11 ms·

This is a dangerous ruling that pushes the world further into the potential for trade wars by proxy. Contrary to numerous posts- -no, the law isn't "clear". T

This is a dangerous ruling that pushes the world further into the potential for trade wars by proxy. Contrary to numerous posts- -no, the law isn't "clear". This is an incredibly nuanced situation, and the notion that Google was just overtly flouting (ed: thx sjcsjc) the law is outright nonsense. Google has a huge litany of bad practices (I personally recently switched my daily driver to an iPhone for that reason), but simply saying "Surprise....enormous fine" is ridiculous. -the fine is enormous. Various "well it's only a quarter's earnings across all of Google" are outrageous. Over 6 years Google spent a grand total of $1.1B in all expenses for Waymo, for instance. $5B is an enormous, enormous amount of money for any company. I highly doubt this will be a "pay it and forget it" fine, but is going to ring across all multinationals as a warning.

akie 8y ago
> is going to ring across all multinationals as a warning I'm not sure how that's a bad thing.
- tajen 8y ago
  Although I’m quite happy my territories have been strong enough to impose $2bn fines in Microsoft and $4bn on Google, especially to defend interoperability and parcel markets, I’m not sure I want the consequences. - Trump could react. He has already denied the WTO, he may disclaim other US-EU treaties farther because of the fines we impose on US companies. - If Android is a monopoly, what about Apple. Do we want more competition in Apple hardware and shipped software? - Google wanted to have a uniform Android experience across all devices, for better readability across customers. Now will I recommend Android to my mother if the EU said it should be able to be shipped with all Google apps are replaced with an inferior Samsung app (e.g. the Samsung app store) ? Of course Google could publish a “Google experience” and an “OEM Android” version so we know that the OEM version gives us a crap device, but OEM is the kind of things that killed the Windows experience for most users.
Dayshine 8y ago
Let's read the law: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E102&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... >Article 102 >Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. >Such abuse may, in particular, consist in: >b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers >d)making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts Ok, so, Google said "You can't use Google Play unless you force users to have Google Search installed". How is that not clearly breaching d? Then they said "You can't use Google Play if you try to help develop any android forks." How is that not clearly breaching b? >but simply saying "Surprise....enormous fine" is ridiculous They've had at least two years notice, so could have reduced their fine by complying when they were first warned. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm The article literally warns about the exact things they're still doing.
- Wheaties466 8y ago
  Thank you for breaking this down. I can already see headlines bashing the EU though.
- endorphone 8y ago
  How is that not clearly breaching d? They're a part of the same suite of apps that provide the "Android experience" (Google experience, whatever -- the thing that most consumers think of when they consider Android). They manifestly have a profound connection with each other. And let's be clear here lest there be any confusion -- zero customers want a vendor to do anything different, and the only reason some vendors wanted to is because they could double dip: Pitch the Android experience and get the market inroads, while getting some Bing or whatever payola to "force" that on a consumer. The same is true of the other claim- Then they said "You can't use Google Play if you try to help develop any android forks." Google's argument, whether honest or not, is that if you need a consistent representation of the Android experience that you're selling to consumers. If the GS8 has the full Android experience, but then the GS8P has the Android Fun Store and Bing Search, this can seriously dilute the market opinion of Android and cause consumer confusion. This is absolutely not at all clear cut. It is incredibly nuanced. And if we just go around clubbing everything coarsely, why does my BMW have a BMW entertainment system? Why couldn't I choose Alpine at the dealer? An entertainment system is not an engine, right? I don't want to go down the road of absurd analogies, but if you're seriously presenting the notion that this is clear cut, you are not really thinking about it much. As an aside, Google has had the same policies regard their suite of apps since day 1 of Android. Since the very beginning. When iOS absolutely dwarfed it. When Blackberry reigned supreme. When I was hefting around my sad little HTC Dream and listening to the John Gruber's tell us how doomed it was.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
anilakar 8y ago
Is this yet another case of trying to apply an American interpretation to a European law? I thought we all had a similar discussion when GDPR came into effect.
- gergles 8y ago
