16 ms·

I'm sorta glad the EU is taking this hard stance on antitrust, and actually following up on a lot of these violations. Side-note: As a Dane, so weird seeing Ma

by Tehnix 9y ago

I'm sorta glad the EU is taking this hard stance on antitrust, and actually following up on a lot of these violations. Side-note: As a Dane, so weird seeing Margrethe Vestager so prolific in this, used to seeing her as one of the usual politicians.

teamhappy 9y ago
The press release[1] says: "The fine represents 4.9% of Qualcomm's turnover in 2017." "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 Qualcomm's direct and indirect sales of LTE baseband chipset in the European Economic Area (EEA). The duration of the infringement established in the decision is five years, six months and 23 days." Qualcomm made 122.5 billion in the last 5 years[2]. Making them pay 1% of that for breaking the rules isn't what I would call "taking this hard stance on antitrust". [1]: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-421_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-421_en.htm [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/737780/revenue-of-qualcomm/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/737780/revenue-of-qualco...
- adwhit 9y ago
  White collar crime. It pays! Shouldn’t the CEO go to jail? That might make them behave themselves, and possibly go some way towards justifying their astronomical salaries.
  - optimuspaul 9y ago
    Why just the CEO? How about the CFO, the Board of Directors, and Chief Legal Consul? Maybe you could say the CEO is the last line and should be held accountable. It seems to me that you can't really do that since so many people could have been involved or even shielding the CEO from knowledge of the illegal activity. It's probably too onerous to investigate the individuals responsible. I don't think you are wrong, there should be individuals held accountable.
    - FridgeSeal 9y ago
      I agree: start at the top and burn down through the executives and the board until the people that are left (and the ones that fill the gaps) don't want to risk doing shady/anti-competitive/etc stuff. We will nothing, and we will fix nothing by slapping these companies on the wrist and then letting them go back to what they're doing.
  - xoa 9y ago
    >Shouldn’t the CEO go to jail? No. While it's always tempting to bring out the torches and pitchforks and go straight for the emotional response, please try to keep in mind that specifics in law matters because it affects the rights of the regular person far more. Criminal and Civil violations of the law are not the same thing for very good reason, and that's not a matter of white collar vs blue collar or any other color of collar. We want to discourage civil violations, but in general those are things where the situation can be made whole purely through money. There are no victims of non-reversible physical harm. Qualcomm's violation is not the same thing as dumping carcinogens into a water supply or VW's pollution or worker safety violations or cutting corners on life-safety product requirements or whatever. It's not even clearly market damaging to the level of situation's like Intel's actions vis-a-vis AMD. It's a violation and one they should have caught, but at least mildly fuzzier, and the violation is already over not ongoing. A sizable fine, investigations into more, and the threat of larger ones in the future seems a genuinely reasonable response to a situation like this absent continued patterns of bad behavior. Seriously, we have way too much criminalization of things that should be civil violations already. There are certainly many times that people in power get away with things that should be criminal and we should be trying to bring them into line with what applies to everyone, but there are also a lot of times where people in power get away with things that shouldn't be criminal for everyone. In that case the common feeling of "bringing them down to our level" is backwards, we should instead be working to bring the standards for everyone else up. Both are equalization of advantage, but that doesn't make them an equivalent end result. Prison is not something we should ever be in the habit of reflexively resorting to.
    - rbranson 9y ago
      > Seriously, we have way too much criminalization of things that should be civil violations already. Do you think that perhaps this has to do with the much larger pool of resources put behind criminal prosecution vs civil?
    - adwhit 9y ago
      I don't really care if the CEO goes the prison or not. If they personally pay a fine so great that they will be impoverished for the rest of their life, that would be good enough for me. The point it that no-one has actually been punished here. No-one will personally suffer in a way that they would even notice. There is no deterrent. I also disagree that there are no victims. Money and the lack thereof has profound effects on people's lives. People get depressed, get divorced, commit crimes and commit suicide due to the inscrutable flow of capital into and out of their lives. There are victims, somewhere. We just don't know who they are.
- kbart 9y ago
  Even for a giant like Qualcomm 1.2B fine is far from a slap on a wrist. Furthermore, it's the first fine, imagine if they try to continue such practice in EU, more and bigger fines would follow. So yes, EU is probably the only jurisdiction in whole world that does take anti-monopolies and anti-competitive cases seriously.
