7 ms·

This is a ridiculous figure, how can they come up with a figure more than 2x times the amount of the previous record (for Intel's egregious behavior) for decidi

by mythz 9y ago

This is a ridiculous figure, how can they come up with a figure more than 2x times the amount of the previous record (for Intel's egregious behavior) for deciding what content goes on their own platform, which wasn't previously known to be illegal? What do they want to force Google to do now, prohibit being able to advertise on their own platform? give their competitors priority placement for free? How many rival comparison services do they need to show now? There could be hundreds popping up to take advantage of the forced exposure with scam and ad-ridden pages. Does Google have to show them all? Who decides? Will this ruling extend to all other relevant content Google shows around Search results? Guess we'll have to see, but this ruling could force Google to provide a degraded Customer experience which I guess is one way to make their Services less appealing and allow competition to catch up.

pulse7 9y ago
..."for deciding what content goes on their own platform" - but is used inside EU market under EU laws...
IanCal 9y ago
> This is a ridiculous figure, how can they come up with a figure more than 2x times the amount of the previous record (for Intel's egregious behavior) for deciding what content goes on their own platform, which wasn't previously known to be illegal By following the rules & regulations set out, which Google will have been fully aware of. This is explained in the link and should not have required calling it "ridiculous". I also disagree it wasn't previously known to be illegal unless you can show something has been applied retroactively (so a law created in 2008 or later). > The Commission's fine of €2 424 495 000 takes account of the duration and gravity of the infringement. In accordance with the Commission's 2006 Guidelines on fines (see press release and MEMO), the fine has been calculated on the basis of the value of Google's revenue from its comparison shopping service in the 13 EEA countries concerned. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-06-857_en.htm?locale=en http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-06-857_en.htm?locale... http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-06-256_en.htm?locale=en http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-06-256_en.htm?loca... http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/fines.html http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/fines.... > What do they want to force Google to do now > The Commission Decision requires Google to stop its illegal conduct within 90 days of the Decision and refrain from any measure that has the same or an equivalent object or effect. In particular, the Decision orders Google to comply with the simple principle of giving equal treatment to rival comparison shopping services and its own service: > Google has to apply the same processes and methods to position and display rival comparison shopping services in Google's search results pages as it gives to its own comparison shopping service. Doesn't mean they have to show terrible shopping pages, they just have to compete with them on an even footing rather than pushing every other comparison site back to almost nowhere in the results.
- mythz 9y ago
  > By following the rules & regulations set out, which Google will have been fully aware of. There was no previous ruling that indicated that displaying their own relevant content on their own Search pages was illegal. It's absurd to think displaying relevant content in the context of what the User is searching for is illegal, or that they should've been investing resources in helping their competitors get more exposure. These shackles on User Experience are going to give Amazon and Bing an advantage who aren't limited in their ability to provide integrated services or forced competitor placement. > Doesn't mean they have to show terrible shopping pages, they just have to compete with them on an even footing rather than pushing every other comparison site back to almost nowhere in the results. Are they going to be able to charge for prominent placement or do competitors get it for free? If there was an Auction Google could just outbid everyone since they're going to keep the bulk of the revenue, which they're unlikely going to be allowed to do, so if they're not forced to give prominent placement for free, they're going to have to charge an amount they wont be able to bid for themselves.
  - IanCal 9y ago
    Are you suggesting the ruling is out of line with the regulations? Previous anti-trust rulings seem pretty similar to me. If microsoft gets into trouble for making IE a default browser or bundling windows media player, I'm really not surprised with the way this went. > It's absurd to think displaying relevant content in the context of what the User is searching for is illegal It's not absurd to think that using your dominance in a market to heavily push people towards your own other services is illegal. The Commission also note that it's not just the relevance of the link, but the position that makes a big difference. > b) Furthermore, the effects cannot just be explained by the fact that the first result is more relevant because evidence also shows that moving the first result to the third rank leads to a reduction in the number of clicks by about 50%. Since the introduction, it massively increased click-throughs to their already available service, with a corresponding huge decrease to competitors. Was their own service good? > Contemporary evidence from Google shows that the company was aware that Froogle's market performance was relatively poor (one internal document from 2006 stated "Froogle simply doesn't work"). So to be clear the problem is that they had a pretty naff service, which when treated similarly to other players lost out. They then promoted it far above other results, resulting in a huge shift towards them and away from their competitors. They did not compete by making the service better, but by using their huge dominance in one market to step into another and significantly harm the other players.
kuisch 9y ago
As stated in the press release, the fine has been calculated on the basis of the value of Google's revenue from its comparison shopping service in the 13 EEA countries concerned, taking into account the "duration and gravity" of the infringement. What the commission is asking is simply equal treatment between rival comparison shopping services and its own.
- briandear 9y ago
  When I visit rivalshoppingservice.com then I would expect to see that rival shopping service. When I visit google, I would expect to see google. Are the rivals going to be required to show google results now or is this really not about choice but about crippling google or is it about extracting an easy multi-billion dollar payday? When I go to the SNCF (French rail) website, are they showing me flight and bus options or only their train results? Nobody is forcing anyone to visit google. It’s a website. Perhaps if the EU really cared, they’d ask themselves why Europe hasn’t produced a credible Google rival. That settlement money ought to go directly to funding EU startups. Instead it will likely make its way into CAP agricultural subsidies. The Common Agricultural Policy is about 35% of the entire EU budget despite supporting an industry that that is just 1.6% of EU GDP. It’s clear that the EU prioritizes some industries over others and then they wring their hands when American tech becomes ubiquitous.
  - gpderetta 9y ago
    Except that Google is not a shopping service. Using a dominant position in one market to acquire one in a different market is not allowed.
    - mythz 9y ago
      They're returning relevant information Customers are searching for. If it wasn't relevant or useful people would use a different Service they'd deem more valuable to them. A major part of Google's simplicity is they provide a single search box you can use to search for anything, I don't want to have to go to 100 different sites to search for 100 different things.
Nokinside 9y ago
The answer for the first question is just there in the article. "the fine has been calculated on the basis of ....."

by mythz 9y ago

pulse7 9y ago

..."for deciding what content goes on their own platform" - but is used inside EU market under EU laws...