  Hopefully it isn't yet another case of smug Europeans preening and going "Oh, you stupid Americans, our regulators are different and would never levy gigantic fines. Instead, they come give you a hug and have a cup of tea and politely ask you to please stop, and they would never ever in a billion years abuse this extremely wide-ranging law for political ends!"
  - Ienuur4i 8y ago
    > Instead, they come give you a hug and have a cup of tea and politely ask you to please stop They did. Google didn't comply.
  - _khau 8y ago
    Every time a US company is fined there are people that claim it is all protectionism and punishment with nothing to back it up (ironic, considering the degree of protectionism the US engages in). They are just sour that their precious tech companies are being brought to task for behaving like shitty house guests by not following the rules. These companies might be able to get away with whatever the hell they please back home but get this; the American Way isn't the only way. It's just a very shitty dismissal of the very real concerns of US tech companies and their disregard for the laws and regulations in the countries in which they operate. Laws and regulations that EU companies have to follow too. The only real upset here comes from companies like Google, and their rabid supporters at the prospect of them not being able to implement their shitty consumer-hostile, ring-fencing business model in other countries. Google were given two year's notice before this fine. TWO YEARS. It's their own damn fault and the fine is punitive, as it should be.
    - LamaOfRuin 8y ago
      I have no problem with the result, or the punitive nature of it. I do think that basing fine calculations for violations of EU law on global revenue is a problematic precedent (though if it was based on EU revenue it would absolutely have to have a fair amount of latitude in calculation to avoid all the same tax dodges already in use).
delecti 8y ago
What Google was doing was extremely similar to what got Microsoft in trouble for bundling Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player back in the day, and there have been rumblings that the EU was looking at them for it for years. I don't know how you could argue this is a surprise.
cortic 8y ago
>"well it's only a quarter's earnings across all of Google" actually, 2017 google made $110B so its not 1/4 but 1/22 of their profits last year.. enormous? meh.
- gniv 8y ago
  That's revenue. Earnings last year were $12.7B.
- dlp211 8y ago
  That's revenue, not profits. That is also not even revenue but annual run rate based on Q4.
sjcsjc 8y ago
Grammar point. You "flout" a law. You don't "flaunt" it (unless you think it's really good)
- bovermyer 8y ago
  Normally I would say this is being pedantic, but I think the difference in meaning is important enough that this point shouldn't be ignored.
sorokod 8y ago
no, the law isn't "clear" Well , judges had a look and decided it was
- miracle2k 8y ago
  No, this is a decision by political appointees. I assume judges might have a look if Google goes the court.
  - sorokod 8y ago
    True - not judges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission
rmc 8y ago
Small fines don't work. Large fines get attention.
- ionised 8y ago
  Exactly, they have to be punitive otherwise they are just absorbed as a cost of doing business.
mkirklions 8y ago
>I personally recently switched my daily driver to an iPhone for that reason Thats funny you think Apple doesnt have bad practices... They are seemingly the worst when it comes to IP and giving customers and developers what they want.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
39d3493I93 8y ago
What you don't realize maybe is that the "ring" is more a notice that the multinationals need to spend more money on crooked EU politicians and support more efforts to undermine the bureaucratic state that initiates these types of things out of that common European jealousy and spite. Reality is that THIS is the result of a governance structure run amok in the EU that is nothing short of an authoritarian state that has totally undermined democracy, sovereignty of people and culture, and is on a dark path that is clear to those who have a background to understand. There is a huge chasm between what people think the EU is and what the "Socialism" of Europe is, and what it really is. The US President was actually quite right in characterizing Europe how ever he did that amounted to Europe not really being a friend at all. The EU and Europe in general are "Friends" the same way that celebrities have "Friends" that are "Friends" as long as they get things out of it or they still are star struck by you, and some will even sell you out to the paparazzi behind your back while smiling to your face and telling you you can trust them. We are in a very messy time right now and anyone who thinks they can trust anyone but their own is going to meet an inevitable demise. That's just reality that so many these days simply cannot seem to comprehend for some reason. All places and all people are simply not the same and none of them are trustworthy to any degree more than of provable. It always strikes me as bizarre that tech folks seem to have the most surprising time with these things when they are supposed to be the ones that understand trust chains and systems thinking and networks and threats and risks.
some_account 8y ago
Considering how much Google profits from selling users private information, this is well deserved karma.
chappi42 8y ago
