If you break the law, you have to face the consequences. Thankfully the legal system here does appear to much more fair than across the pond, and those that unlawfully abuse their power in the market will get slapped down.
This judgement makes me happy.
(as an aside, it does also bring revenue in from an entity that appears to abuse the Dutch Sandwich tax process..)
But which law is broken? If they don't have monopoly, they aren't abusing a monopoly.
I'm kind of confused by the summery, it states Google has "near-monopoly". They are being punished for "nearly" having monopoly? Either they have monopoly or they don't.
If they don't have a monopoly, they aren't doing anything wrong.
Have you tried reading the article ? It explains it right here:
Today's Decision concludes that Google is dominant in general internet search markets throughout the European Economic Area (EEA), i.e. in all 31 EEA countries. It found Google to have been dominant in general internet search markets in all EEA countries since 2008, except in the Czech Republic where the Decision has established dominance since 2011. This assessment is based on the fact that Google's search engine has held very high market shares in all EEA countries, exceeding 90% in most
Dominance is still not a monopoly. They achieved dominance because they are the fastest and most comprehensive. That's how they took over the search engine market in the first place. Having the best product usually get's you into market dominance. That still does not equal a monopoly.
This is the EU crying everyone should be equal, even when they are not.
They achieved dominance because they are the fastest and most comprehensive. That's how they took over the search engine market in the first place. Having the best product usually get's you into market dominance
That's great, and the EU is not having a problem with that at all.
The problem is that they abuse their dominant search engine to try take over other markets (in this particular case, shopping), which is arguably not the best shopping product, but still got ranked higher in the search results.
The problem is that they abuse their dominant search engine to try take over other markets (in this particular case, shopping), which is arguably not the best shopping product, but still got ranked higher in the search results.
I was writing up a comment about how I've never seen a Google shopping link in my search results. Ad yes, but not a search result, and I've always had to access a separate page [slashdot.org] to use Froogle / Google Shopping. But when I checked to confirm when Google started the service (way back
They achieved dominance because they are the fastest and most comprehensive. That's how they took over the search engine market in the first place. Having the best product usually get's you into market dominance
That's great, and the EU is not having a problem with that at all.
The problem is that they abuse their dominant search engine to try take over other markets (in this particular case, shopping), which is arguably not the best shopping product, but still got ranked higher in the search results.
In other words Google is basically doing what Microsoft did and that caused Slashdot nerds to go nuts and write long angry tirades where Microsoft was spelled with a $ sign. Interestingly now that the boot is on the other foot and Google is the anti competitive monopolist those same people are defending the monopolist with tooth and claw. To me swapping one monopoly for another is nothing more than moving from the fire into the frying pan.
Neither one is a monopoly by any reasonable definition. The EU and in some cases US has redefined a fake concept of "demand-side monopoly". It's when you have literally dozens or more choices, but because everyone chooses one product over the others it's a "monopoly".
A real monopoly, no quotes, means you have little to no choice due to physical or regulatory limitations. Think water, oil, steel, etc...
But this is great, it's hilarious to see Google get theirs after whinging about MS in the past ant urgin
This is one of the reasons I've stopped using google for a lot of things lately. I should have seen the writing on the wall when they forced us all to have google+ accounts, for a site I haven't looked at in I can't even tell you how long. I wish they'd split youtube off into its own separate entity again so I could kill all my google usage.
No it's not. A monopoly status is determined by power. Unfortunately dominance naturally provide power. So even though the internet is a theoretically perfect market place where everyone can start a search engine, and everyone is free to search anywhere, the reality is far more nuanced.
When phrases like "Did you Google that using Bing?" make perfect sense you can get an idea of just how incredibly dominant Google's position is and why it can be justifiably determined as a monopoly.
Dominance is still not a monopoly. They achieved dominance because they are the fastest and most comprehensive. That's how they took over the search engine market in the first place. Having the best product usually get's you into market dominance. That still does not equal a monopoly.
This is the EU crying everyone should be equal, even when they are not.
Monopolies are not illegal. Google is a monopoly and there's no arguing about that.
What Google has done wrong here is using their monopoly position to gain an unfair advantage, in this case to give favourable results to their paying customer's adverts.
The EU are not "crying" that everyone should be equal. You should be really ashamed of yourself for making up something that stupid. What the EU is saying is that everyone needs to start on a level playing field.
They achieved dominance because they are the fastest and most comprehensive. That's how they took over the search engine market in the first place.