  - teamhappy 9y ago
    We have a maximum amount you can fine a company. It's "10% of the total turnover in the preceding business year of the undertaking". So whether it's worth breaking the law becomes a simple napkin calculation. (Source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52006XC0901(01)&from=EN http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELE...)
    - kbart 9y ago
      Well yes, but that's only a fine, I'm sure there are other legal means (i.e. voiding business license) for those who refuse to comply with a law continuously.
      - pm90 9y ago
        How would that work with a company like Qualcomm, that doesn't sell directly to consumers, and whose products are embedded in devices manufactured outside the EU? Technically, wouldn't it only be doing business with Apple?
        oh_sigh 9y ago
        Revoke the EU certification for the specific devices they manufacture
      - hrktb 9y ago
        How it went down with Microsoft was cumulative fines as time goes. I wondered what the ultimate reason was for Microsoft to bow down and apply the required changes to windows, but I imagine being labeled as a recurent law breaking business might have a lot of side effects. At a very small scale, I knew engineers that didn’t want to apply for MS jobs because of that. I wonder if individual states or other regulation agency also would change their stance regarding a company once behavior change requested by the EU are ignored on a regular basis.
- tpxl 9y ago
  If turnover is _revenue_, not _profit_, which is as I understand it, then this is a very significant amount of their profits.
- masklinn 9y ago
  > Qualcomm made 122.5 billion in the last 5 years[2]. Making them pay 1% of that for breaking the rules isn't what I would call "taking this hard stance on antitrust". 1. That's their revenue not their net income, which looks to be 20~25% of revenue. 2. Indexing the fines on revenue from the domain/division where improprieties happened seems logical.
  - teamhappy 9y ago
    1. The fine seems to be based on their revenue. 1.23 billion are a little over 5% of 22.291 billion. (I don't know where the 4.9% come from.) 2. It seems logical but it isn't. In you're a rich kid that starts selling drugs your fine is going to be based on all the money you have, not just the money you made selling drugs. That makes all the sense in the world given that the fine is supposed to hurt you financially in order to change your behavior.
    - azernik 9y ago
      Corporations are not individuals; they can split and merge. You don't want your regulatory penalties to be gameable by restructuring the company (e.g. having a separate subsidiary handle European business).
    - grigjd3 9y ago
      The idea here isn't to be punitive, but to change behavior. A smaller fine, with the possibility of more for continued misbehavior is far more effective.
- alok-g 9y ago
  Shouldn't the fine be based on the gains they wrongly made rather than how much they made in totality?
  - Cthulhu_ 9y ago
    Then it would become a compensation, not a fine; they'd just lose a bit of the profits they (wrongfully) made, but it wouldn't discourage them from doing it again - I'm sure that for every instance of things like this being found out and fined, there's ten or a hundred instances where companies get away with it.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - alok-g 9y ago
      I am not saying that the fines be less than the wrongful gains, just based on those gains. They could punitively be 3x those gains. It does not seem right to base the fine on the total revenue or profit of the company, which may include many other product lines and businesses.
      - chopin 9y ago
        For me it's fine to do so. Just don't do it. Bonus point it avoids back- and forth-reckoning "minimizing" the profit for this particular offense. We would get stuck with a similar problem we have with taxes.
- Tehnix 9y ago
  > isn't what I would call "taking this hard stance on antitrust" I guess by hard stance, I more meant any stance at all, instead of simply bowing to threats by multinational corporations. It's very refreshing.
  - teamhappy 9y ago
    I'm glad we're doing something too, but as long as breaking the rules is a viable business strategy I don't expect anything to change.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 9y ago
  This is an EU fine, but Qualcomm is a worldwide company. So, they could face legal issues from other countries over the same issue. Further, it's not like they only made money from this. So, the calculus in Qualcomm's case is extra profit > fine not total profit > fine. Also, you're quoting revenue it's profit that's important. PS: If the US choses not to take their own piece of Qualcomm's illegal profit's IMO that's on them.
kawsper 9y ago
You should watch Michael Schøts interview with Margrethe Vestager here: https://www.facebook.com/michael.schoet/videos/10155510996888051/ https://www.facebook.com/michael.schoet/videos/1015551099688... (It's on danish, sorry non-danish listeners!)
jpkeisala 9y ago
Hear hear. I wish they would go even more harsh.
konschubert 9y ago
