4 ms·

The question is whether manufacturers had a choice, and the problem is that they did not because monopoly. Massive fines discourage monopolistic behavior, if n

by 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.
        Joeri 8y ago
        From the press release: the fine has been calculated on the basis of the value of Google's revenue from search advertising services on Android devices in the EEA. In other words, Google had an unfair advantage for search on android devices and leveraged that into revenue. The fine is a percentage of that ill-gotten revenue. There’s an official guideline for calculating damages when anticompetitive behavior is found: 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...
- reitanqild 8y ago
  You do understand that nobody, including politicians and FF users want to remove Chrome, Edge or Safari? You do understand that doing that would probably cost those companies (and everyone else) a lot more? We only want a level playing field. Giving companies a real fine is just a way to make sure the board and the shareholders actually gets the message ;-)
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > You do understand that nobody, including politicians and FF users want to remove Chrome, Edge or Safari? It's punishment. If somebody wants it then somebody has a perverse incentive. > You do understand that doing that would probably cost those companies (and everyone else) a lot more? Exactly. You actually punish them, in the way directly contrary the the goal they were trying to achieve with their bad behavior, without suspiciously enriching yourselves in a way that calls your true motives into question. > We only want a level playing field. Giving companies a real fine is just a way to make sure the board and the shareholders actually gets the message ;-) But what message are they getting? It's not as if there is a clear roadmap for how to avoid this sort of thing. Antitrust laws are super vague and prohibit a wide variety of common business practices, to make it effective to use them against powerful nefarious entities with many lawyers. The theory is that the government will only use them against bad actors. But if the government considers you a bad actor just because you're a foreign company, what are you supposed to do then?
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      > just because you're a foreign company, what are you supposed to do then? Most foreign companies aren't considered bad actors. We are talking about 1) the old Microsoft here - definitely a bad actor - getting rid of it seems to have been refreshing even for Microsoft shareholders. - 2) Google, a company we many of us loved at some point but who might now be in need of some refreshing at least in some areas.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > Most foreign companies aren't considered bad actors. Google wasn't considered a bad actor until then they were. > the old Microsoft here - definitely a bad actor - getting rid of it seems to have been refreshing even for Microsoft shareholders. The old Microsoft deserved everything they got and then some. But even then, it would have been nice for the penalties to be more "actually effective in increasing competition in PC desktop operating systems" and less "suspiciously convenient transfer of large sums of money."

by 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.
        Joeri 8y ago
        From the press release: the fine has been calculated on the basis of the value of Google's revenue from search advertising services on Android devices in the EEA. In other words, Google had an unfair advantage for search on android devices and leveraged that into revenue. The fine is a percentage of that ill-gotten revenue. There’s an official guideline for calculating damages when anticompetitive behavior is found: 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...
reitanqild 8y ago
You do understand that nobody, including politicians and FF users want to remove Chrome, Edge or Safari? You do understand that doing that would probably cost those companies (and everyone else) a lot more? We only want a level playing field. Giving companies a real fine is just a way to make sure the board and the shareholders actually gets the message ;-)
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > You do understand that nobody, including politicians and FF users want to remove Chrome, Edge or Safari? It's punishment. If somebody wants it then somebody has a perverse incentive. > You do understand that doing that would probably cost those companies (and everyone else) a lot more? Exactly. You actually punish them, in the way directly contrary the the goal they were trying to achieve with their bad behavior, without suspiciously enriching yourselves in a way that calls your true motives into question. > We only want a level playing field. Giving companies a real fine is just a way to make sure the board and the shareholders actually gets the message ;-) But what message are they getting? It's not as if there is a clear roadmap for how to avoid this sort of thing. Antitrust laws are super vague and prohibit a wide variety of common business practices, to make it effective to use them against powerful nefarious entities with many lawyers. The theory is that the government will only use them against bad actors. But if the government considers you a bad actor just because you're a foreign company, what are you supposed to do then?
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    > just because you're a foreign company, what are you supposed to do then? Most foreign companies aren't considered bad actors. We are talking about 1) the old Microsoft here - definitely a bad actor - getting rid of it seems to have been refreshing even for Microsoft shareholders. - 2) Google, a company we many of us loved at some point but who might now be in need of some refreshing at least in some areas.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > Most foreign companies aren't considered bad actors. Google wasn't considered a bad actor until then they were. > the old Microsoft here - definitely a bad actor - getting rid of it seems to have been refreshing even for Microsoft shareholders. The old Microsoft deserved everything they got and then some. But even then, it would have been nice for the penalties to be more "actually effective in increasing competition in PC desktop operating systems" and less "suspiciously convenient transfer of large sums of money."