> This is a dangerous ruling that pushes the world further into the potential for trade wars by proxy. Don't think trade wars applies. The reasons were given and I think they are correct. Personally I'm glad that the EU has the power to (at least a bit) influence such huge corporations.
thisisit 8y ago
> simply saying "Surprise....enormous fine" is ridiculous. The case started in 2015. So Google had enough time to appeal and provide info to regulators. So, it wasn't a surprise. Yes the law might not be clear but I think the deliberations took time because of the same reason. If laws were clearer Google fines might have happened back in 2015.
atomi 8y ago
Google will start charging phone manufacturers to use Android on their devices. And they'll pass that on to consumers. The EU will get their check.
- gowld 8y ago
  Then maybe consumers will start buying lower priced phones with a different OS.
  - DeathArrow 8y ago
    The only other OS is iOS.
- codedokode 8y ago
  Android is free; Google Play Services and Google Play are proprietary Google software and they can be replaced, for example, with F-Droid store or Yandex store.
  - anon12341234 8y ago
    Android won't be free if this fine withstands appeal. No company is going to suffer billion dollars fines to give away free software. Google will have no choice but start charging OEMs to use android, and OEMs will have no choice but to pass the costs onto their customers. This ruling is a loss for everybody.
  - genericid 8y ago
    Windows is free, ntoskrnl.exe and Win32 are properietary Microsoft software and they can be replaced, for example, with Linux and Wine.
    - omnimus 8y ago
      People use windows for the GUI/experience. If manufacturers started to use nongoogle version of android the GUI/experience would not change much. Also many people buy windows license separate from their device. Google surely does not want situation where people buy google services license... they want mass adoption for data collection. If google starts to charge for android then i am sure there will be manufactures selling phone without OS. I would be 100% up for it.
jumelles 8y ago
The fine is supposed to be enormous, it’s not just a slap on the wrist.
dmos62 8y ago
To put the $5B fine into perspective: - Google had an operating income of 32.9 billion in 2017 [0]. $5B fine for anti-trust practices is 15.2% (5 / 32.9) of that. - HSBC had an operating income of 63.8 billion in 2017 [1]. In 2017, HSBC suffered a $1.9B fine for _willfully_ relaxing it's anti-money laundering filters in order to profit from the illegal drug industry, regimes that are embargoed, and entities or individuals who are suspected of financing terrorism [2]. That's a 1.9 / 63.8 = 0.29% fine for helping finance murderers. That puts the Google fine into perspective, but it probably says more about the HSBC case than it does about Google's. It should be noted that HSBC broke a deal to avoid prosecution, thanks to then Attorney General Eric Holder who overruled prosecutors' recommendation to pursue criminal charges. As part of the deal, HSBC confessed to above allegations, which was just a theory at the time. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/513129/operating-income-google/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/513129/operating-income-... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/258399/total-operating-income-at-hsbc/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/258399/total-operating-i... [2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-documentary-re-examines-hsbcs-881-million-money-laundering-scandal-2018-02-21 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-documentary-re-exa...
- laser 8y ago
  1.9 / 63.8 != 0.29%
  - dmos62 8y ago
    1.9 / 63.8 = 0,02978056426332288401253918495298 ~= 0.2978% ~= 0.3%. I didn't round very well, but I'd say I was close enough.
    - hoffs 8y ago
      It's 2.9% ...
      - dmos62 8y ago
        That's right. Silly me.
flexie 8y ago
It's not a ruling. It's an administrative decision. And it's not dangerous. It has nothing to do with trade wars. Even insinuating that this is somehow a corrupt decision that takes aim at American companies is just way off. This decision has been several years in the making, and Google was told to stop their illegal conduct in April 2016. EU treaty article 102 is about as clear as it gets. Google even had precedence to look at. And finally, they were warned by the EU commission more than 2 years ago but chose not to comply. This is a company with hundreds of lawyers on staff, and with the best law firms on retainer. The fine is huge, but it's a small fraction of their revenue. This fine is measured based on guidelines that have been the same for more than a decade: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52006XC0901(01) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52...
meiraleal 8y ago
> This is a dangerous ruling that pushes the world further into the potential for trade wars by proxy. I think that this is already a counter-attack of "dieselgate".
anigbrowl 8y ago
the fine is enormous. Various "well it's only a quarter's earnings across all of Google" are outrageous. Why? It's meant to be a meaningful penalty that shareholders will feel in their pockets. If fines are just a small cost of doing business, all the evidence is that firms shrug and pay them, because the producer surplus they reap is usually much larger than the fine.

