3 ms·

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 Commissio

by 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
- jacquesm 9y ago
  What a load of crap. The EU anti-cartel unit regularly takes on big EU multi-nationals. This is as silly as saying that the United States only acted against Volkswagen in the diesel scandal because they were not American.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    It's not difficult for this American to imagine e.g. GM being treated quite differently had they committed the same offense. Granted, eventually they would have to stop cheating on emissions tests, but the narrative could have been completely different: "Due to its commitment to its customers and to the environment, GM is working closely with regulators to improve its emissions testing compliance, in light of new regulatory interpretations..."
- wsy 9y ago
  It is true that there is reluctance to put pressure on your own industry. So we see that Microsoft, Google, etc. receive more pressure in EU, while Volkswagen receives more pressure in US. However, the article points out perfectly well how Google uses their de-facto monopoly on Web search to stifle competition in other areas (such as specialized search services). The couple can sue Google for damages as soon as its violation of anti-monopoly regulations has been established. They just need to wait until Googles appeal against the decision is rejected (which it most certainly will).
- mrtksn 9y ago
  > The EU commission just took it all for themselves I've seen the EU in a club in Brussels blowing all the money that they took from Google and the British couple on booze and women. Joking aside, I'm fascinated by the narrative by HN user on the EU.

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

jacquesm 9y ago
What a load of crap. The EU anti-cartel unit regularly takes on big EU multi-nationals. This is as silly as saying that the United States only acted against Volkswagen in the diesel scandal because they were not American.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  It's not difficult for this American to imagine e.g. GM being treated quite differently had they committed the same offense. Granted, eventually they would have to stop cheating on emissions tests, but the narrative could have been completely different: "Due to its commitment to its customers and to the environment, GM is working closely with regulators to improve its emissions testing compliance, in light of new regulatory interpretations..."
wsy 9y ago
It is true that there is reluctance to put pressure on your own industry. So we see that Microsoft, Google, etc. receive more pressure in EU, while Volkswagen receives more pressure in US. However, the article points out perfectly well how Google uses their de-facto monopoly on Web search to stifle competition in other areas (such as specialized search services). The couple can sue Google for damages as soon as its violation of anti-monopoly regulations has been established. They just need to wait until Googles appeal against the decision is rejected (which it most certainly will).
mrtksn 9y ago
> The EU commission just took it all for themselves I've seen the EU in a club in Brussels blowing all the money that they took from Google and the British couple on booze and women. Joking aside, I'm fascinated by the narrative by HN user on the EU.