EU to File Antitrust Charges Against Google

[Zah]

Phahahaha!

 

You know there are thousands of search engines, right?

And all of them steal from Google.

 

Except duckduckgo

[Zah]

You misunderstand,  this has been tried in a court already. the court found that yelp were free to promote or demote results from their review website at will because it is their data and their service.  The precedent has already been set, whether you like it or not there is no law that says google can't place some results  right at the bottom or prioritize others.  There are a few cases where consumer affairs authorities have said that paid results need to be differentiated from the rest (this is antitrust).  But that is not the same as placing a search result at the end. 

This is what is claimed Yelp did:

This is what the court ruled:

 

Google is no different in this case:

 

 

I am not saying any of this is fair or just, only that changing search results is currently legal and the precedent has already been set. 

The problem is, that applies in America, not in Europe, where they're being tried.  Only European laws apply to them there.

[spartaman64]

You misunderstand,  this has been tried in a court already. the court found that yelp were free to promote or demote results from their review website at will because it is their data and their service.  The precedent has already been set, whether you like it or not there is no law that says google can't place some results  right at the bottom or prioritize others.  There are a few cases where consumer affairs authorities have said that paid results need to be differentiated from the rest (this is antitrust).  But that is not the same as placing a search result at the end. 

This is what is claimed Yelp did:

This is what the court ruled:

 

Google is no different in this case:

 

 

I am not saying any of this is fair or just, only that changing search results is currently legal and the precedent has already been set. 

this is in europe not america companies cant do whatever they want in europe. also the last part sounds like blackmail which is illegal. 

[ltguy]

Phahahaha!

 

You know there are thousands of search engines, right?

And you know that google's search engine doesn't even account for 10% of the google services I use, right?

[mr moose]

The problem is, that applies in America, not in Europe, where they're being tried.  Only European laws apply to them there.

I know this, but that doesn't stop it being used.  In fact while international precedent is debated, it is still used in many cases to argue and win:

 

An English court might cite judgments from countries that share the English common law tradition. These include other Commonwealth states (for example Canada, Australia, or New Zealand) and, to some extent, the United States (most often where the American courts have been particularly innovative, e.g. in product liability and certain areas of contract law).

From wikipedia regarding precedent.

 

Until the EU actually states in one manner or another that it is illegal, On what grounds does anyone have to claim it is?  I have given at least one court case setting the legal precedent for it. 

[mr moose]

also the last part sounds like blackmail which is illegal. 

yep, blackmail on both accounts in my books.

[Jupsik]

Hola,

 

there is a TON of miss-information in this thread about what the commission is going after Google for. First this is an anti-trust /competition law issue, not copyright. So the Yelp references are completely irrelevant. 

 

The main issue is that Google has been ranking it's own search pages ahead of the search pages of it's downstream competitors. Essentially Google is not treating its competitors the same way as it treats its own webpages. 

 

For those from the US, this matter has been tried before in the US and the outcome was in favor of Google. Problem is that EU and US anti-trust/competition law approach differently some matters that fall into the ''gray'' zone, that is the line where a competitive action becomes anti-competitive. It is exactly this small difference that has lead to the EU commission into sending Google a statement of objections. 

 

So what did Google actually do wrong legally speaking? Apparently something. The best example is Schrodinger's cat. Until there is a final decision by the commission, which, most likely, has be upheld in court. Google isn't guilty of anything. But at the same time, as the statement of objections has been issued, there seems to be some anti-competitive behavior by Google. The confusion arises from the fact that there is no precedent, no legal stipulation according to which Google did something bad and it will be the very case of Google that will clarify it. 

Welcome to the wonderful world of EU competition law, where the Commission is the big boy and makes up its own rules as it goes along.

[IdortMasterRace]

>The European Union

 

[TAK]

.

[mr moose]

Hola,

 

there is a TON of miss-information in this thread about what the commission is going after Google for. First this is an anti-trust /competition law issue, not copyright. So the Yelp references are completely irrelevant. 

 

The main issue is that Google has been ranking it's own search pages ahead of the search pages of it's downstream competitors. Essentially Google is not treating its competitors the same way as it treats its own webpages. 

 

For those from the US, this matter has been tried before in the US and the outcome was in favor of Google. Problem is that EU and US anti-trust/competition law approach differently some matters that fall into the ''gray'' zone, that is the line where a competitive action becomes anti-competitive. It is exactly this small difference that has lead to the EU commission into sending Google a statement of objections. 

 

So what did Google actually do wrong legally speaking? Apparently something. The best example is Schrodinger's cat. Until there is a final decision by the commission, which, most likely, has be upheld in court. Google isn't guilty of anything. But at the same time, as the statement of objections has been issued, there seems to be some anti-competitive behavior by Google. The confusion arises from the fact that there is no precedent, no legal stipulation according to which Google did something bad and it will be the very case of Google that will clarify it. 

Welcome to the wonderful world of EU competition law, where the Commission is the big boy and makes up its own rules as it goes along.

 

Google stole content from Yelp, tripadvisor and amazon,  so if that isn't a copyright issue then I don't know what is.

[RagnarokDel]

In its report, the FTC said Google was using “its monopoly power over search to extract the fruits of its rivals’ innovations,” although the commission still neglected to press charges against the firm.

It's not Google's fault if other search engine suck donkey-poo. It's not a monopoly by a company, it's a monopoly by the consumers.

 

The main issue is that Google has been ranking it's own search pages ahead of the search pages of it's downstream competitors. Essentially Google is not treating its competitors the same way as it treats its own webpages. 

