That sounds like an equity grab to me. That sounds more like a subset of protectionism. Its a simple economic concept where policies or doctrines are implement

That sounds like an equity grab to me. That sounds more like a subset of protectionism. Its a simple economic concept where policies or doctrines are implemented which protect businesses and workers within a country by restricting or regulating trade with foreign nations. I prefer free markets and am generally biased against protectionism, but at times its required. The most common argument for Protectionism is the "infant industry" justification. Considering in 1973 India was 25 years old. The infant theory can be given some merit. Also note the "Indicators of foreign direct investment regulation in 87 economies"[0] study by world bank, which gives more insight into this. The protections were enshrined elsewhere. Please find me one economic law that was repealed anywhere due to being restrictive, where the sections of laws that worked or were still needed were not enshrined elsewhere. Actually I know of one that was not enshrined elsewhere i.e. Glass–Steagall Act. But that's a whole different story. such shenanigans aren't out of the ordinary from the Indian power players. Such shenanigans aren't out of the ordinary from power players in ANY country that has ever implemented or enacted protectionism. So a country where you have to get a permit for doing every small thing I must be missing something here, I think procedures and permits are a sign of a developed or developing economy. Can you tell me a business in North America or EU where a Foreign Corporation or even a citizen could do business without getting any permits or licences? Some may have more streamlined systems to get the licenses, but I doubt the streamlined process was version 1 of the system. There's a bribe associated with each permit Finally something I agree on. I find the whole business with bribing extremely morally challenging. And I'd try and stay away from businesses and countries where this is required by default. But I have to ask, from a capitalist point of view, if a corporation wants to do business in such an atmosphere, could this atmosphere be concluded as the cost of doing business? Also read up on this a bit further, turns out Coke was the largest contributor to the previous government's political campaign in the early 70's which resulted in the opposition party exerting extra pressure on Coke when the opposition came into power in India. I've said nothing about the amount or the complaint Thank you for stating this. The topic is a discussion on Google being potentially fined for anti-competition and anti-trust behavior similar to the one's pursued and later settled by the FTC and EU. The complaints have been around for a few years, and not necessarily a money grab. Also as their(India's) current law does not have a provision for settlement or withdrawal, the country has no choice but to investigate the original complaint. The alternative solution would be to make nudge-nudge-wink-wink type of settlement with a bribe or just letting it slip between the cracks and do nothing. [0] http://iab.worldbank.org/~/media/FPDKM/IAB/Documents/IAB-report.pdf http://iab.worldbank.org/~/media/FPDKM/IAB/Documents/IAB-rep...