EU Official Says It's Time To Harm American Internet Companies Via Regulations... Hours Later Antitrust Charges Against Google Announced
from the as-expected dept
This has been expected for a few weeks now (or a few months, depending on how you look at it), but the EU is now officially getting ready to file antitrust charges against Google. The WSJ has the initial report with very few details:Europe’s antitrust regulator has decided to file formal charges against Google Inc. for violating the bloc’s antitrust laws, a person familiar with the matter said on Tuesday, stepping up a five-year investigation that is set to become the biggest competition battle in Brussels since the European Union’s pursuit of Microsoft Corp. a decade ago.This also happens to come out the very same day that the EU's digital commissioner, Gunther Oettinger, has announced that the EU should regulate American internet companies to provide a bigger opportunity for European companies:
The European Union should regulate Internet platforms in a way that allows a new generation of European operators to overtake the dominant U.S. players, the bloc’s digital czar said, in an unusually blunt assessment of the risks that U.S. Web giants are viewed as posing to the continent’s industrial heartland.Obviously, the details of the charges against Google matter quite a bit, but, as we've said in the past, it seems odd that technocrat regulators seem to think that they know how to better design a search engine or a social network than the companies who have actually been doing so. Furthermore, the idea that European companies are at some sort of inherent disadvantage to American startups seems disproved by the success of multiple European internet companies, including Spotify and Soundcloud. Those companies didn't succeed by having regulators kneecap their competitors, but by building a better product.
Speaking at a major industrial fair in Hannover, Germany, the EU’s digital commissioner, Günther Oettinger, said Europe’s online businesses were “dependent on a few non-EU players world-wide” because the region had “missed many opportunities” in the development of online platforms.
Mr. Oettinger spoke of the need to “replace today’s Web search engines, operating systems and social networks” without naming any companies.
Again, the specifics here definitely matter quite a bit, but given just how "transparent" EU regulators have been lately about wanting to take down successful American internet companies solely because they're successful and American, there are serious questions about the real motives behind this particular antitrust move. And, even worse, they don't seem to realize how a misguided antitrust fight will come back around and harm European internet companies as well, limiting their ability to truly compete.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, competition, eu, gunther oettinger, innovation, internet
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I just use something that meets my needs and consider it a product of the GLOBAL INTERNET.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After so many years using it I'd expect we'd be a bit further along than this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My personal stance is nuanced... while I am unconvinced that Google is a monopoly that requires antitrust actions, I am also aware that the EU has the right to set whatever rules it wishes about such things. I don't see this action as being against some sort of fundamental human right that would warrant popular retaliation outside of the EU.
So, in the end, my perspective is that it's pretty much an internal EU matter and I'm content to let them work it out in the manner they deem best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Americans innovate, Europeans regulate"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People innovate, Americans buy up innovations, patent and re-badge as American, Europeans regulate.
If you look very closely at the history of inventiveness and innovation, one begins to realise that America's greatness in this area is to fund development (but take ownership by patents and otherwise of the innovations). It does have some level of inventiveness and innovation but no where near the level it thinks it has.
Simply look at the 70's and 80's when foreign nationals were being restricted from participating in high tech ventures, particularly when it was those very foreign nationals that had brought in the tech in the first place. I think of it as the time of the IEEE wars. Or going further back, look at WWII and medicine. Or the developments that occurred in aviation, film technology, scientific test equipment and research, etc.
I read many articles that seem to indicate that these are American innovation but are, in fact, from diverse places around the world and the basic American contribution was currency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovation and...
But here in the US (I can't speak for outside of the US) innovation is not merely restricted to improvements of end products, but also clever marketing, lobbying, DRM, and monopoly on features or even entire products.
Innovation isn't always a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
Proof that cooperating with NSA gains exemption from laws.
To Masnick, that's innovation, and so trots out this defense of multi-national spy corp.
Google DOES need taken down several notches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
Oh sorry, I meant under. Underwhelmed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
Anyways, anti-trusts is for busting up monopolies.
What does Google have a monopoly on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
Because they had to pretend to be upset for PR purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
The shepple's internet, basically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
That's like saying we need to bring Tom down for Theft so we'll charge him for murder. The charge does not match the 'crime'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
What governments and people get upset over is that these companies actually use the law as written to minimise their pecuniary burden and they are successful at it.
The problem here is not the actions of the companies in question but the legislative complexity underlying all Tax Law.
