4 ms·

Capitalism implies economic agents that follow fair rules. What this ruling shows is that EU haven't forgot what capitalism is all about.

lucozade 9y ago
Hmm. The rules are a tad arbitrary. This would be entirely allowed if less people used Google search relative to its competitors. Note, it's not illegal per se. It's not illegal because of a de jure monopoly. It's not even illegal because of the number of users they have. It's illegal because Bing, Yahoo et al are not as relatively successful. It was the same with browsers. Microsoft were hit for bundling. Apple haven't been though they've done identically the same thing. Why? Because enough people bought Android phones in the EU. I do find it dubious that, effectively, the primary criteria for illegality is not what the defendant did but what some other actors didn't do. Seems wrong to me.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  The primary criteria is the damage it causes to society, there is absolutely nothing arbitrary about it. It just so happens that if you are not a (quasi-)monopoly, you just cannot cause the kind of damage a monopoly can, no matter how hard you try, and if you don't cause any damage, you won't be fined.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
I think the GP is complaining about how the rules are structured so that you can never win. And it's true - they are. By design.
- aapjesverkoper 9y ago
  Are you honestly implying that google, a multi billion dollar corporation hasn't 'won'?
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Winning would be if they were allowed to use their dominant market position to full, unrestricted extent.
    - kazen44 9y ago
      which is something you do not want for the general wellbeing of your population or the continuation of your state. Also, Many people here seem to forget that we do not, in fact, live in a completely laissez-faire capitalistic society for good reason. Especially compared to the US, the countries in the EU do not view unfetered capitalism as a 'good and just' thing.

lucozade 9y ago

Hmm. The rules are a tad arbitrary. This would be entirely allowed if less people used Google search relative to its competitors. Note, it's not illegal per se. It's not illegal because of a de jure monopoly. It's not even illegal because of the number of users they have. It's illegal because Bing, Yahoo et al are not as relatively successful. It was the same with browsers. Microsoft were hit for bundling. Apple haven't been though they've done identically the same thing. Why? Because enough people bought Android phones in the EU. I do find it dubious that, effectively, the primary criteria for illegality is not what the defendant did but what some other actors didn't do. Seems wrong to me.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
The primary criteria is the damage it causes to society, there is absolutely nothing arbitrary about it. It just so happens that if you are not a (quasi-)monopoly, you just cannot cause the kind of damage a monopoly can, no matter how hard you try, and if you don't cause any damage, you won't be fined.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

I think the GP is complaining about how the rules are structured so that you can never win. And it's true - they are. By design.

aapjesverkoper 9y ago
Are you honestly implying that google, a multi billion dollar corporation hasn't 'won'?
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Winning would be if they were allowed to use their dominant market position to full, unrestricted extent.
  - kazen44 9y ago
    which is something you do not want for the general wellbeing of your population or the continuation of your state. Also, Many people here seem to forget that we do not, in fact, live in a completely laissez-faire capitalistic society for good reason. Especially compared to the US, the countries in the EU do not view unfetered capitalism as a 'good and just' thing.