EU to File Antitrust Charges Against Google

[sof006]

Well if they don't like what google says then use another search engine... There is always Bing.

[Ralms]

 

Are you sure about that? LOOOOL

Im pretty confident that Google doesnt want to discard 700 Million users lol.

 

I love to see americans talk from their elbows thinking they are the greatest of all and that everyone else is disposable.

[jaggysnake57]

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. 

 

one of the stupidest comments ever...you understand that the EU makes up about a third of googles revenue and that the fine is only have of what google makes in a year...thats profit not revenue....google would be retarded to pull out of the eu it would cost them more in lost revenues after just 2 years than what it would to pay the fine

[ltguy]

one of the stupidest comments ever...you understand that the EU makes up about a third of googles revenue and that the fine is only have of what google makes in a year...thats profit not revenue....google would be retarded to pull out of the eu it would cost them more in lost revenues after just 2 years than what it would to pay the fine

No sir this case is the dumbest thing ever. No one has any legal right to tell a private company how to run their search engine. While google does have the majority of internet search market share, there is absolutely no physical constraints that make them a monopoly. Their search engine is on the web just like everyone elses and any one anywhere can chose which websites they go to do. Its not as if they are a utility company or isp where you are forced into limited options. Google is the best at what they do and all these other EU search/shopping sites need to stop boo hooing to the EU to sue google just for being the best at what they do. They are a "business" not a public entity and their decisions will be what's best for them, not other businesses.... duh. 

 

OMG this is a dumb as people suing because their investments in the stock market don't make money.  You cant just sue your rival companies because they are better and your business is not and goes under.

 

Don't bother replying to me again on this, I'm done looking at this thread. Good day.

[LAwLz]

No sir this case is the dumbest thing ever. No one has any legal right to tell a private company how to run their search engine. While google does have the majority of internet search market share, there is absolutely no physical constraints that make them a monopoly. Their search engine is on the web just like everyone elses and any one anywhere can chose which websites they go to do. Its not as if they are a utility company or isp where you are forced into limited options. Google is the best at what they do and all these other EU search/shopping sites need to stop boo hooing to the EU to sue google just for being the best at what they do. They are a "business" not a public entity and their decisions will be what's best for them, not other businesses.... duh. 

 

OMG this is a dumb as people suing because their investments in the stock market don't make money.  You cant just sue your rival companies because they are better and your business is not and goes under.

 

Don't bother replying to me again on this, I'm done looking at this thread. Good day.

You need to learn what "monopoly" means. You can have a monopoly without physical goods being involved. The definition also includes services, which is what Google offers.

Oh and yes, the EU has a legal right to tell a company how to run their search engine. If they didn't then the EU wouldn't be filing an antitrust case against Google.

 

I don't think people understand how antitrust laws work. When you become a monopoly there are more and stricter laws you have to follow. What Google is allegedly doing would have been legal if they were a much smaller company. However, since they are the dominant player in search they have to follow additional laws which are there to protect the free market.

 

You can call them stupid if you want, but that only shows that you do not understand the basics of capitalism and the free market. If the US had more laws like these (or followed the ones you had) then maybe your Internet infrastructure wouldn't be so shit.

[jaggysnake57]

No sir this case is the dumbest thing ever. No one has any legal right to tell a private company how to run their search engine. While google does have the majority of internet search market share, there is absolutely no physical constraints that make them a monopoly. Their search engine is on the web just like everyone elses and any one anywhere can chose which websites they go to do. Its not as if they are a utility company or isp where you are forced into limited options. Google is the best at what they do and all these other EU search/shopping sites need to stop boo hooing to the EU to sue google just for being the best at what they do. They are a "business" not a public entity and their decisions will be what's best for them, not other businesses.... duh. 

 

OMG this is a dumb as people suing because their investments in the stock market don't make money.  You cant just sue your rival companies because they are better and your business is not and goes under.

 

Don't bother replying to me again on this, I'm done looking at this thread. Good day.

 

in that case the fcc should STFU and can not impose any net neutrality laws then.  ISPs are private companies.

[patrick3027]

And all of them steal from Google.