akie 8y ago

> is going to ring across all multinationals as a warning I'm not sure how that's a bad thing.

tajen 8y ago
Although I’m quite happy my territories have been strong enough to impose $2bn fines in Microsoft and $4bn on Google, especially to defend interoperability and parcel markets, I’m not sure I want the consequences. - Trump could react. He has already denied the WTO, he may disclaim other US-EU treaties farther because of the fines we impose on US companies. - If Android is a monopoly, what about Apple. Do we want more competition in Apple hardware and shipped software? - Google wanted to have a uniform Android experience across all devices, for better readability across customers. Now will I recommend Android to my mother if the EU said it should be able to be shipped with all Google apps are replaced with an inferior Samsung app (e.g. the Samsung app store) ? Of course Google could publish a “Google experience” and an “OEM Android” version so we know that the OEM version gives us a crap device, but OEM is the kind of things that killed the Windows experience for most users.

Dayshine 8y ago

Let's read the law: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E102&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... >Article 102 >Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. >Such abuse may, in particular, consist in: >b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers >d)making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts Ok, so, Google said "You can't use Google Play unless you force users to have Google Search installed". How is that not clearly breaching d? Then they said "You can't use Google Play if you try to help develop any android forks." How is that not clearly breaching b? >but simply saying "Surprise....enormous fine" is ridiculous They've had at least two years notice, so could have reduced their fine by complying when they were first warned. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm The article literally warns about the exact things they're still doing.

Wheaties466 8y ago
Thank you for breaking this down. I can already see headlines bashing the EU though.
endorphone 8y ago
How is that not clearly breaching d? They're a part of the same suite of apps that provide the "Android experience" (Google experience, whatever -- the thing that most consumers think of when they consider Android). They manifestly have a profound connection with each other. And let's be clear here lest there be any confusion -- zero customers want a vendor to do anything different, and the only reason some vendors wanted to is because they could double dip: Pitch the Android experience and get the market inroads, while getting some Bing or whatever payola to "force" that on a consumer. The same is true of the other claim- Then they said "You can't use Google Play if you try to help develop any android forks." Google's argument, whether honest or not, is that if you need a consistent representation of the Android experience that you're selling to consumers. If the GS8 has the full Android experience, but then the GS8P has the Android Fun Store and Bing Search, this can seriously dilute the market opinion of Android and cause consumer confusion. This is absolutely not at all clear cut. It is incredibly nuanced. And if we just go around clubbing everything coarsely, why does my BMW have a BMW entertainment system? Why couldn't I choose Alpine at the dealer? An entertainment system is not an engine, right? I don't want to go down the road of absurd analogies, but if you're seriously presenting the notion that this is clear cut, you are not really thinking about it much. As an aside, Google has had the same policies regard their suite of apps since day 1 of Android. Since the very beginning. When iOS absolutely dwarfed it. When Blackberry reigned supreme. When I was hefting around my sad little HTC Dream and listening to the John Gruber's tell us how doomed it was.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

anilakar 8y ago

Is this yet another case of trying to apply an American interpretation to a European law? I thought we all had a similar discussion when GDPR came into effect.

