7 ms·

Hmm interesting, I know that am going to get downvoted but what I want to find out is how much it cost them and if going against someone on a European court lev

Hmm interesting, I know that am going to get downvoted but what I want to find out is how much it cost them and if going against someone on a European court level can be achieved by someone without money. What I mean is that those 2 people going against Google and winning, must have cost so much money to achieve, that I don't believe its possible for someone with a tiny business or someone with no money to do so. I am intrigued to learn if justice is a privilege of the few, or everyone can have justice. In my specific case, I had my government which is within the European Union, straight out stealing land from my family. We went to the country's court, we went to a 2nd court and then a final 3rd. The justice system within my country failed us so we looked at how we could engage in a higher level e.g EU court. The fees for that were so great and the process seemed so unwelcome that we can just not afford to receive justice. So thats why am asking, I'd prefer to see an article that speak actual numbers and how much money foundem needed to provide to lawyers etc and how didn't they go bankrupt at the same time.

dazc 9y ago
I always thought the foundem case was backed by Microsoft? Maybe I'm mis-remembering but I'm sure I read that somewhere?
- quickConclusion 9y ago
  in the article maybe? "By now the couple had been joined by numerous other complainants, including Expedia, TripAdvisor and Microsoft"
  - dazc 9y ago
    Busted.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    It's also even in the second paragraph: 'being the first plaintiff, the others being Yelp, etc...' The article's title is extreme clickbait. This couple didn't "take on" Google, or even this case. A European commission took on the case, representing the interests of many corporations.
charlesdm 9y ago
Which country is that? Do you have a ballpark on the cost, in your case? Genuinely curious.
gbuk2013 9y ago
From reading the article, this was not the of case working their way through the courts, which would indeed be very expensive, but via the Competition Commission, that would then be responsible for the costs of the investigation (if they were interested in investigating, which, according to the article, they were). So I would think the biggest cost would be time and energy and that is enough to put the majority of people off. (One of the first things I heard from a lecturer as part of my law degree was: never, under any circumstances, go to court, unless you really, really have to, as it is not worth your time and energy.)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- candiodari 9y ago
  There's also the little detail that exactly zero of the money went to the people who were wronged. The EU commission just took it all for themselves. That is who are the winners here. Losers are simply BOTH Google and the couple. Other than some satisfaction in having some anonymous powerful organization exact that amount, they got nothing. Furthermore, we all know what Google's crime is to the EU commission, and it has very little to do with stifling competition. Who here is willing to believe that a cartel ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Commun... ), really has any problem with stifling competition. Their central business is stifling competition. Protecting big companies in everything from coal and steel, planes to phone and internet from competition. The big sin of Google is twofold. Firstly, they are not European, and thus certainly not a European monopolist. They're absolutely fine with cartels and monopolies, in fact they used to be one. Secondly, Google has on many occasions refused to comply to their demands, mostly focusing on "protecting the name" of, most famously, the ex-EU commission president Barrosso, by suppressing information about them (entirely truthful information concerning his, somewhat heavy handed and physical, involving bats, political campaigning techniques in his early -communist- career). But Google has refused to censor many EU politicians dirty laundry and has made many enemies that way. As for the couple referenced in the article, this is simply a paid placement site. That was their "innovation". You know, those absurdly "choose your creditcard" scammy websites you see popup everywhere. This is merely
mrarjen 9y ago
This is certainly a proper question to ask! Semi related but, I have some experience getting funding from the EU for innovative projects, the cost of work needed to acquire this funding was nearly to the point where it wasn't worth it for any small companies to even attempt. So I can understand that this level of justice is only to be achieved by the wealthy and resourceful parties.
posterboy 9y ago
Process before the european court of human rights is free of charge, but requires a lawyer (you really might want one). There is however also the european court of justice; again, not to be confused with the europea justice court. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Righ... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Justice_of_the_European_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Justice_of_the_Euro... has your family received "compensation"? IANAL, in fact I lost a case before the local court just trying to receive support for legal aid, but at least I could object to paying the opponent lawyer an illusory sum.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  > There is however also the european court of justice; again, not to be confused with the europea[n] justice court. I really hope those names are more distinct in French or German something. Otherwise, they really need to work to make them less confusing.
kokey 9y ago
Were the fees mostly made up of the lawyers fees? It would be possible to do it without the lawyers, but it's a long shot, or better would be to find people with a similar case to band together to take on such a case. It's usually because of a conflict between the EU regs and the implementation of said regs in the member state, this could be a conflict that also exists in other member states so it may be possible to find a group of interested parties from various parts of the EU.
manmal 9y ago
Is "I know that I'm going to get downvoted" the new opening argument? Forestalling criticism does usually work in discussions, but it should not be necessary here. If you get downvoted, so be it. You are not your HN karma. (I know I'm gonna be downvoted for this ;) )
- Joe-Z 9y ago
  >...it should not be necessary here I think it's a lame figure of speech that's only used to paint yourself as some kind of underdog hero. The top comment (!) in the "AMP for email is a terrible idea"-thread [0] is a post starting with this exact phrase. Obviously your idea wasn't so controversial after all, so just let the users decide the up-/down-votes. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16372234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16372234
- jwilk 9y ago
  It's againt HN guidelines, but most people here don't care.
- mikestew 9y ago
  In such cases, I like to assist in making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. I understand a degree of criticism forestalling, but when I read it, it distracts from the commenter’s point.
- Dolores12 9y ago
  Is fear of being downvoted a new kind of self-censorship?
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    It's not new. The whole point of a downvoting facility is to encourage site users to conform their posts to what other users want to read. It isn't 100% effective, since users may decide that they'd rather post what they want, downvotes be damned. It probably isn't meant to be 100% effective. Users who do this all the time will get banned, but more occasional anti-censorship posters will broaden the scope of acceptable discourse, often in beneficial directions.