 

Except duckduckgo

I don't care who steals from who. If Google quits Europe and I can have good search results through DuckDuckGo or Bing, I'm happy.

 

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

Given it is the search engine which is targeted by these antitrust charges, this is irrelevant.

 

But if you want to know, there are alternatives out there:

Google → Bing, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo! ...

YouTube → Dailymotion, Vessel, VEVO ...

Google Maps → Apple Maps, HERE Maps

Android → iOS, Windows Phone

Gmail → Hotmail, Yahoo! mail ...

Google+ → Facebook (duh!)

 

Living a Google-free life isn't exactly difficult.

[LOLPhilips]

I'm actually quite happy with this news.

 

Edit: No I do not own an Iphone or any apple electronics for that matter.

[mr moose]

You need to learn what "monopoly" means. You can have a monopoly without physical goods being involved. The definition also includes services, which is what Google offers.

Oh and yes, the EU has a legal right to tell a company how to run their search engine. If they didn't then the EU wouldn't be filing an antitrust case against Google.

 

I don't think people understand how antitrust laws work. When you become a monopoly there are more and stricter laws you have to follow. What Google is allegedly doing would have been legal if they were a much smaller company. However, since they are the dominant player in search they have to follow additional laws which are there to protect the free market.

 

You can call them stupid if you want, but that only shows that you do not understand the basics of capitalism and the free market. If the US had more laws like these (or followed the ones you had) then maybe your Internet infrastructure wouldn't be so shit.

 

I'm going to have to disagree. The laws are the same for everyone.   They don't become more or stricter as your business grows and they don't scale. They either apply or they don't.

 

Until an EU court actually rules one way or the other I fail to see how self promoting in a search engine is actually illegal.  Unethical yes, but illegal?

 

This in my mind is only one step away from dictatorship.  telling companies what they can and can't sell.   Like telling Apple they have to use a USB instead of their own power adapter.  What ever happened to freedom of choice. If the consumer wants a product that is more universal then they will buy one, you don't need a governing body to dictate that for you.   Like I said before, they should be spending their time and money educating the people rather than taking companies to court over frivolous matters that might easily be lost. 

[Northstorm]

Are you sure about that? LOOOOL

Im pretty confident that Google doesnt want to discard 700 Million users lol.

 

I love to see americans talk from their elbows thinking they are the greatest of all and that everyone else is disposable.

Wait what? You do know that image is a massive parody right? I was making fun of the other guy I quoted

Oh and by the way, the European Union only has approximately 500 million inhabitants, but you are correct that there are approximately 730 million in Europe, still, it's a very sizable portion of users

[Jupsik]

The commissioner of Competition in Europe, Margrethe Vestager, held a speech in Washington a few hours ago. In the speech she brings out what exactly she thinks Google did wrong. 

 

a quote from the speech

''Therefore, our preliminary findings indicate that in the present case, dominance in one market (the general search) is used to create an advantage in a related market. The advantage in the related market does not appear to reflect the merits of Google’s comparison shopping service, but rather results from Google using its considerable power on the market in which it is dominant.''

 

http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/vestager/announcements/competition-policy-eu-outlook-and-recent-developments-antitrust_en

Not sure if my links work

[mr moose]

The commissioner of Competition in Europe, Margrethe Vestager, held a speech in Washington a few hours ago. In the speech she brings out what exactly she thinks Google did wrong. 

 

a quote from the speech

''Therefore, our preliminary findings indicate that in the present case, dominance in one market (the general search) is used to create an advantage in a related market. The advantage in the related market does not appear to reflect the merits of Google’s comparison shopping service, but rather results from Google using its considerable power on the market in which it is dominant.''

 

http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/vestager/announcements/competition-policy-eu-outlook-and-recent-developments-antitrust_en

Not sure if my links work

 

So essentially they are pissed that google are promoting their own services in in their own search engine.   If that's what they consider illegal in the EU then they can keep it. 

 

EDIT: also your link works fine.

[Jupsik]

So essentially they are pissed that google are promoting their own services in in their own search engine.   If that's what they consider illegal in the EU then they can keep it. 