gergles 8y ago
Hopefully it isn't yet another case of smug Europeans preening and going "Oh, you stupid Americans, our regulators are different and would never levy gigantic fines. Instead, they come give you a hug and have a cup of tea and politely ask you to please stop, and they would never ever in a billion years abuse this extremely wide-ranging law for political ends!"
- Ienuur4i 8y ago
  > Instead, they come give you a hug and have a cup of tea and politely ask you to please stop They did. Google didn't comply.
- _khau 8y ago
  Every time a US company is fined there are people that claim it is all protectionism and punishment with nothing to back it up (ironic, considering the degree of protectionism the US engages in). They are just sour that their precious tech companies are being brought to task for behaving like shitty house guests by not following the rules. These companies might be able to get away with whatever the hell they please back home but get this; the American Way isn't the only way. It's just a very shitty dismissal of the very real concerns of US tech companies and their disregard for the laws and regulations in the countries in which they operate. Laws and regulations that EU companies have to follow too. The only real upset here comes from companies like Google, and their rabid supporters at the prospect of them not being able to implement their shitty consumer-hostile, ring-fencing business model in other countries. Google were given two year's notice before this fine. TWO YEARS. It's their own damn fault and the fine is punitive, as it should be.
  - LamaOfRuin 8y ago
    I have no problem with the result, or the punitive nature of it. I do think that basing fine calculations for violations of EU law on global revenue is a problematic precedent (though if it was based on EU revenue it would absolutely have to have a fair amount of latitude in calculation to avoid all the same tax dodges already in use).

delecti 8y ago

What Google was doing was extremely similar to what got Microsoft in trouble for bundling Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player back in the day, and there have been rumblings that the EU was looking at them for it for years. I don't know how you could argue this is a surprise.

cortic 8y ago

>"well it's only a quarter's earnings across all of Google" actually, 2017 google made $110B so its not 1/4 but 1/22 of their profits last year.. enormous? meh.

gniv 8y ago
That's revenue. Earnings last year were $12.7B.
dlp211 8y ago
That's revenue, not profits. That is also not even revenue but annual run rate based on Q4.

sjcsjc 8y ago

Grammar point. You "flout" a law. You don't "flaunt" it (unless you think it's really good)

bovermyer 8y ago
Normally I would say this is being pedantic, but I think the difference in meaning is important enough that this point shouldn't be ignored.

sorokod 8y ago

no, the law isn't "clear" Well , judges had a look and decided it was

miracle2k 8y ago
No, this is a decision by political appointees. I assume judges might have a look if Google goes the court.
- sorokod 8y ago
  True - not judges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

rmc 8y ago

Small fines don't work. Large fines get attention.

ionised 8y ago
Exactly, they have to be punitive otherwise they are just absorbed as a cost of doing business.

mkirklions 8y ago

>I personally recently switched my daily driver to an iPhone for that reason Thats funny you think Apple doesnt have bad practices... They are seemingly the worst when it comes to IP and giving customers and developers what they want.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

39d3493I93 8y ago

What you don't realize maybe is that the "ring" is more a notice that the multinationals need to spend more money on crooked EU politicians and support more efforts to undermine the bureaucratic state that initiates these types of things out of that common European jealousy and spite. Reality is that THIS is the result of a governance structure run amok in the EU that is nothing short of an authoritarian state that has totally undermined democracy, sovereignty of people and culture, and is on a dark path that is clear to those who have a background to understand. There is a huge chasm between what people think the EU is and what the "Socialism" of Europe is, and what it really is. The US President was actually quite right in characterizing Europe how ever he did that amounted to Europe not really being a friend at all. The EU and Europe in general are "Friends" the same way that celebrities have "Friends" that are "Friends" as long as they get things out of it or they still are star struck by you, and some will even sell you out to the paparazzi behind your back while smiling to your face and telling you you can trust them. We are in a very messy time right now and anyone who thinks they can trust anyone but their own is going to meet an inevitable demise. That's just reality that so many these days simply cannot seem to comprehend for some reason. All places and all people are simply not the same and none of them are trustworthy to any degree more than of provable. It always strikes me as bizarre that tech folks seem to have the most surprising time with these things when they are supposed to be the ones that understand trust chains and systems thinking and networks and threats and risks.

some_account 8y ago

Considering how much Google profits from selling users private information, this is well deserved karma.

chappi42 8y ago

> This is a dangerous ruling that pushes the world further into the potential for trade wars by proxy. Don't think trade wars applies. The reasons were given and I think they are correct. Personally I'm glad that the EU has the power to (at least a bit) influence such huge corporations.