>usual politicians Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but I don't think it's healthy for a democracy to talk about politicians with such a negative undertone. If there are too many black sheep, it's not the fault of "the politicians", it's the fault of the public for not voting for the alternative or being the alternative.
- philipov 9y ago
  That's a naive view of how democracy works in practice. It turns out that elections aren't an efficient market and the "will of the people" is instead dominated by externalities like campaign committees, advertising/propaganda, and lobbyists. You say you don't think it's healthy to talk that way, but that's backwards. People talk this way because the democracy isn't healthy.
  - bjelkeman-again 9y ago
    I haven’t seen many good proposals for reform though. And I am not talking about getting rid of what I consider undemocratic processes in the U.S like gerrymandering, removing capacity to vote (closing I.d card issuing centres etc). But true reform in functional representative democracies.
    - casiotone 9y ago
      > I haven’t seen many good proposals for reform though. You're not reading the right colour books.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Tehnix 9y ago
  > Maybe you didn't mean it that way I did, although Vestager is not as bad as the majority of the parties—I very much hate populistic politics, which politics usually are, except, luckily, for some outliers. > If there are too many black sheep, it's not the fault of "the politicians", it's the fault of the public for not voting for the alternative or being the alternative. Well, it is also the fault of the politician themselves for being a so called black sheep. They don't get an out just because they were elected in. Furthermore, I put my vote where my mouth is, but democracy is not really a suited type of governance when the majority of the population are not qualified to decide on a large majority of the decisions made. People vote with their feelings, as we've seen in the US. Sadly, it's the best we've got still, or I can at least not come up with anything better.
fwdpropaganda 9y ago
Fellow European here. I think she's doing an amazing job.
- dontnotice 9y ago
  By sucking profits from American companies?
  - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
    I mean... those profits come from breaking the law. So I guess yes, technically you're right. EDIT: I don't understand, how can anyone be against this? Doesn't every good person wish that all people and companies would behave according to the law? Did you vote for Trump?
    - foobarbazetc 9y ago
      You need to understand that a high (but not majority by any stretch) percentage of Americans will always take the side of a corporation over consumers no matter what. It’s a weird and uniquely American thing. One of the stranger things I’ve found after moving here from Australia (which has a very strong pro-consumer government agency called the ACCC which is non-partisan).
      - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
        I had some intuition for that, but I imagined this was mostly the "muh freedoms" type of people.
matt4077 9y ago
> Side-note: As a Dane, so weird seeing Margrethe Vestager so prolific in this, used to seeing her as one of the usual politicians. Maybe you should rethink your judgement of "usual politicians". Never forget that they always, and inevitably, try to balance competing (yet valid) interests: issues where the answer is obvious almost by definition don't get to be "political"[0]. Any time you read about a political debate and think "why are they so stupid? Just..." it's highly likely that your neighbor one door down is muttering the same, only with an opposing answer. [0]: US is exempt from this rule, because about half of the citizen and politicians have long gone off the deep end.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kyrra 9y ago
The WSJ had an interesting article about antitrust lawsuits and calls out why the EU is issuing fines while the US isn't. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-antitrust-case-against-facebook-google-amazon-and-apple-1516121561 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-antitrust-case-against-face... The main takeaway I got was that they have different views on what is a monopoly and how/when it is bad. From the article: > The different outcomes hinge in part on different approaches. European regulators are more likely to see a shrinking pool of competitors as inherently bad for both competition and consumers. American regulators are more open to the possibility that it could be natural and benign.
- ecthiender 9y ago
  > possibility that it could be natural and benign. Paying billions of dollars to Apple to include only their baseband chips to monopolize is hardly natural.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    Google pays Apple billions of dollars to include only their search engine. It happens all the time. Then again maybe this is changing.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Apple includes other search engines in their dropdowns. Google is paying for being the default not the only option.
    - foobarbazetc 9y ago
      You can choose your search engine on iOS.
- dontnotice 9y ago
  Also because the EU is deliberately targeting US companies, the US gov't doesn't have that incentive.
  - 9y ago