 

 

Yeah a lot of people, including myself, share that opinion. The other side of the coin being that if those shopping sites are mostly only accessed through internet search then Google can in fact simply one day decide to move into that market by forcing everyone else out of it. If this argument is extended a bit, then you can make an example that Microsoft could in essence simply decide that windows will no longer support other internet browsers and by doing this force everyone else out of the internet browser market. This being a result of Microsoft being dominant in the windows market and not because its browser is any better. 

[mr moose]

Yeah a lot of people, including myself, share that opinion. The other side of the coin being that if those shopping sites are mostly only accessed through internet search then Google can in fact simply one day decide to move into that market by forcing everyone else out of it. If this argument is extended a bit, then you can make an example that Microsoft could in essence simply decide that windows will no longer support other internet browsers and by doing this force everyone else out of the internet browser market. This being a result of Microsoft being dominant in the windows market and not because its browser is any better. 

 

I get that, that's why there was the court action regarding the inclusion of IE in windows a few years back. What was the actual outcome of that?  well everything from slowed product advances and releases to a less domineering market presence.   I can't help but keep coming back to what I said earlier though.  They need to educate the people regarding the truth about google searches. Unsuccessful legal cases only strengthen googles unethical business practices, while a legal win for the EU is essentially a dictatorship.  I don't blame anyone for being concerned with outcome of this regardless of what it is.     

[Mindtrickz]

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.

 

LOL! No, humans are people. Corporations are artificial constructs, created under arbitrary law, and designed to limit the liability of their owners. Corporations exsist on paper.

[michaelk12]

Why should Google have to bend over backwards to support their competitors? If you don't like them omitting search results, don't use Google. They're a private company. Nobody ever sues Apple for restricting their services to their devices, and locking down everything, and being controlling in general, it's their right as a private company.

[michaelk12]

Should we require Apple to sell Nexus's in their stores?

[LAwLz]

Why should Google have to bend over backwards to support their competitors? If you don't like them omitting search results, don't use Google. They're a private company. Nobody ever sues Apple for restricting their services to their devices, and locking down everything, and being controlling in general, it's their right as a private company.

EU has gone after Apple, although not to the extent I would have liked. For example they went after Apple for using proprietary connectors on their phones.

This isn't about "supporting their competitors" either, it's about "not harming their competitors".

 

 

Should we require Apple to sell Nexus's in their stores?

If Apple's store were responsible for about 90% of all the sales and Apple actively tried to harm their competitors in different ways then yes I would like to see the EU go after Apple.

The playing field should be as equal as possible at all time. Having a monopoly blackmail and harm other competing companies is terrible and should never be accepted.

[mr moose]

Why should Google have to bend over backwards to support their competitors? If you don't like them omitting search results, don't use Google. They're a private company. Nobody ever sues Apple for restricting their services to their devices, and locking down everything, and being controlling in general, it's their right as a private company.

 

Pretty much my understanding too.  I know google has a large market share in the search engine business, but that's why I say they should be educating people rather than taking companies to court.  Because the rules are (or should be) the same for everyone.  If google are not allowed to restrict apps in their OS then neither should apple. Market share size becomes moot. 

 

It's interesting the juxtaposition of the US and EU on this subject.   In the US if you have enough money you can buy the government to make laws that give you an unfair monopoly. In the EU if you work hard and build one up from the ground you are targeted as being evil and taken to court under "antitrust".  Why stop there, why not make all companies produce identical products so that no one can develop an edge or better product and potentially stop competitors.

[LAwLz]

Pretty much my understanding too.  I know google has a large market share in the search engine business, but that's why I say they should be educating people rather than taking companies to court.  Because the rules are (or should be) the same for everyone.  If google are not allowed to restrict apps in their OS then neither should apple. Market share size becomes moot. 

 

It's interesting the juxtaposition of the US and EU on this subject.   In the US if you have enough money you can buy the government to make laws that give you an unfair monopoly. In the EU if you work hard and build one up from the ground you are targeted as being evil and taken to court under "antitrust".  Why stop there, why not make all companies produce identical products so that no one can develop an edge or better product and potentially stop competitors.