I certainly don't think that's the case. Even if I granted you that at one point that's why they achieved dominance, they maintain dominance due to inertia and using market dominating power.
you need to learn to read. The EU is not complaining everyone has to be equal, they are merely saying if you have a dominant market position you can't use that to push into other markets, i.e. abuse that dominant position. It is fine to be a monopoly, it is NOT fine to abuse that position.
SUCCESS is illegal, and it is punished by theft from the do-nothing continent.
Seriously guys. No wonder people from Europe immigrate to the US and not the other way around. We make all your movies. We do all your medicinal research. We do all your pharmecuetical research. What do the Europeans do? High horse pilfering.
The French term is "abus de position dominante", in which case it translates into anything youd do where you're trying to kill off competition by using a large market share. Not the same as a monopoly. I believe it is the same laws that got MS fined regarding the IE situation a few years ago. I remember/. being more supportive of that particular decision back then...
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;
(c) 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.
You are not punished for a monopoly or nearly a monopoly; neither of those things is illegal. They are punished for abusing a dominant market position: being a near-monopoly is one way to have a dominant market position.
This is still the old grudge after they could not manage to compete with Google with their bullshit idea of "Quaero" which was pushed by French government and failed, because Google is simply too successful in their business.
You need to be blind not to see that they punish Google, Microsoft and Apple for getting special deals or advantages for the EU economy. They don't want to harm them too much. They want a money source. If they would like to harm them, they would go after Microsoft's and Apple's bundling
Trump disagrees with you. He thinks everyone should have to be under US law. So does the DoJ with their requirement that Microsoft employees breach EU privacy laws.
Then again, yesterday's survey says 3/4 of non-Americans think Trump is an idiot.
I think the survey results are somewhat skewed. They say that only 51% of Canadians think he's an idiot - I think they did the survey only in English Canada, and they're too polite to say what they really think. Ask the French - they're not shy about how much they think Trump is a gibbering idiot con artist. Just ask the mayor of Montreal - Canada's second largest city - who during an interview said Trump was full of shit. (No, we don't bleep it out here when it's news).
Excellent news. (Score:2, Interesting)
This judgement makes me happy.
(as an aside, it does also bring revenue in from an entity that appears to abuse the Dutch Sandwich tax process..)
Re:Excellent news. (Score:2)
But which law is broken? If they don't have monopoly, they aren't abusing a monopoly.
I'm kind of confused by the summery, it states Google has "near-monopoly". They are being punished for "nearly" having monopoly?
Either they have monopoly or they don't.
If they don't have a monopoly, they aren't doing anything wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you tried reading the article ? It explains it right here:
Today's Decision concludes that Google is dominant in general internet search markets throughout the European Economic Area (EEA), i.e. in all 31 EEA countries. It found Google to have been dominant in general internet search markets in all EEA countries since 2008, except in the Czech Republic where the Decision has established dominance since 2011. This assessment is based on the fact that Google's search engine has held very high market shares in all EEA countries, exceeding 90% in most
Re:Excellent news. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the EU crying everyone should be equal, even when they are not.
Re:Excellent news. (Score:5, Insightful)
They achieved dominance because they are the fastest and most comprehensive. That's how they took over the search engine market in the first place. Having the best product usually get's you into market dominance
That's great, and the EU is not having a problem with that at all.
The problem is that they abuse their dominant search engine to try take over other markets (in this particular case, shopping), which is arguably not the best shopping product, but still got ranked higher in the search results.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like telling a popular Chinese restaurant that they have to put Italian options up for the shitty restaurant across the street.
You missed the word 'other', even after I took the extra effort to make it bold.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like telling Target that they can't put their new product lines in the front of the store. People go to the site, they see what is there.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so s/target/walmart/g and add that it's a rural area.
Re: (Score:2)
I was writing up a comment about how I've never seen a Google shopping link in my search results. Ad yes, but not a search result, and I've always had to access a separate page [slashdot.org] to use Froogle / Google Shopping. But when I checked to confirm when Google started the service (way back
Re:Excellent news. (Score:4, Insightful)
They achieved dominance because they are the fastest and most comprehensive. That's how they took over the search engine market in the first place. Having the best product usually get's you into market dominance
That's great, and the EU is not having a problem with that at all.
The problem is that they abuse their dominant search engine to try take over other markets (in this particular case, shopping), which is arguably not the best shopping product, but still got ranked higher in the search results.
In other words Google is basically doing what Microsoft did and that caused Slashdot nerds to go nuts and write long angry tirades where Microsoft was spelled with a $ sign. Interestingly now that the boot is on the other foot and Google is the anti competitive monopolist those same people are defending the monopolist with tooth and claw. To me swapping one monopoly for another is nothing more than moving from the fire into the frying pan.