dazc 9y ago

I always thought the foundem case was backed by Microsoft? Maybe I'm mis-remembering but I'm sure I read that somewhere?

quickConclusion 9y ago
in the article maybe? "By now the couple had been joined by numerous other complainants, including Expedia, TripAdvisor and Microsoft"
- dazc 9y ago
  Busted.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  It's also even in the second paragraph: 'being the first plaintiff, the others being Yelp, etc...' The article's title is extreme clickbait. This couple didn't "take on" Google, or even this case. A European commission took on the case, representing the interests of many corporations.

charlesdm 9y ago

Which country is that? Do you have a ballpark on the cost, in your case? Genuinely curious.

gbuk2013 9y ago

From reading the article, this was not the of case working their way through the courts, which would indeed be very expensive, but via the Competition Commission, that would then be responsible for the costs of the investigation (if they were interested in investigating, which, according to the article, they were). So I would think the biggest cost would be time and energy and that is enough to put the majority of people off. (One of the first things I heard from a lecturer as part of my law degree was: never, under any circumstances, go to court, unless you really, really have to, as it is not worth your time and energy.)

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
candiodari 9y ago
There's also the little detail that exactly zero of the money went to the people who were wronged. The EU commission just took it all for themselves. That is who are the winners here. Losers are simply BOTH Google and the couple. Other than some satisfaction in having some anonymous powerful organization exact that amount, they got nothing. Furthermore, we all know what Google's crime is to the EU commission, and it has very little to do with stifling competition. Who here is willing to believe that a cartel ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Commun... ), really has any problem with stifling competition. Their central business is stifling competition. Protecting big companies in everything from coal and steel, planes to phone and internet from competition. The big sin of Google is twofold. Firstly, they are not European, and thus certainly not a European monopolist. They're absolutely fine with cartels and monopolies, in fact they used to be one. Secondly, Google has on many occasions refused to comply to their demands, mostly focusing on "protecting the name" of, most famously, the ex-EU commission president Barrosso, by suppressing information about them (entirely truthful information concerning his, somewhat heavy handed and physical, involving bats, political campaigning techniques in his early -communist- career). But Google has refused to censor many EU politicians dirty laundry and has made many enemies that way. As for the couple referenced in the article, this is simply a paid placement site. That was their "innovation". You know, those absurdly "choose your creditcard" scammy websites you see popup everywhere. This is merely

mrarjen 9y ago

This is certainly a proper question to ask! Semi related but, I have some experience getting funding from the EU for innovative projects, the cost of work needed to acquire this funding was nearly to the point where it wasn't worth it for any small companies to even attempt. So I can understand that this level of justice is only to be achieved by the wealthy and resourceful parties.

posterboy 9y ago

Process before the european court of human rights is free of charge, but requires a lawyer (you really might want one). There is however also the european court of justice; again, not to be confused with the europea justice court. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Righ... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Justice_of_the_European_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Justice_of_the_Euro... has your family received "compensation"? IANAL, in fact I lost a case before the local court just trying to receive support for legal aid, but at least I could object to paying the opponent lawyer an illusory sum.

Slansitartop 9y ago
> There is however also the european court of justice; again, not to be confused with the europea[n] justice court. I really hope those names are more distinct in French or German something. Otherwise, they really need to work to make them less confusing.

kokey 9y ago

Were the fees mostly made up of the lawyers fees? It would be possible to do it without the lawyers, but it's a long shot, or better would be to find people with a similar case to band together to take on such a case. It's usually because of a conflict between the EU regs and the implementation of said regs in the member state, this could be a conflict that also exists in other member states so it may be possible to find a group of interested parties from various parts of the EU.

manmal 9y ago

Is "I know that I'm going to get downvoted" the new opening argument? Forestalling criticism does usually work in discussions, but it should not be necessary here. If you get downvoted, so be it. You are not your HN karma. (I know I'm gonna be downvoted for this ;) )

Joe-Z 9y ago
>...it should not be necessary here I think it's a lame figure of speech that's only used to paint yourself as some kind of underdog hero. The top comment (!) in the "AMP for email is a terrible idea"-thread [0] is a post starting with this exact phrase. Obviously your idea wasn't so controversial after all, so just let the users decide the up-/down-votes. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16372234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16372234
jwilk 9y ago
It's againt HN guidelines, but most people here don't care.
mikestew 9y ago
In such cases, I like to assist in making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. I understand a degree of criticism forestalling, but when I read it, it distracts from the commenter’s point.
Dolores12 9y ago
Is fear of being downvoted a new kind of self-censorship?
- jessaustin 9y ago
  It's not new. The whole point of a downvoting facility is to encourage site users to conform their posts to what other users want to read. It isn't 100% effective, since users may decide that they'd rather post what they want, downvotes be damned. It probably isn't meant to be 100% effective. Users who do this all the time will get banned, but more occasional anti-censorship posters will broaden the scope of acceptable discourse, often in beneficial directions.