The various governmental tax collection agencies, with the various legislative bodies, are responsible for the mess in question. They have made it so complex that loophole after loophole becomes available.
The most effective way to deal with this problem is to simply rescind all tax legislation and start again with a simple tax code. But this will not happen because it would show up the various avenues that the governments use to remove your hard earned income. it would also show up the massive waste of resources that our individual governments create with this massive tax legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
True, and rightfully so.
"The problem here is not the actions of the companies in question but the legislative complexity underlying all Tax Law."
The problem is both. Tax law is insane, and that's a big problem. But the attitude that if something is legal then it's automatically right, proper, and acceptable to do is equally insane, and that's a big problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
They only oppose laws that adversely affect them, irrespective, of whether the specific laws are just or not. In recent decades, most of our guns were removed from circulation because of a very small number of high profile incidents. There is a women I know who believes that guns are evil and should not be allowed in the hands of anyone who is not law enforcement. This is an emotional issue for her (in her own words, she fears guns) and you cannot have a rational discussion with her about many things because of her emotional viewpoint.
You Americans demonstrate this mindset all the time. There are many, many people who live in the mindset that they aught to make a law against anything they don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
Absolutely correct. This is a something I've been railing against for most of my life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tyranny
The whole government-by-the-people thing emerged as a step forward because bad law has been the norm for pretty much the entirety of human history. (And then we still have tyranny of the majority.)
In the contemporary world where legislators are captured by corporate or plutocratic interests, good law is a pleasant surprise.
The police and legal systems who enforce bad law are doing it out of ignorance or ulterior motives (e.g. filling up prison cells, getting to shoot people dead and feel powerful.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
It is not about using tax law per se, it is about using differences in tax laws in different countries to avoid as much of the tax as possible!
Thus, if US starts over on tax code the fundamental problem of modern tax minimisation would remain.
And no, it is not possible for everyone to use these methods. It takes quite a lot of work to use the holes. Thus, the savings will come with an overhead that only larger economic movings can absorb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
Simplifying the Tax legislation reduces the complicated loopholes that are then used to drastically reduce the tax paid by multinational companies.
If the various tax legislations in the various countries allow processes to be set up that allow such drastic minimisation, that is still solvable by simplifying the tax legislation in even one of those countries.
If a particular country (say the USA) allows funds transfers between related companies where one is internal to the USA (so it is covered by the USA tax legislation) to one that is in another tax environment and so allows a drastic minimisation of tax collection in the USA. It is not the fault of the companies in question using these different tax legislations to minimise their payable tax. It is the responsibility of the relevant USA tax legislators to fix such.
The general means of doing this is to increase the complexity of the legislation, the consequence is that new avenues are created for minimisation. Simplifying the tax legislation is a first step to fixing the problem - it also requires a serious look at why particular levels of taxation are required and where the major wastage is occurring that require the levels being asked for.
Many years ago, the Australian Tax Office asked the reigning government at the time to approve an additional $350 million for audit processes. The expected return to the government of the day was a collection figure of $250 million. As the euphemism is, around the water cooler, some managers at the company I was doing work at were discussing this particular piece of news and the general consensus of the participants (of which I was not one) was that this should be grounds for sacking of those who made the proposal.
I see a problem with avoiding tax. I don't see a problem with minimising tax. if the legislators have made the rules and they now allow me to reduce what tax I pay, then bully for me. I have no guilt at paying less than someone else, if the rules put in place allow me to do so. No criticism by the government or other pundits saying that I should not be doing what I am allowed to do means anything.
With that said, the general tax legislations around the world are geared to be against the likes of you and me. If anyone wants to complain about the unfairness of what can be done, they need to take it up with their law makers and get them to fix it. However, as we are little fellows, our input will only serve to increase our burdens not decrease them because we are the basic patsies for the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
Not necessarily. There are a number of deductions that I am entitled to, but the overhead cost of actually taking them (in terms of recordkeeping and other hassles) exceeds the value of the deduction. It would be stupid for me to actually claim those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
Our Tax Office has a process where most people are entitled to an average deduction value. If you want to go over this, you need to provide details.
Yet sometimes the costs of the record keeping is itself a deduction. But I am assuming that you have streamlined your record keeping. I don't know what you have to do in the USA but here in Australia, your record keeping is essential anyway for anyone running any kind of business. If you're a standard Pay As You Earn tax payer, our tax office has made it relatively simple for you to claim your expenses and deductions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
"Yet sometimes the costs of the record keeping is itself a deduction."