The rules aren't the same for companies with different market share because a company who owns let's say 5% of the market don't really have that much power. A company with let's say 95% market share does have a tremendous amount of power though and could essentially do whatever they want, which is why they need to be kept in check more.

 

You keep pushing this idea that Google are being taken to court because they are successful. That's not it. They are being taken to court because they are successful and are allegedly using their power to harm competitors. It is perfectly okay to be successful, and nobody will go after you for that alone.

Nobody goes after super villains just for being powerful. It's when they start doing harmful things they get in trouble.

[Sharp_3yE]

LOL! No, humans are people. Corporations are artificial constructs, created under arbitrary law, and designed to limit the liability of their owners. Corporations exsist on paper.

I think of businesses as the people who work and own it. You can't tax a building, computer, paper, or the machines that the business is but you tax the people who own the business. A corporation is not "created" by law but is held legally liable for their actions. Corporations don't just exist(only 1 S lol) on paper. They are something you can actually go to and only exist because of the people who created the company.

 

LTT isn't a corporation but a business nonetheless. Without Linus, Luke and the rest there is no LTT. No LinusTechTips video content business would be created. The Business is directly related to the people. Just like if there wasn't a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs there would have been no Microsoft or Apple. The people are the company. The people are the ones who make up the corporations. The business is the people. People do business and are that business.

 

INFACT here is the definition of a Corportation: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

 

It clearly says that a company is a group of people. This group of people is then authorized to act as a single entity by law.

[mr moose]

The rules aren't the same for companies with different market share because a company who owns let's say 5% of the market don't really have that much power. A company with let's say 95% market share does have a tremendous amount of power though and could essentially do whatever they want, which is why they need to be kept in check more.

 

You keep pushing this idea that Google are being taken to court because they are successful. That's not it. They are being taken to court because they are successful and are allegedly using their power to harm competitors. It is perfectly okay to be successful, and nobody will go after you for that alone.

Nobody goes after super villains just for being powerful. It's when they start doing harmful things they get in trouble.

 

Can you please show me where the laws state that they only apply to companies with a certain market share and not to others. 

[LAwLz]

Can you please show me where the laws state that they only apply to companies with a certain market share and not to others.

Here you go:

• Second, Article 102 of the Treaty prohibits firms that hold a dominant position on a given market to abuse that position, for example by charging unfair prices, by limiting production, or by refusing to innovate to the prejudice of consumers.

[mr moose]

 

Here you go:

 

so how do you get to a dominant position without being successful? 

 

Also the fine print in that link:

 

Article 102

(ex Article 82 TEC)

Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.

Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:

(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;

(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;

© applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

 

 

It remains to be seen that google imposes unfair trading conditions,  they don't limit production or technical developments to the prejudice of consumers.

 

Do they apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties putting them at a disadvantage?  Open to interpretation but seeing as google apply the same conditions to all parties then technically the conditions are not dissimilar because there are no equivalent transaction that are different.

If it turns out google has a different contracts for each manufacturer (that isn't due to differences in local law) I'll reconsider this one.

 

Do they make contracts subject to anything not directly related to the subject of such contracts?  not really, but if you want you can read it to mean many things it's quite ambiguous. 

[LAwLz]

so how do you get to a dominant position without being successful?

Not sure what you are asking here, or why.

 

 

It remains to be seen that google imposes unfair trading conditions,  they don't limit production or technical developments to the prejudice of consumers.

 

Do they apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties putting them at a disadvantage?  Open to interpretation but seeing as google apply the same conditions to all parties then technically the conditions are not dissimilar because there are no equivalent transaction that are different.

If it turns out google has a different contracts for each manufacturer (that isn't due to differences in local law) I'll reconsider this one.

 

Do they make contracts subject to anything not directly related to the subject of such contracts?  not really, but if you want you can read it to mean many things it's quite ambiguous. 

Yep, it remains to be seen if they are guilty or not. Despite what my other posts in this thread might indicate, I have not picked a side yet. All I have been trying to say is that it's good that they are being investigated and if they are found guilty then they should be punished.