4 ms·

Does it not sound hypocritical to sue a corporation for pre-installing software (Microsoft installing IE on Windows) and also suing another corporation for not

Does it not sound hypocritical to sue a corporation for pre-installing software (Microsoft installing IE on Windows) and also suing another corporation for not allowing software to be pre-installed? I also wonder how they come up with the multi-billion dollar values? How does that massive amount of money actually help repair whatever "economical damage" that was inflicted by not having some sort of app pre-installed on a device?

jhasse 8y ago
> How does that massive amount of money actually help repair whatever "economical damage" that was inflicted by not having some sort of app pre-installed on a device? By creating an incentive for Google (and other corporations) not to do it again.
Daishiman 8y ago
This is a complete non-sequitur.
DenisM 8y ago
The question is whether manufacturers had a choice, and the problem is that they did not because monopoly. Massive fines discourage monopolistic behavior, if nothing else.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Massive fines discourage monopolistic behavior, if nothing else. The problem is businesses may take it as a signal that the EU is against foreign businesses rather than against monopolistic practices, in which case the thing being deterred is doing business in the EU rather than monopolistic practices. To show otherwise they would have to levy equally large fines against local businesses engaged in the same sort of practices, which they haven't and likely won't. If they really wanted to signal discouragement of monopolistic behavior rather than a cash grab they would be ordering specific conduct rather than excessive fines. For example, if the issue is that they promoted Google Chrome in an unacceptable way, prohibit them from distributing Google Chrome in the EU for five years. And then do the same thing to Microsoft just to be even-handed, because they're still bundling their browser with Windows. And likewise with Apple and Safari. Let everyone use Firefox for five years and see how much browser bundling happens after that.
  - whostolemyhat 8y ago
    Microsoft had to have a browser choice screen the first time you tried to use IE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > Microsoft had to have a browser choice screen the first time you tried to use IE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu And if that actually restores competition then you don't need a five billion dollar fine.
      - DenisM 8y ago
        Both punitive and compensatory/reparation measures habevtgeir place.
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        It's a matter of proportionality. A punishment that is the economic equivalent of the destruction of a small city is proportional to something on the order of mass murder, not the prominence of certain information on a company's web page.
        Radle 8y ago
        If a company creates damages exceeding billions of dollars, it's quite obvious that they should receive penalty worth billions of dollars. That's basic proportionality.
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > If a company creates damages exceeding billions of dollars, it's quite obvious that they should receive penalty worth billions of dollars. That is entirely tautological. It omits the reasoning under which that spectacular amount of irreparable damages have actually occurred to consumers. "They have a lot of money and we would like to have that" is not a valid method of calculating damages.

jhasse 8y ago

> How does that massive amount of money actually help repair whatever "economical damage" that was inflicted by not having some sort of app pre-installed on a device? By creating an incentive for Google (and other corporations) not to do it again.

Daishiman 8y ago

This is a complete non-sequitur.

DenisM 8y ago

The question is whether manufacturers had a choice, and the problem is that they did not because monopoly. Massive fines discourage monopolistic behavior, if nothing else.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Massive fines discourage monopolistic behavior, if nothing else. The problem is businesses may take it as a signal that the EU is against foreign businesses rather than against monopolistic practices, in which case the thing being deterred is doing business in the EU rather than monopolistic practices. To show otherwise they would have to levy equally large fines against local businesses engaged in the same sort of practices, which they haven't and likely won't. If they really wanted to signal discouragement of monopolistic behavior rather than a cash grab they would be ordering specific conduct rather than excessive fines. For example, if the issue is that they promoted Google Chrome in an unacceptable way, prohibit them from distributing Google Chrome in the EU for five years. And then do the same thing to Microsoft just to be even-handed, because they're still bundling their browser with Windows. And likewise with Apple and Safari. Let everyone use Firefox for five years and see how much browser bundling happens after that.
- whostolemyhat 8y ago
  Microsoft had to have a browser choice screen the first time you tried to use IE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Microsoft had to have a browser choice screen the first time you tried to use IE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu And if that actually restores competition then you don't need a five billion dollar fine.
    - DenisM 8y ago
      Both punitive and compensatory/reparation measures habevtgeir place.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        It's a matter of proportionality. A punishment that is the economic equivalent of the destruction of a small city is proportional to something on the order of mass murder, not the prominence of certain information on a company's web page.
        Radle 8y ago
        If a company creates damages exceeding billions of dollars, it's quite obvious that they should receive penalty worth billions of dollars. That's basic proportionality.
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > If a company creates damages exceeding billions of dollars, it's quite obvious that they should receive penalty worth billions of dollars. That is entirely tautological. It omits the reasoning under which that spectacular amount of irreparable damages have actually occurred to consumers. "They have a lot of money and we would like to have that" is not a valid method of calculating damages.