Same in the US, but the deduction isn't nearly enough to cover the expense in many situations. Note that by "expense" here, I don't mean just monetary expense, but the time and subjective hassle as well.
"I don't know what you have to do in the USA but here in Australia, your record keeping is essential anyway for anyone running any kind of business."
I'm talking about personal income taxes here. For businesses, yes, you're doing the recordkeeping anyway. For your personal stuff, that's not required (except for tax purposes -- circling back around to the cost of claiming deductions). In other words, if you're running a business, you're filing tax returns for two entities: yourself, and the business. (Unless you're operating the business as a "sole proprietorship", which commingles the business and your personal finances. But you really shouldn't be doing that.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proprietorships and partnerships
Through at the time, incorporation was difficult and expensive. It still might be.
In a less litigious America, it was often a risk worth taking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proprietorships and partnerships
There's no such thing. I was working as a self-employed contractor. I bought an incorporation package from a lawyer, and client cheques went to its business account, from which I withdrew. It's the only way RevCan and the corps will allow. The sad part of it is needing to go through headhunters to get contracts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
There are plenty of situations where the simplification of tax-law would not be enough to do in either end. Again, simplification could improve or it could harm, depending on the specific simplification. When talking about deduction-entitlement it would generally be a good idea to look at simplifying since the overhead for those it is designed for is pretty large.
When that is said, the main vehicles used for these tax-games are transfer pricing (patent or other license accruing vehicle placed in a low tax country or country grabbing huge amounts of license fees to assure a consistent loss in tax heavy countries) or using drawer "investment" firms to move money through bonuses, stocks or other investment vehicles. You cannot simplify your way out of those.
While you may plug some holes by simplifying tax incentives domestically, it is not the solution to the international tax minimization schemes and by closing the domestic holes you may make it even more attractive for companies to find a better tax country, thus losing taxes on the move.
You are right that the system is geared against you and me, but that is not a result of law makers not listening. It is merely that the international society is nowhere near geared towards liberal rights, democracy or moral and tax minimisation is an incredibly profitable industry for some coutries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
The sheeple's internet, basically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
We'll never get meaningful tax code reform and simplification because all of the CPA's, bean counters and pencil pushers are afraid they'll get legislated out of existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tax law
No, the reason this won't happen is because lawmakers intentionally created each of these tax breaks. Someone convinced them that it was a good idea to "encourage" this or that behavior with tax incentives. So while politicians might make a big fuss about how little tax is being paid in general, once you start asking about particular "loopholes" you'll find that a lot of politicians support them.
This is the same thing that happens with "handouts" and the general public. Ask about welfare in general and you'll get vocal opposition; ask about specific programs and suddenly most people are in favor. The best explanation I have for this phenomenon is that people build up a mental model of a general category based on rhetoric and propaganda, and base their opinions on this false model. When you ask about specifics, you bypass their false impressions and discover their true feelings.
As an example, you seem to have the idea that government is evil. (I could be wrong, but "remove your hard earned income" is a big red flag.) However I doubt you will be able to make a compelling argument against every particular departments I could name, or even most of them. To your credit, I suspect that you will try, but aside from some blatant failures (e.g. the TSA) most parts of government serve a useful function. They're not always efficient, but compared to areas without a functioning government? No contest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tax law
I agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google gives NSA "direct access", so says Snowden.
For what it's worth, I do agree Google needs to be taken down a few pegs, but I question whether this is the correct method or international arena. Most of their douchery has been based on indiscriminate data collection, not antitrust. And the EU already has some of the strongest consumer data privacy laws on the planet (or so I hear).
So, to be strictly metaphorical, this is a lot like taking a gun to a knife fight and then finding out that you're in the wrong town on top of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well at least he's honest
Mr. Oettinger spoke of the need to “replace today’s Web search engines, operating systems and social networks” without naming any companies.
So because the local companies never bothered to make any real competing products, he's trying to make the foreign ones that did illegal, or at least hamstring them sufficiently that maybe the local companies will actually try to compete this time around.
You can't even really call this felony interference with a business model, unless 'Not making any real products and hoping you can convince enough politicians to make competing with your non-existent product illegal' is a business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well at least he's honest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well at least he's honest
That would be the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Its investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism wouldn't become binding until both sides come to an agreement, or until both side ratify the agreement, depending on the wording.
