4 ms·
The mandate is to regulate monopolies. Regulation is always easier if the company isn't a key player in your own economy - just compare the fines against Volksw
by thomasz 8y ago
The mandate is to regulate monopolies. Regulation is always easier if the company isn't a key player in your own economy - just compare the fines against Volkswagen in the US and Germany. And honestly, I don't think this is ridiculous at all. At least not more ridiculous than the case against Microsoft for bundling IE with windows. The only ridiculous thing is that the US has stopped any pretence of regulating monopolies by itself.
- dahfizz 8y ago> The only ridiculous thing is that the US has stopped any pretence of regulating monopolies by itself. The difference is that US antitrust laws require the consumer to be harmed. I think it's pretty easy to make the argument that everyone uses Google, not because they are compelled to, but because they want to because Google is better than the competition. Consumers are better off with the superior product that Google provides. On the other hand, EU antitrust laws let them attack companies just for being big. This seems ridiculous to me because, often times, a company is big because consumers prefer it. Having a 'hobble the leader' economy necessarily hurts the consumers that want the better product from the bigger company.
- thomasz 8y agoThe anti trust case against Microsoft was built on the fact that they bundled IE with windows. For free.