9 ms·

Once you gain a certain amount of market share you no longer have the right to engage in certain kinds of anti-competitive actions. There's nothing extreme abou

• mythz 9y ago
  The anti-competitive practices you're talking about is not being able to decide what content gets displayed on your own website, what relevant information you're allowed to show Users in response to their search results and being forced to give your competitors more prominence. AFAIK this has never been written into law or ruled illegal before.
  • bjl 9y ago
    The specifics are unimportant. What matters is that Google was using its dominance in one market to gain an advantage in a different market. That has been illegal for a long time.
    • mythz 9y ago
      When has this ever happened to a website before?
      • bjl 9y ago
        To my knowledge it hasn't. But that's irrelevant.
        • mythz 9y ago
          Of course it's relevant. There is no lock-in preventing you from visiting other Websites which are just a url or hyperlink away. When was Google Search ruled a website monopoly? What were the parameters? Who's defined the boundaries of what a search service can do and what relevant content they can provide? At what point should Google have known they've had to cede control of their own website and invest resources in giving their competitors more prominence? What other websites need to be wary of the same ruling and at what point do they need to focus their efforts on giving their competitors virtual real-estate on their website at the expense of growing their company?
          • bjl 9y ago
            If you have more than 50% market share in a given market you're considered a monopoly. Although practically, these type of actions aren't usually taken until around 75% market share.
      • tripzilch 9y ago
        The EU doesn't do[0] Common Law (Case Law), like the US does, we have Civil Law here. It means precedence doesn't carry (as much) weight. It's a different legal system. It also means it has been written (codified) into law, unlike your previous comment states. You can read it in the article and links followed from there (it doesn't need to be written to specifically apply to websites). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Alternatives_to_common_law_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Alternatives_to_com... Be sure to also check out the coloured map at the top :) [0] it's a bit more subtle, distinctions have blurred a little over time, either legal system adopted some parts of the other. see the wikipedia link for more details (especially the heading "Alternatives to Common Law systems")
    • UnoriginalGuy 9y ago
      In the US too. The US just oddly decides not to enforce it, then the EU gets shit on for being anti-American when they correctly enforce things that are illegal in both the EU and US.
      • crdoconnor 9y ago
        "The US just oddly decides not to enforce it" They enforced it for Microsoft in 2001. Since then tech behemoth political donations have shot up.
  • lkbm 9y ago
    Sounds a lot like deciding what programs are included in your operating system. Do you consider this materially different, and if so why?
    • mythz 9y ago
      You can easily go to another website if you want results from a different vendor. If you're searching on Google you'd expect results curated from Google, if you can get better, more relevant results else where, everyone can easily do so. I also wouldn't expect any of my Desktop Apps to be laced with content or functionality from competitive products.
      • yellow_postit 9y ago
        Applying this line of reasoning, do you disagree with the EU ruling about browser choice that Microsoft had to comply with?
        • mythz 9y ago
          What line of reasoning? I don't think irremovable Desktop Apps and Websites are comparable or that they should be sanctioned the same way. It didn't have to be a ballot box but I think users should be able to decide what default browser they want to use on first use. I'd prefer to only be install what browsers I want to use. IMO Microsoft is just as hostile now, I can't uninstall Edge from Windows 10, I keep getting nagged to use Edge as my default browser, my preferences to never ask again are not honored. my defaults are lost on each upgrade, despite setting my default browser to Chrome the Windows Search box still opens up results in bing with Edge, I need to use my spam hotmail account to log into Windows 10, I tried using a local account but it broke everywhere that launched a Sign Up page which crashed after 1s of an empty screen, which I needed in order to get the latest version of WSL with the bug fix I needed. In the end I had to reinstall Windows 10 and adopt their stupid Internet account policy. Windows 10 has been the most user hostile OS I've used that I'm planning on switching to using a Windows 2016 Server OS on my next install.