The EU is a lot less open to ISDS provisions than it was when negotiations started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well at least he's honest
This is liberal thinking on full display. Take from those who work hard, innovate, etc and give it to the guys who sit back and waste opportunity after opportunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well at least he's honest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well at least he's honest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well at least he's honest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well at least he's honest
What backwater cesspool did you crawl out of?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well at least he's honest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well at least he's honest
You have no clue what "liberal think" is, then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well at least he's honest
Hmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well at least he's honest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well at least he's honest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google should take the lead on this one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Multinational corporations have no loyalty to your sorry ass in your sorry country, which ever one it happens to be. No - they will rape and pillage as they see fit regardless of your silly predictions and when they duke it out for market position collateral damage is very likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Btw. The Google case is a different matter. That is Vestager who is usually somewhat competent and usually leans laissez-faire to a fault. When she is turning the legal gun at google it may be a good idea to wait for the specifics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/innovation-enterprise/oettinger-floats-proposal-eu-wide-google-tax- 309568
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/Conspiracy Theory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/Reality Theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to warm up the investor state dispute system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to warm up the investor state dispute system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumber is better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
View from Au
You Americans say such funny things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: View from Au
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: View from Au
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: View from Au
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this exactly what free-trade agreements are actually supposed to address and prevent, these kind of stack the deck abuses? Oh but if your too pre-occupied with utilizing them as a tool to pass local legislation you could never pass otherwise by ramming it through as a secretly negotiated treaty and give protectionism to your own buddies companies then what a free trade agreement should be might get left out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm opposed to protectionism, it's anti-ethical to a free and open market AND it screws consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The largest party in EU is for the removal. Most of the rest do not care enough about it to defend it if they get a good horsetrade for removing it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monopolism and cartels
I suppose a little nationalist dogwhistle is enough to shut down rational thought processes, as always.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Monopolism and cartels
The proper response here is to make a competing product, not sit back, do nothing, act surprised when someone else takes advantage of the opportunities you let slip past, and then demand that regulators cripple the ones who took 'your' piece of the pie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Monopolism and cartels
Corporations these days are just too big, they are outside of all competition parameters.
This goes for Microsoft, Google, Apple, Samsung, Siemens, Philips, Facebook, all of them, no matter where there are based.
If the EU frames this as a way to allow European competitors to develop, then I think that is understandable, because that's exactly what anti-cartel and anti-monopolist measures should achieve.
With American companies easily compelled to cooperate with the NSA through National Security Letters, EU privacy is also at risk, and while they may not say it out loud here, I'm sure we both agree this is another motivation for the EU behind the rhetoric?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Monopolism and cartels
Myspace is calling, it seems it would like to have a word with you. Also on the line are several other 'too big' companies that seem to have found out the hard way that they were not in fact invulnerable. Shall I take a message?
Just being big and/or popular are not reason enough to break a company up, unless they are abusing their position to intentionally harm competition('being really popular' doesn't count), or harming the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Monopolism and cartels
Myspace failed, so this somehow nullifies the scarcity of choice?
The fact that a major corporation failed doesn't change the monopolist landscape in general... The problem is only truly solved when we have a wide variety of competitors vying for supremacy again, not when one colossus goes down as if this fixes everything else. So I don't get your point, no. It's like citing an honest bank to "debunk" the financial crisis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Monopolism and cartels
Sure Google may be pretty popular now, but as long as they aren't actively making it more difficult for potential competition to enter the market(and again, 'being popular' doesn't count), I say let them be. If someone else comes along and steals their users out from under them by offering a better product and/or service, that's fine. If no-one can beat what they are offering, then that's fine too.
More competition can be good, and generally is, but only as long as it's real competition, and penalizing one company because others in it's field couldn't be bothered to actually compete, is not fair competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Monopolism and cartels
I covered quite clearly in my response why this was not the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Monopolism and cartels
....Turning an international, unified web presence into a geolocked, regional presence, which is the exact opposite of what we are looking for in an internet company.
So we cut up the divisions of google so they dont do everything! except then most of them die off because they aren't being funded by adwords anymore, and so we lose the products. Thats not fostering "competition". Thats killing off competition so your product, without the years of work and refinement, can succeed.
And you might remember where google is actively fighting handing over data to the NSA and the courts, by moving to greater encryption and fighting overly broad warrants...which it can only do because it has the money and clout to do so.
Also, how do you break up facebook? its one product. Oh right. Regional geolocking? thats what'll fix facebook's problems, different books for different countries.
