5 ms·

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/B

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...
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > 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. "They have a lot of money and we would like to have that." The actual "damages" have nothing to do with their total revenue, only the revenue incident to the behavior in question, which is an independent value and not a percentage of total revenue. For example, if they improve their search engine which causes more people to use it, it doesn't change the actual amount of damage from separate actions -- it may even reduce it by transitioning some of the defaulted users into users who would make an affirmative choice in their favor -- but it would have increased the amount of the fine when calculated as a percentage of revenue because it would have increased their total revenue.
        Brockenstein 8y ago
        Well you're making some assumptions about damages and maybe have opinions what constitutes damages. I think the other side you have to consider is if revenue related to wrong doing is in the billions and your fine is in the thousands, it's toothless. Companies will gladly pay a pittance in fines over and over again against billions in revenue. That's not ideal from and enforcement standpoint. It doesn't get companies to follow the law and play by the rules. There's consequences for that too, voters have opinions about their governments letting companies run amok without any real consequences or deterrents.
        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...
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > 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. "They have a lot of money and we would like to have that." The actual "damages" have nothing to do with their total revenue, only the revenue incident to the behavior in question, which is an independent value and not a percentage of total revenue. For example, if they improve their search engine which causes more people to use it, it doesn't change the actual amount of damage from separate actions -- it may even reduce it by transitioning some of the defaulted users into users who would make an affirmative choice in their favor -- but it would have increased the amount of the fine when calculated as a percentage of revenue because it would have increased their total revenue.
        Brockenstein 8y ago
        Well you're making some assumptions about damages and maybe have opinions what constitutes damages. I think the other side you have to consider is if revenue related to wrong doing is in the billions and your fine is in the thousands, it's toothless. Companies will gladly pay a pittance in fines over and over again against billions in revenue. That's not ideal from and enforcement standpoint. It doesn't get companies to follow the law and play by the rules. There's consequences for that too, voters have opinions about their governments letting companies run amok without any real consequences or deterrents.
        8y ago