Yes, Google should promote it's competitors before itself. /s

[LAwLz]

It's not Google's fault if other search engine suck donkey-poo. It's not a monopoly by a company, it's a monopoly by the consumers.

It's still a monopoly and are therefore subject to antitrust laws.

 

Yes, Google should promote it's competitors before itself. /s

There is a huge difference between promoting competitors, and not promoting yourself.

Nobody is asking for the former, and the latter is potentially illegal (because of antitrust laws), and ethically wrong.

[Jupsik]

Google stole content from Yelp, tripadvisor and amazon,  so if that isn't a copyright issue then I don't know what is.

You're confusing legal actions. The one you're talking about was in the US, by the FTC, in 2012. This one is in Europe, by the Commission, in 2015. 

Here is the press statement, they have outlined a rough sketch of what they have a problem with in bold.

http://europa.eu/rapid/ press-release_MEMO-15-4781_en.htm 

[Jupsik]

It's still a monopoly and are therefore subject to antitrust laws. 

 

There is a huge difference between promoting competitors, and not promoting yourself.

Nobody is asking for the former, and the latter is potentially illegal (because of antitrust laws), and ethically wrong.

In Europe its called dominant position and competition law .

I agree with the second bit. There is something called the essential facilities doctrine in competition/antitrust law. The idea is that no company should be forced to deal with a competitor unless it is very much needed and a refusal to supply would in fact put competitors out of business all together. And as in this case the websites of googles competitors would continue to function, in my opinion Google should not even be forced to display the results of its competitors. Some argue that the current claim is a derivative of that. But the commission seems to think, as I understand, that the Google search engine is a market in itself and not actually something established and owned by a company. And therefore Googles conduct is excluding its competitors and foreclosing the market on them. Bizarre situation if you ask me. 

[mr moose]

You're confusing legal actions. The one you're talking about was in the US, by the FTC, in 2012. This one is in Europe, by the Commission, in 2015. 

Here is the press statement, they have outlined a rough sketch of what they have a problem with in bold.

http://europa.eu/rapid/ press-release_MEMO-15-4781_en.htm 

 

I'm not confusing them at all.

 

Edit for clarification:  I was referring to the older case to illustrate that Yelp (one of the alleged victims) was found innocent of similar activity by a US court.  This sets a precedent.  And I also stated that manipulating search results is not illegal (yet at least).

[Jupsik]

I'm not confusing them at all.

why did you mention yelp etc. then? They aren't mentioned or even relevant to the current investigation.

[mr moose]

why did you mention yelp etc. then? They aren't mentioned or even relevant to the current investigation.

 

Because they are mentioned:

 

 

In that report, the FTC alleged that Google stole content from rival Internet companies such as Amazon, Yelp and TripAdvisor and then threatened to remove them from its search results if they kept complaining about it.

 

http://bgr.com/2015/04/14/google-europe-antitrust-case-lawsuit/

[Jupsik]

Because they are mentioned:

 

http://bgr.com/2015/04/14/google-europe-antitrust-case-lawsuit/

The FTC is the Federal trade commission, in the United States. With jurisdiction only in the United States. This is a topic about the statement of objections sent to Google by the European Commission with jurisdiction only in Europe. The one you're talking about happened in the US and is completely irrelevant to the statement of objections issued by the European Commission in Europe.  

[mr moose]

The FTC is the Federal trade commission, in the United States. With jurisdiction only in the United States. This is a topic about the statement of objections sent to Google by the European Commission with jurisdiction only in Europe. The one you're talking about happened in the US and is completely irrelevant to the statement of objections issued by the European Commission in Europe.  

 

I see,  (said the blind man, but we all knew he really couldn't).

 

I've quoted that article and the other so many times I've forgotten where they came from :lol: :blink: :unsure:

 

Please excuse my folly.

[Jupsik]

I see,  (said the blind man, but we all knew he really couldn't).

 

I've quoted that article and the other so many times I've forgotten where they came from :lol: :blink: :unsure:

 

Please excuse my folly.

read the article that you linked. If this wasn't my field of expertise I would have interpreted it the same way. It was simply badly written by the journalist.

[mr moose]

read the article that you linked. If this wasn't my field of expertise I would have interpreted it the same way. It was simply badly written by the journalist.

 

No need to try and make me feel better,  I ugly enough to accept I'm not perfect.  Now give me a minute while I think up some excuses.   

[MrDynamicMan]

in other news Google has left Europe and there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the EU peasants. You need google more than google needs you.

^^^This

[FloRolf]

How about everyone files an AntiTrust charge against the EU? I trust google more tbh.

[Ridska]

The EU is doing something that the American government will and could not do.

I think EU is doing this because they don't want google to be NSA of Europe , harvesting data and so on.

But hey , I just might be wrong about my thought .

[Sharp_3yE]

LOL at the American's in this thread upset with the EU for enforcing the law. Maybe if America did the same then private corporations would not be considered "people", run roughshot on the populace, and you would not be just now getting net neutrality.

Google allegedly broke the law; and they're now facing the consequence.

Well, corporations are people. No people, no corporation. A business is made up of people and succeeds only through their drive and ambition as well as a good product. No people, no business.

Agreed that google could have been tried here. Thing is, what they are doing is not really illegal but only when they are a monopoly. Google owns most of the market and that's why they are being tried. Just because they arrange their own products first doesn't mean they are breaking the law. It's just they they are also a monopoly.