by Tehnix 9y ago

teamhappy 9y ago

The press release[1] says: "The fine represents 4.9% of Qualcomm's turnover in 2017." "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 Qualcomm's direct and indirect sales of LTE baseband chipset in the European Economic Area (EEA). The duration of the infringement established in the decision is five years, six months and 23 days." Qualcomm made 122.5 billion in the last 5 years[2]. Making them pay 1% of that for breaking the rules isn't what I would call "taking this hard stance on antitrust". [1]: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-421_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-421_en.htm [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/737780/revenue-of-qualcomm/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/737780/revenue-of-qualco...

adwhit 9y ago
White collar crime. It pays! Shouldn’t the CEO go to jail? That might make them behave themselves, and possibly go some way towards justifying their astronomical salaries.
- optimuspaul 9y ago
  Why just the CEO? How about the CFO, the Board of Directors, and Chief Legal Consul? Maybe you could say the CEO is the last line and should be held accountable. It seems to me that you can't really do that since so many people could have been involved or even shielding the CEO from knowledge of the illegal activity. It's probably too onerous to investigate the individuals responsible. I don't think you are wrong, there should be individuals held accountable.
  - FridgeSeal 9y ago
    I agree: start at the top and burn down through the executives and the board until the people that are left (and the ones that fill the gaps) don't want to risk doing shady/anti-competitive/etc stuff. We will nothing, and we will fix nothing by slapping these companies on the wrist and then letting them go back to what they're doing.
- xoa 9y ago
  >Shouldn’t the CEO go to jail? No. While it's always tempting to bring out the torches and pitchforks and go straight for the emotional response, please try to keep in mind that specifics in law matters because it affects the rights of the regular person far more. Criminal and Civil violations of the law are not the same thing for very good reason, and that's not a matter of white collar vs blue collar or any other color of collar. We want to discourage civil violations, but in general those are things where the situation can be made whole purely through money. There are no victims of non-reversible physical harm. Qualcomm's violation is not the same thing as dumping carcinogens into a water supply or VW's pollution or worker safety violations or cutting corners on life-safety product requirements or whatever. It's not even clearly market damaging to the level of situation's like Intel's actions vis-a-vis AMD. It's a violation and one they should have caught, but at least mildly fuzzier, and the violation is already over not ongoing. A sizable fine, investigations into more, and the threat of larger ones in the future seems a genuinely reasonable response to a situation like this absent continued patterns of bad behavior. Seriously, we have way too much criminalization of things that should be civil violations already. There are certainly many times that people in power get away with things that should be criminal and we should be trying to bring them into line with what applies to everyone, but there are also a lot of times where people in power get away with things that shouldn't be criminal for everyone. In that case the common feeling of "bringing them down to our level" is backwards, we should instead be working to bring the standards for everyone else up. Both are equalization of advantage, but that doesn't make them an equivalent end result. Prison is not something we should ever be in the habit of reflexively resorting to.
  - rbranson 9y ago
    > Seriously, we have way too much criminalization of things that should be civil violations already. Do you think that perhaps this has to do with the much larger pool of resources put behind criminal prosecution vs civil?
  - adwhit 9y ago
    I don't really care if the CEO goes the prison or not. If they personally pay a fine so great that they will be impoverished for the rest of their life, that would be good enough for me. The point it that no-one has actually been punished here. No-one will personally suffer in a way that they would even notice. There is no deterrent. I also disagree that there are no victims. Money and the lack thereof has profound effects on people's lives. People get depressed, get divorced, commit crimes and commit suicide due to the inscrutable flow of capital into and out of their lives. There are victims, somewhere. We just don't know who they are.
kbart 9y ago
Even for a giant like Qualcomm 1.2B fine is far from a slap on a wrist. Furthermore, it's the first fine, imagine if they try to continue such practice in EU, more and bigger fines would follow. So yes, EU is probably the only jurisdiction in whole world that does take anti-monopolies and anti-competitive cases seriously.