IanCal 9y ago

> This is a ridiculous figure, how can they come up with a figure more than 2x times the amount of the previous record (for Intel's egregious behavior) for deciding what content goes on their own platform, which wasn't previously known to be illegal By following the rules & regulations set out, which Google will have been fully aware of. This is explained in the link and should not have required calling it "ridiculous". I also disagree it wasn't previously known to be illegal unless you can show something has been applied retroactively (so a law created in 2008 or later). > The Commission's fine of €2 424 495 000 takes account of the duration and gravity of the infringement. In accordance with the Commission's 2006 Guidelines on fines (see press release and MEMO), the fine has been calculated on the basis of the value of Google's revenue from its comparison shopping service in the 13 EEA countries concerned. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-06-857_en.htm?locale=en http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-06-857_en.htm?locale... http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-06-256_en.htm?locale=en http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-06-256_en.htm?loca... http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/fines.html http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/fines.... > What do they want to force Google to do now > The Commission Decision requires Google to stop its illegal conduct within 90 days of the Decision and refrain from any measure that has the same or an equivalent object or effect. In particular, the Decision orders Google to comply with the simple principle of giving equal treatment to rival comparison shopping services and its own service: > Google has to apply the same processes and methods to position and display rival comparison shopping services in Google's search results pages as it gives to its own comparison shopping service. Doesn't mean they have to show terrible shopping pages, they just have to compete with them on an even footing rather than pushing every other comparison site back to almost nowhere in the results.

mythz 9y ago
> By following the rules & regulations set out, which Google will have been fully aware of. There was no previous ruling that indicated that displaying their own relevant content on their own Search pages was illegal. It's absurd to think displaying relevant content in the context of what the User is searching for is illegal, or that they should've been investing resources in helping their competitors get more exposure. These shackles on User Experience are going to give Amazon and Bing an advantage who aren't limited in their ability to provide integrated services or forced competitor placement. > Doesn't mean they have to show terrible shopping pages, they just have to compete with them on an even footing rather than pushing every other comparison site back to almost nowhere in the results. Are they going to be able to charge for prominent placement or do competitors get it for free? If there was an Auction Google could just outbid everyone since they're going to keep the bulk of the revenue, which they're unlikely going to be allowed to do, so if they're not forced to give prominent placement for free, they're going to have to charge an amount they wont be able to bid for themselves.
- IanCal 9y ago
  Are you suggesting the ruling is out of line with the regulations? Previous anti-trust rulings seem pretty similar to me. If microsoft gets into trouble for making IE a default browser or bundling windows media player, I'm really not surprised with the way this went. > It's absurd to think displaying relevant content in the context of what the User is searching for is illegal It's not absurd to think that using your dominance in a market to heavily push people towards your own other services is illegal. The Commission also note that it's not just the relevance of the link, but the position that makes a big difference. > b) Furthermore, the effects cannot just be explained by the fact that the first result is more relevant because evidence also shows that moving the first result to the third rank leads to a reduction in the number of clicks by about 50%. Since the introduction, it massively increased click-throughs to their already available service, with a corresponding huge decrease to competitors. Was their own service good? > Contemporary evidence from Google shows that the company was aware that Froogle's market performance was relatively poor (one internal document from 2006 stated "Froogle simply doesn't work"). So to be clear the problem is that they had a pretty naff service, which when treated similarly to other players lost out. They then promoted it far above other results, resulting in a huge shift towards them and away from their competitors. They did not compete by making the service better, but by using their huge dominance in one market to step into another and significantly harm the other players.

kuisch 9y ago

As stated in the press release, the fine has been calculated on the basis of the value of Google's revenue from its comparison shopping service in the 13 EEA countries concerned, taking into account the "duration and gravity" of the infringement. What the commission is asking is simply equal treatment between rival comparison shopping services and its own.

briandear 9y ago
When I visit rivalshoppingservice.com then I would expect to see that rival shopping service. When I visit google, I would expect to see google. Are the rivals going to be required to show google results now or is this really not about choice but about crippling google or is it about extracting an easy multi-billion dollar payday? When I go to the SNCF (French rail) website, are they showing me flight and bus options or only their train results? Nobody is forcing anyone to visit google. It’s a website. Perhaps if the EU really cared, they’d ask themselves why Europe hasn’t produced a credible Google rival. That settlement money ought to go directly to funding EU startups. Instead it will likely make its way into CAP agricultural subsidies. The Common Agricultural Policy is about 35% of the entire EU budget despite supporting an industry that that is just 1.6% of EU GDP. It’s clear that the EU prioritizes some industries over others and then they wring their hands when American tech becomes ubiquitous.
- gpderetta 9y ago
  Except that Google is not a shopping service. Using a dominant position in one market to acquire one in a different market is not allowed.
  - mythz 9y ago
    They're returning relevant information Customers are searching for. If it wasn't relevant or useful people would use a different Service they'd deem more valuable to them. A major part of Google's simplicity is they provide a single search box you can use to search for anything, I don't want to have to go to 100 different sites to search for 100 different things.

Nokinside 9y ago

The answer for the first question is just there in the article. "the fine has been calculated on the basis of ....."