          • 9y ago
  • jolic 9y ago
    > AFAIK this has never been written into law or ruled illegal before. Doesn't seem that different from the case against Microsoft over Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player?
    • euyyn 9y ago
      US vs Microsoft was completely different.
      • jolic 9y ago
        I'm referring to Microsoft v Commission (EU) and related events.
        • euyyn 9y ago
          Fair enough! I haven't read the details of that decision.
    • sqeaky 9y ago
      One was an operating that had a monopoly that was nearly impossible switch away from and was bundling software to destroy specific competitors. The other is a web page with tons of competitors, many of which work well, deciding what their own computers after you specifically requested them to do so.
      • jolic 9y ago
        No, the point is that Google is using their dominance in search, which isn't easy to switch away from, to compete in price comparisons. Google just having a price comparison tool isn't the problem, it's when they include it as a part of search. Which is using their dominant position. While whether you can switch might be important from a user standpoint it's not necessarily a factor from a market standpoint. It's more about how much power you have and how you use that power. It might be very easy to switch to Bing, but Google still have power over >90% of the search market.
  • grahn 9y ago
    > being forced to give your competitors more prominence No, they are being forced to give their competitors equal prominence. The press release literally says: "the Decision orders Google to comply with the simple principle of giving equal treatment to rival comparison shopping services and its own service"
• jabv 9y ago
  "It is generally conceded in our age that a critically strategic producer has an obligation to the public for the sake of the common good." And what happens if Google says, "f* it, we're not providing a utility, we're not taking traffic from European IPs anymore"? I am no anarcho-capitalist, but I really think more folks should read Atlas Shrugged.
  • matt4077 9y ago
    Then they'd be as stupid as some random Ayn Rand fan on the internet, and wouldn't be running Google.
    • jabv 9y ago
      Thanks for the response. I disagree with Rand on many important issues. I think your reply is tantamount to an ad hominem fallacy.
  • s73ver 9y ago
    Then let them. And then the shareholders and the board would rise up against whoever decided to have Google "go Galt", because they know that they make far more money in Europe than not being in Europe. Very rarely does acting like a child and "taking your ball and go home" work out.
  • sbov 9y ago
    Even if Google did this, and got past the shareholder lawsuits, what would happen? Nothing much. Someone else would step in. Greed and free markets makes the "Atlas Shrugged" scenario nonsense. I'm sure there are millions of smart people who would love it if all the other smart people stopped producing. All it means is more market share for them. I'm guessing you're posting this as someone who is fully sucked into the Google ecosystem. I was too. But the only Google product I use anymore is Google maps. No more email, no more search, no more android. Google is very far from indispensable.
    • ahallock 9y ago
      You named a few Google products to be contrarian and think that Google is far from indispensable? I'm calling bullshit because I'm willing to bet most of the non-Google products you use use Google somewhere in the chain.
• throwaway2016a 9y ago
  I see your point and actually agree to an extent. But controlling what goes on on the company's own website doesn't sit well to me. Take this example: Walmart has a hair salon in many of their stores. Walmart's primary business model is not hair but product sales. But obviously Walmart wants you to get their hair cut at their salon. This is similar to the government stepping in and saying that the store must allow other Salon's equal placement in their building. They own the building. It would be anti-competitive to do something to prevent other salons from opening down the street or lowering the prices in their salon to bellow cost to push out competition. But I don't buy that they can't do what they want in their own store.
  • bjl 9y ago
    > But I don't buy that they can't do what they want in their own store. Then you're unfamiliar with anti-trust law.
    • wav-part 9y ago
      Everyone in the universe is.
  • m-s 9y ago
    Unlike Google in Europe, Walmart doesn't control 90% of the market.
    • lerpa 9y ago
      What market, do people have contracts with Google that I am not aware of? Oh right, no, and what they have in their website promises no expectation of doing what you need.
  • matt4077 9y ago
    Well if Wal-Mart owned 95%+ of the retail space in Europe, you can be pretty sure they'd have to allow competitors access in some form or another.