Re: (Score:1)
Neither one is a monopoly by any reasonable definition. The EU and in some cases US has redefined a fake concept of "demand-side monopoly". It's when you have literally dozens or more choices, but because everyone chooses one product over the others it's a "monopoly".
A real monopoly, no quotes, means you have little to no choice due to physical or regulatory limitations. Think water, oil, steel, etc...
But this is great, it's hilarious to see Google get theirs after whinging about MS in the past ant urgin
Re: (Score:2)
A real monopoly is one that everybody goes to, no matter what the reason. Barriers to entry really don't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of the reasons I've stopped using google for a lot of things lately. I should have seen the writing on the wall when they forced us all to have google+ accounts, for a site I haven't looked at in I can't even tell you how long. I wish they'd split youtube off into its own separate entity again so I could kill all my google usage.
Re: (Score:3)
The law doesn't require you to have a monopoly to be guilty of abusing a monopoly position. It requires you to be dominant.
Re: (Score:2)
Dominance is still not a monopoly
No it's not. A monopoly status is determined by power. Unfortunately dominance naturally provide power. So even though the internet is a theoretically perfect market place where everyone can start a search engine, and everyone is free to search anywhere, the reality is far more nuanced.
When phrases like "Did you Google that using Bing?" make perfect sense you can get an idea of just how incredibly dominant Google's position is and why it can be justifiably determined as a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Dominance is still not a monopoly. They achieved dominance because they are the fastest and most comprehensive. That's how they took over the search engine market in the first place. Having the best product usually get's you into market dominance. That still does not equal a monopoly.
This is the EU crying everyone should be equal, even when they are not.
Monopolies are not illegal. Google is a monopoly and there's no arguing about that.
What Google has done wrong here is using their monopoly position to gain an unfair advantage, in this case to give favourable results to their paying customer's adverts.
The EU are not "crying" that everyone should be equal. You should be really ashamed of yourself for making up something that stupid. What the EU is saying is that everyone needs to start on a level playing field.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly don't think that's the case. Even if I granted you that at one point that's why they achieved dominance, they maintain dominance due to inertia and using market dominating power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
SUCCESS is illegal, and it is punished by theft from the do-nothing continent.
Seriously guys. No wonder people from Europe immigrate to the US and not the other way around. We make all your movies. We do all your medicinal research. We do all your pharmecuetical research. What do the Europeans do? High horse pilfering.
Re: (Score:3)
The French term is "abus de position dominante", in which case it translates into anything youd do where you're trying to kill off competition by using a large market share. Not the same as a monopoly. /. being more supportive of that particular decision back then...
I believe it is the same laws that got MS fined regarding the IE situation a few years ago. I remember
Re:Excellent news. (Score:5, Informative)
But which law is broken? If they don't have monopoly, they aren't abusing a monopoly.
The law is against abusing a dominant market position. Arguing whether a monopoly has to be absolutely total is irrelevant.
Here's your citation: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal... [europa.eu]
My emphasis in the following:
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;
(c) 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.
You are not punished for a monopoly or nearly a monopoly; neither of those things is illegal. They are punished for abusing a dominant market position: being a near-monopoly is one way to have a dominant market position.
Re: (Score:2)
I just got confused that the summery didn't mention the abuse of dominant market position and instead mentioned the irrelevant "near-monopoly".
Re: (Score:2)
I just got confused that the summery didn't mention the abuse of dominant market position and instead mentioned the irrelevant "near-monopoly".
Irrelevant? ...dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it.. and 'near-monopoly' are kind of the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Found the DeVry JD.
http://business-law.freeadvice... [freeadvice.com]
This is all just plain hate against Google (Score:1)
This is still the old grudge after they could not manage to compete with Google with their bullshit idea of "Quaero" which was pushed by French government and failed, because Google is simply too successful in their business.
You need to be blind not to see that they punish Google, Microsoft and Apple for getting special deals or advantages for the EU economy. They don't want to harm them too much. They want a money source. If they would like to harm them, they would go after Microsoft's and Apple's bundling
Which of a,b,c,or d applies to Google? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
b, limiting markets.
Google should pull out of the EU altogether to see how that limits their markets.
Re: (Score:2)
EU law != US law.
Re: (Score:1)
Trump disagrees with you. He thinks everyone should have to be under US law. So does the DoJ with their requirement that Microsoft employees breach EU privacy laws.
Then again, yesterday's survey says 3/4 of non-Americans think Trump is an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Despite the "mono" root, the legal definition is more nuanced than being the only supplier.
In the UK, 25% of the market is the baseline.