- teamhappy 9y ago
  We have a maximum amount you can fine a company. It's "10% of the total turnover in the preceding business year of the undertaking". So whether it's worth breaking the law becomes a simple napkin calculation. (Source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52006XC0901(01)&from=EN http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELE...)
  - kbart 9y ago
    Well yes, but that's only a fine, I'm sure there are other legal means (i.e. voiding business license) for those who refuse to comply with a law continuously.
    - pm90 9y ago
      How would that work with a company like Qualcomm, that doesn't sell directly to consumers, and whose products are embedded in devices manufactured outside the EU? Technically, wouldn't it only be doing business with Apple?
      - oh_sigh 9y ago
        Revoke the EU certification for the specific devices they manufacture
    - hrktb 9y ago
      How it went down with Microsoft was cumulative fines as time goes. I wondered what the ultimate reason was for Microsoft to bow down and apply the required changes to windows, but I imagine being labeled as a recurent law breaking business might have a lot of side effects. At a very small scale, I knew engineers that didn’t want to apply for MS jobs because of that. I wonder if individual states or other regulation agency also would change their stance regarding a company once behavior change requested by the EU are ignored on a regular basis.
tpxl 9y ago
If turnover is _revenue_, not _profit_, which is as I understand it, then this is a very significant amount of their profits.
masklinn 9y ago
> Qualcomm made 122.5 billion in the last 5 years[2]. Making them pay 1% of that for breaking the rules isn't what I would call "taking this hard stance on antitrust". 1. That's their revenue not their net income, which looks to be 20~25% of revenue. 2. Indexing the fines on revenue from the domain/division where improprieties happened seems logical.
- teamhappy 9y ago
  1. The fine seems to be based on their revenue. 1.23 billion are a little over 5% of 22.291 billion. (I don't know where the 4.9% come from.) 2. It seems logical but it isn't. In you're a rich kid that starts selling drugs your fine is going to be based on all the money you have, not just the money you made selling drugs. That makes all the sense in the world given that the fine is supposed to hurt you financially in order to change your behavior.
  - azernik 9y ago
    Corporations are not individuals; they can split and merge. You don't want your regulatory penalties to be gameable by restructuring the company (e.g. having a separate subsidiary handle European business).
  - grigjd3 9y ago
    The idea here isn't to be punitive, but to change behavior. A smaller fine, with the possibility of more for continued misbehavior is far more effective.
alok-g 9y ago
Shouldn't the fine be based on the gains they wrongly made rather than how much they made in totality?
- Cthulhu_ 9y ago
  Then it would become a compensation, not a fine; they'd just lose a bit of the profits they (wrongfully) made, but it wouldn't discourage them from doing it again - I'm sure that for every instance of things like this being found out and fined, there's ten or a hundred instances where companies get away with it.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - alok-g 9y ago
    I am not saying that the fines be less than the wrongful gains, just based on those gains. They could punitively be 3x those gains. It does not seem right to base the fine on the total revenue or profit of the company, which may include many other product lines and businesses.
    - chopin 9y ago
      For me it's fine to do so. Just don't do it. Bonus point it avoids back- and forth-reckoning "minimizing" the profit for this particular offense. We would get stuck with a similar problem we have with taxes.
Tehnix 9y ago
> isn't what I would call "taking this hard stance on antitrust" I guess by hard stance, I more meant any stance at all, instead of simply bowing to threats by multinational corporations. It's very refreshing.
- teamhappy 9y ago
  I'm glad we're doing something too, but as long as breaking the rules is a viable business strategy I don't expect anything to change.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Retric 9y ago
This is an EU fine, but Qualcomm is a worldwide company. So, they could face legal issues from other countries over the same issue. Further, it's not like they only made money from this. So, the calculus in Qualcomm's case is extra profit > fine not total profit > fine. Also, you're quoting revenue it's profit that's important. PS: If the US choses not to take their own piece of Qualcomm's illegal profit's IMO that's on them.

kawsper 9y ago

You should watch Michael Schøts interview with Margrethe Vestager here: https://www.facebook.com/michael.schoet/videos/10155510996888051/ https://www.facebook.com/michael.schoet/videos/1015551099688... (It's on danish, sorry non-danish listeners!)

