4 ms·

"Piggy bank", there is a full process duo law involved. It's not like people come up with "hey we need money, let's fine google". Why would you claim something

by Radle 8y ago

"Piggy bank", there is a full process duo law involved. It's not like people come up with "hey we need money, let's fine google". Why would you claim something like that without providing any evidence that this is actually the case?

PaulKeeble 8y ago
There is a consistent theme of American companies breaking European law and getting fined for it going back decades. The EU has a different legal system and you don't just get fined it happens after a long process of attempting to correct behaviour and legal proceedings. The arrogance of Americans to believe their legal system applies everywhere and that any attempts to apply a different one constitutes an attempt to raid the piggy bank is kind of amazing. I wish it wasn't such a prevalent view but you see comments like the one you responded to every single time a fine is levied.
- cncrnd 8y ago
  Show me the evidence that Google was warned about this practice and refused to stop for a long time. I have a really hard time believing that they wouldn't take action in response to warnings if they knew that 40% of yearly profit was at stake. How the hell can the EU entitle itself to 40% of the profit of a company that provides a massive value add to the world? Email, search, maps, video, cloud, office apps and so much more. I don't think Americans are the arrogant ones here, with the EU levying multi-billion dollar fines on a yearly basis.
  - oblio 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission ...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - mrpopo 8y ago
    > Show me the evidence that Google was warned about this practice and refused to stop for a long time. In the article : "Google, which can appeal any decision, has rejected the EU’s case since the bloc issued formal charges over two years ago."
    - cncrnd 8y ago
      This is not evidence, charges were issued years ago based on past behavior. Until there is a decision made, why should Google change it's behavior? My view on this situation is that regulators should decide if such bundling is allowed on a case by case basis. Then, the ruling is 'We have made a decision. You get X fine if you do not comply.' Rather than, 'We prosecutors think you are not complying' followed by 'Yep you were not complying, give us billions'.
      - ginko 8y ago
        So, if you're caught parking in a handicapped spot, do you also expect a note asking you nicely to stop doing that in the future before getting a fine?
        cncrnd 8y ago
        Yes, if the fine is 40% of my yearly income.
        Radle 8y ago
        The last fine google got was 10% of their income, last year. This year they aren't playing by the rules again. What is the EU supposed to do? Give another 10% fine that will be ignored? Also the fine is not 40% of googles income. The corrected income this year is $22.4 billion USD. $5 billion is less than a quarter of that. Going from 10% to 20-25% seems totally okay, if google does not try to follow european law. (The 2017 income of google is lower because they decided to use the new US tax law in order to move a lot of money to the USA which cost them $9.8 billion. But you can't say your income is low just because you spend it all on ice cream. This is why I use the adjusted number of $22.4 billion)
  - Dayshine 8y ago
    Oh, you'll love it when you finishing reading the article and read the bit about what happens if Google don't actually stop doing this in the next 90 days.
cncrnd 8y ago
I am not claiming that the law was unjustly carried out. Google must have had the chance to plead their case. The question is rather, "Should this law exist?" The answer is no. A law which allows this magnitude of a fine for the behavior described is ridiculous. These are not laws sent down by god. Some elected or not elected officials sat down and decided on some stuff - and they can make mistakes. Have you seen the US congress questioning Zuckerberg and the elementary level of the questions asked? These are the EU analogs, making laws (probably not as incompetent though).
- Tomte 8y ago
  The magnitude of the fine should ideally be such that it captures all of the illegal gains, plus a risk premium. (Risk of not getting caught)
- akie 8y ago
  > A law which allows this magnitude of a fine for the behavior described is ridiculous. It's a percentage of their yearly revenue (or income, not sure). If a company breaks the law and you want it to stop doing that and change their behaviour, you need to be able to hand them a fine that makes them stop and think. Would you prefer if they were handed a $100 fine instead? What would be an appropriate fine for you? I think a moderately high percentage-based fine is the only way you can do this.

by Radle 8y ago

PaulKeeble 8y ago

There is a consistent theme of American companies breaking European law and getting fined for it going back decades. The EU has a different legal system and you don't just get fined it happens after a long process of attempting to correct behaviour and legal proceedings. The arrogance of Americans to believe their legal system applies everywhere and that any attempts to apply a different one constitutes an attempt to raid the piggy bank is kind of amazing. I wish it wasn't such a prevalent view but you see comments like the one you responded to every single time a fine is levied.

cncrnd 8y ago
Show me the evidence that Google was warned about this practice and refused to stop for a long time. I have a really hard time believing that they wouldn't take action in response to warnings if they knew that 40% of yearly profit was at stake. How the hell can the EU entitle itself to 40% of the profit of a company that provides a massive value add to the world? Email, search, maps, video, cloud, office apps and so much more. I don't think Americans are the arrogant ones here, with the EU levying multi-billion dollar fines on a yearly basis.
- oblio 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission ...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- mrpopo 8y ago
  > Show me the evidence that Google was warned about this practice and refused to stop for a long time. In the article : "Google, which can appeal any decision, has rejected the EU’s case since the bloc issued formal charges over two years ago."
  - cncrnd 8y ago
    This is not evidence, charges were issued years ago based on past behavior. Until there is a decision made, why should Google change it's behavior? My view on this situation is that regulators should decide if such bundling is allowed on a case by case basis. Then, the ruling is 'We have made a decision. You get X fine if you do not comply.' Rather than, 'We prosecutors think you are not complying' followed by 'Yep you were not complying, give us billions'.
    - ginko 8y ago
      So, if you're caught parking in a handicapped spot, do you also expect a note asking you nicely to stop doing that in the future before getting a fine?
      - cncrnd 8y ago
        Yes, if the fine is 40% of my yearly income.
        Radle 8y ago
        The last fine google got was 10% of their income, last year. This year they aren't playing by the rules again. What is the EU supposed to do? Give another 10% fine that will be ignored? Also the fine is not 40% of googles income. The corrected income this year is $22.4 billion USD. $5 billion is less than a quarter of that. Going from 10% to 20-25% seems totally okay, if google does not try to follow european law. (The 2017 income of google is lower because they decided to use the new US tax law in order to move a lot of money to the USA which cost them $9.8 billion. But you can't say your income is low just because you spend it all on ice cream. This is why I use the adjusted number of $22.4 billion)
- Dayshine 8y ago
  Oh, you'll love it when you finishing reading the article and read the bit about what happens if Google don't actually stop doing this in the next 90 days.

cncrnd 8y ago

I am not claiming that the law was unjustly carried out. Google must have had the chance to plead their case. The question is rather, "Should this law exist?" The answer is no. A law which allows this magnitude of a fine for the behavior described is ridiculous. These are not laws sent down by god. Some elected or not elected officials sat down and decided on some stuff - and they can make mistakes. Have you seen the US congress questioning Zuckerberg and the elementary level of the questions asked? These are the EU analogs, making laws (probably not as incompetent though).

Tomte 8y ago
The magnitude of the fine should ideally be such that it captures all of the illegal gains, plus a risk premium. (Risk of not getting caught)
akie 8y ago
> A law which allows this magnitude of a fine for the behavior described is ridiculous. It's a percentage of their yearly revenue (or income, not sure). If a company breaks the law and you want it to stop doing that and change their behaviour, you need to be able to hand them a fine that makes them stop and think. Would you prefer if they were handed a $100 fine instead? What would be an appropriate fine for you? I think a moderately high percentage-based fine is the only way you can do this.