. They were threatened and forced to. "either you stop selling AMD or we make you go bankrupt"

The implication that newegg would go bankrupt if intel stopped supplying CPUs to newegg is ridiculous. If anything, Intel relies on newegg more then the other way around.

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

As for the vegetarian restaurant example, that just shows how little understanding you have of laws and why they exist. I would be okay with a vegetarian restaurant not doing business with a slaughterhouse, because there is a lot of competition in the restaurant business. That is also not a restaurant using their power to manipulate the actions of another business.

The amount of competition is the same whether newegg sell AMD or Intel chips or not. AMD and Intel still exist whether newegg sells their products or not. Even if by some magic, intel managed to get AMD banned from every single 3rd party seller on the planet... Intel would still have competition as AMD could just sell on their own platform. Its nearly impossible to have effective anti-competitive campaigns in the day and age of the internet.

 

[Mark Kaine]

But, can't we talk about this? This is the much bigger news or rather interpretation thereof? Doesn't focus on Google and peanuts, but rather Apple too!

And free access to the "ecosystem" for all!? Tim Sweeney is weeping. 

 

18 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

South Korea banned Google & Apple from forcing developers to use their app stores

 

 

 

[Slayerking92]

On 9/15/2021 at 12:33 AM, LAwLz said:

 

People need to stop saying this. It is not true in any civilized country in the world, and we should be very thankful companies aren't allowed to do whatever they want with their services. The world would be absolutely awful if they could.

You might object to this particular ruling, but let's hope that we can at least come to agree that we should not have a world with zero laws and regulations for what companies are allowed to do with their services.

 

A company does have a right to refuse service if you do not agree to obey their rules.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Slayerking92 said:

A company does have a right to refuse service if you do not agree to obey their rules.

No, they actually don't in some situations.

Go read a law book before commenting on something you do not understand.

[CarlBar]

22 hours ago, LAwLz said:

But in this case poochyena is even debating wanting even more freedom and lack of responsibility for companies than what is allowed in the US. He basically wants anarchy. No laws or regulations for companies. They are free to do whatever they want. Even the US, which bends over backwards to please large companies, have quite a few laws and regulations regarding this. For example the Intel vs AMD example I made earlier was not just taken from thin air. It was a real thing that happened (with some minor details changed, such as it happening a long time ago) and the US government punished Intel for it.

 

poochyena wants laws and regulations that exists in every single modern and civilized country gone.

It's like talking to a Neanderthal who doesn't understand the purpose of laws at all.

 

You have to remember that the US isn't really a single country from a laws perspective, laws vary hugely across the US reflecting the differing local outlook on things. Even when some federal law comes into play it's existence can and often is heavily disliked by a decent chunk of the populations. There's a reason one of the USA jokes is that; "It's a whole bunch of countries in a trench coat" or my own personal description; "A 52 nation military alliance that spawned a federal government as an extra appendage".

 

12 hours ago, poochyena said:

ok.. whats the legal definition then? The definitions I see are broad, saying its when you convince someone to do something by giving them something in exchange. Basically what a job is.

 

I'd have to dig up the chapter and verse and that varies from country to country. It is legally speaking fairly well defined however.

 

17 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

Yes, but usually "donations" are allowed, not without rules either,  but the outcome is basically the same... 

 

Legalese is by it's nature very exact, thats a good thing most of the time, but it's also occasionally a bad thing. Like most things humans do.

[poochyena]

30 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

I'd have to dig up the chapter and verse and that varies from country to country. It is legally speaking fairly well defined however.

If it varies from country to country, then its not well defined...

[Lightwreather]

10 minutes ago, poochyena said:

If it varies from country to country, then its not well defined...

It's definition varies on semantics and how precisely said country wants to define it as.

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

If it varies from country to country, then its not well defined...

 

Almost nothing that is illegal, (or legal for that matter), has the exact same definition between countries, even the dividing line between somthing as simple as murder and manslaughter varies between countries. Each Countries laws are well defined but they do not match each other because each country has it's own standards of what is and is not acceptable and how severely bad somthing that is not acceptable is. Thats how the concept of a country works on a legal level.

[poochyena]

10 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

Almost nothing that is illegal, (or legal for that matter), has the exact same definition between countries, even the dividing line between somthing as simple as murder and manslaughter varies between countries. Each Countries laws are well defined but they do not match each other because each country has it's own standards of what is and is not acceptable and how severely bad somthing that is not acceptable is. Thats how the concept of a country works on a legal level.

I completely agree. Thats exactly what i've been saying the whole time.

[Senzelian]

On 9/15/2021 at 8:33 AM, LAwLz said:

we should be very thankful companies aren't allowed to do whatever they want with their services

No I'm not thankful.

I vote for the people that stop them and I pay taxes so they stop them. In the end it is the average Joe that votes someone into the position to deal with such problems. You know who should be thankful? The companies, cause we let them get away with a lot of shit.