thisisit 8y ago

> simply saying "Surprise....enormous fine" is ridiculous. The case started in 2015. So Google had enough time to appeal and provide info to regulators. So, it wasn't a surprise. Yes the law might not be clear but I think the deliberations took time because of the same reason. If laws were clearer Google fines might have happened back in 2015.

atomi 8y ago

Google will start charging phone manufacturers to use Android on their devices. And they'll pass that on to consumers. The EU will get their check.

gowld 8y ago
Then maybe consumers will start buying lower priced phones with a different OS.
- DeathArrow 8y ago
  The only other OS is iOS.
codedokode 8y ago
Android is free; Google Play Services and Google Play are proprietary Google software and they can be replaced, for example, with F-Droid store or Yandex store.
- anon12341234 8y ago
  Android won't be free if this fine withstands appeal. No company is going to suffer billion dollars fines to give away free software. Google will have no choice but start charging OEMs to use android, and OEMs will have no choice but to pass the costs onto their customers. This ruling is a loss for everybody.
- genericid 8y ago
  Windows is free, ntoskrnl.exe and Win32 are properietary Microsoft software and they can be replaced, for example, with Linux and Wine.
  - omnimus 8y ago
    People use windows for the GUI/experience. If manufacturers started to use nongoogle version of android the GUI/experience would not change much. Also many people buy windows license separate from their device. Google surely does not want situation where people buy google services license... they want mass adoption for data collection. If google starts to charge for android then i am sure there will be manufactures selling phone without OS. I would be 100% up for it.

jumelles 8y ago

The fine is supposed to be enormous, it’s not just a slap on the wrist.

dmos62 8y ago

To put the $5B fine into perspective: - Google had an operating income of 32.9 billion in 2017 [0]. $5B fine for anti-trust practices is 15.2% (5 / 32.9) of that. - HSBC had an operating income of 63.8 billion in 2017 [1]. In 2017, HSBC suffered a $1.9B fine for _willfully_ relaxing it's anti-money laundering filters in order to profit from the illegal drug industry, regimes that are embargoed, and entities or individuals who are suspected of financing terrorism [2]. That's a 1.9 / 63.8 = 0.29% fine for helping finance murderers. That puts the Google fine into perspective, but it probably says more about the HSBC case than it does about Google's. It should be noted that HSBC broke a deal to avoid prosecution, thanks to then Attorney General Eric Holder who overruled prosecutors' recommendation to pursue criminal charges. As part of the deal, HSBC confessed to above allegations, which was just a theory at the time. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/513129/operating-income-google/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/513129/operating-income-... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/258399/total-operating-income-at-hsbc/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/258399/total-operating-i... [2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-documentary-re-examines-hsbcs-881-million-money-laundering-scandal-2018-02-21 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-documentary-re-exa...

laser 8y ago
1.9 / 63.8 != 0.29%
- dmos62 8y ago
  1.9 / 63.8 = 0,02978056426332288401253918495298 ~= 0.2978% ~= 0.3%. I didn't round very well, but I'd say I was close enough.
  - hoffs 8y ago
    It's 2.9% ...
    - dmos62 8y ago
      That's right. Silly me.

flexie 8y ago

It's not a ruling. It's an administrative decision. And it's not dangerous. It has nothing to do with trade wars. Even insinuating that this is somehow a corrupt decision that takes aim at American companies is just way off. This decision has been several years in the making, and Google was told to stop their illegal conduct in April 2016. EU treaty article 102 is about as clear as it gets. Google even had precedence to look at. And finally, they were warned by the EU commission more than 2 years ago but chose not to comply. This is a company with hundreds of lawyers on staff, and with the best law firms on retainer. The fine is huge, but it's a small fraction of their revenue. This fine is measured based on guidelines that have been the same for more than a decade: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52006XC0901(01) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52...

meiraleal 8y ago

> This is a dangerous ruling that pushes the world further into the potential for trade wars by proxy. I think that this is already a counter-attack of "dieselgate".

anigbrowl 8y ago

the fine is enormous. Various "well it's only a quarter's earnings across all of Google" are outrageous. Why? It's meant to be a meaningful penalty that shareholders will feel in their pockets. If fines are just a small cost of doing business, all the evidence is that firms shrug and pay them, because the producer surplus they reap is usually much larger than the fine.