3 ms·
I avoided the word "monopoly" for a reason. The internet isn't a finite natural resource, Google doesn't own it, there are other players in the field, and noth
by clarry 9y ago
I avoided the word "monopoly" for a reason. The internet isn't a finite natural resource, Google doesn't own it, there are other players in the field, and nothing stops new players fron entering.
You're also interpreting the word "big" perhaps too literally. In your example, Apple is not big in the sense I mean. Microsoft might be, but that doesn't mean I agree with the judgement against them.
If people like your product so much that 95% of the market uses it, I don't see the abuse.
- scribu 9y ago> The internet isn't a finite natural resource ... but human attention is.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago> If people like your product so much that 95% of the market uses it, I don't see the abuse. Which is why the fine is not for 95% of the market using the product, but for abusing that position to unfairly disadvantage competitors.
- jononor 9y agoCompetitors in another market even, in this case shopping.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoYou're still missing what 'skrebbel wrote: > it's about using a monopoly position in one field to gain entry to another. It's not about Google dominating the search market. It's about Google leveraging their dominant position on the search market to promote their comparison shopping service, which is a different product for different market. Think of the competition laws as nerfing your ability to leverage domination of one market into immediate domination of other markets. Companies don't have natural rights, there are only the arbitrary rules of the market game, that are intended to promote general prosperity in the society.