jpkeisala 9y ago

Hear hear. I wish they would go even more harsh.

konschubert 9y ago

>usual politicians Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but I don't think it's healthy for a democracy to talk about politicians with such a negative undertone. If there are too many black sheep, it's not the fault of "the politicians", it's the fault of the public for not voting for the alternative or being the alternative.

philipov 9y ago
That's a naive view of how democracy works in practice. It turns out that elections aren't an efficient market and the "will of the people" is instead dominated by externalities like campaign committees, advertising/propaganda, and lobbyists. You say you don't think it's healthy to talk that way, but that's backwards. People talk this way because the democracy isn't healthy.
- bjelkeman-again 9y ago
  I haven’t seen many good proposals for reform though. And I am not talking about getting rid of what I consider undemocratic processes in the U.S like gerrymandering, removing capacity to vote (closing I.d card issuing centres etc). But true reform in functional representative democracies.
  - casiotone 9y ago
    > I haven’t seen many good proposals for reform though. You're not reading the right colour books.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Tehnix 9y ago
> Maybe you didn't mean it that way I did, although Vestager is not as bad as the majority of the parties—I very much hate populistic politics, which politics usually are, except, luckily, for some outliers. > If there are too many black sheep, it's not the fault of "the politicians", it's the fault of the public for not voting for the alternative or being the alternative. Well, it is also the fault of the politician themselves for being a so called black sheep. They don't get an out just because they were elected in. Furthermore, I put my vote where my mouth is, but democracy is not really a suited type of governance when the majority of the population are not qualified to decide on a large majority of the decisions made. People vote with their feelings, as we've seen in the US. Sadly, it's the best we've got still, or I can at least not come up with anything better.

fwdpropaganda 9y ago

Fellow European here. I think she's doing an amazing job.

dontnotice 9y ago
By sucking profits from American companies?
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  I mean... those profits come from breaking the law. So I guess yes, technically you're right. EDIT: I don't understand, how can anyone be against this? Doesn't every good person wish that all people and companies would behave according to the law? Did you vote for Trump?
  - foobarbazetc 9y ago
    You need to understand that a high (but not majority by any stretch) percentage of Americans will always take the side of a corporation over consumers no matter what. It’s a weird and uniquely American thing. One of the stranger things I’ve found after moving here from Australia (which has a very strong pro-consumer government agency called the ACCC which is non-partisan).
    - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
      I had some intuition for that, but I imagined this was mostly the "muh freedoms" type of people.

matt4077 9y ago

> Side-note: As a Dane, so weird seeing Margrethe Vestager so prolific in this, used to seeing her as one of the usual politicians. Maybe you should rethink your judgement of "usual politicians". Never forget that they always, and inevitably, try to balance competing (yet valid) interests: issues where the answer is obvious almost by definition don't get to be "political"[0]. Any time you read about a political debate and think "why are they so stupid? Just..." it's highly likely that your neighbor one door down is muttering the same, only with an opposing answer. [0]: US is exempt from this rule, because about half of the citizen and politicians have long gone off the deep end.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

kyrra 9y ago

The WSJ had an interesting article about antitrust lawsuits and calls out why the EU is issuing fines while the US isn't. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-antitrust-case-against-facebook-google-amazon-and-apple-1516121561 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-antitrust-case-against-face... The main takeaway I got was that they have different views on what is a monopoly and how/when it is bad. From the article: > The different outcomes hinge in part on different approaches. European regulators are more likely to see a shrinking pool of competitors as inherently bad for both competition and consumers. American regulators are more open to the possibility that it could be natural and benign.

ecthiender 9y ago
> possibility that it could be natural and benign. Paying billions of dollars to Apple to include only their baseband chips to monopolize is hardly natural.
- threeseed 9y ago
  Google pays Apple billions of dollars to include only their search engine. It happens all the time. Then again maybe this is changing.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Apple includes other search engines in their dropdowns. Google is paying for being the default not the only option.
  - foobarbazetc 9y ago
    You can choose your search engine on iOS.
dontnotice 9y ago
Also because the EU is deliberately targeting US companies, the US gov't doesn't have that incentive.
- 9y ago