And Microsoft? what do you do, break off the office team? Force them to develop three different operating systems for desktop tablet and mobile? How does that help consumers? They already cant fix several big malware hacks because they aren't allowed to give you anti-malware software. You have to uninstall all other anti-malware products and wait three months unprotected before you can install the microsoft anti-malware product.
And samsung? What, are they abusing their dominance of the Smartphone market to up the price of TVs? how does that even work?
Finally...the Uk is also part of the EU...and has just as bad penetration by the NSA and the GCHQ. The latter is known to be violating UK and EU privacy laws. So how does creating European software neccisarily improve that situation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Monopolism and cartels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Monopolism and cartels
I'm sorry, but that's a bit of a straw man argument. That's not what I said/meant. Forcing Google to cease sharing data between all its services as a matter of policy doesn't necessarily mean it won't work anymore. Google and Youtube were once separated and in my opinion, Youtube was doing better. Doesn't preclude Youtube from sharing videos uploaded worldwide on Youtube, but it may come at the expense of single sign-on convenience. So be it.
On the one hand, you are right. But I feel strongly that Google is playing both sides, for PR purposes. They have their revenue stream to protect, but then again, they are the most powerful tool in the NSA's Prism toolbox.
Which is a problem masquerading as a solution..
Yes.
As for breaking up the other companies, you misunderstood. I should have clarified and not left the impression that when I think a corporation becomes too big, breaking it up is always the best solution. There are several different measures which can be undertaken besides splitting up a company.
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/legislation.html
GCHQ showed its true colors with Operation Socialist and its attacks on Belgacom. They are as anti-European as it gets. The Snowden leaks actually revealed how hostile the UK is towards the EU and Brussels.
So frankly, I think we're going to have to leave the UK behind, if UK citizens are unable or unwilling to stop these practices. If the UK adopts and abides by EU regulations that curb mass surveillance, that's a plus for UK citizens in my view. But if they don't want it and dig their heels, so be it.
Far be it from me to deny the odious role the UK and GCHQ have played in this dossier.
And yeah: even after all this, the surveillance machine may simply be regionalized at the expense of American/British access, we're still stuck with contained EU mass surveillance. That is a problem, I agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did he miss his own hypocrisy?
So he doesn't just want European companies to be able to compete fairly (which they already can), he actually want's to make sure they beat the US companies via legislation. How can he not see the massive hypocrisy of wanting this outcome from anti-trust measures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did he miss his own hypocrisy?
Removing regulation differences are therefore a prime target of large companies. That is how "trade agreements" work today, with ISDS being a way to further weaken governments in relations with large companies and the removal of regulatory differences is a way to make it easier for larger companies to grow even further and faster!
SMEs aren't getting much out of these steps, except more competition and less political help in keeping the large companies from abusing their position.
The Google case should be solved in court and by arguments/evidence, not by nationalism (Oettinger) or the libertarian religion (we see on the other extreme).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's already happened twice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
Let me repeat that sentence.
Google does NOT have a monopoly on search and advertising.
What the galactic-ally stupid idiots in charge of the EU don't understand is that the only way Google has any power whatsoever in search and advertising is because THE PEOPLE want them to have it.
So you simpering twits that are trying to attack Google, all that you are really doing is attacking the choices made by your constituents.
Do you understand that at all?
Google only has more users using them for search because more people TRUST Google than any other search engine.
Google only has more advertising because more users trust Google for their results, so they see more advertisements through Google.
More web sites use Google for ad based revenue because more people CHOOSE Google than any other search engine.
I know it's hard for you simpletons to think, what with one of your 2 brain cells misfiring on the failing search industry wannabe's Kool-Aid, but get it through your thick skulls.
You're messing with the choices that your people made.
You're messing with your careers and futures as politicians.
You're messing with your futures.
Wake the hell up, smell what you're shoveling, step back, and throw all that made up horse shit back on the incompetent competitors who were trying to feed it to you, claiming it was caviar and prime rib.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
Today, the European Union took the first step in that extraordinary process: EU parliament members voted in favour of breaking up Google in order to end its monopoly in search. In Europe, 90% of search results come from Google.
How is that Google's fault?
Exactly, it isn't. 90% of search results come from Google, because 90% of users CHOOSE to use Google to do their searches.
That's like blaming Ford for GM's lowered profits because they sold more cars than General Motors.
So all you did was prove my point, that the EU policy makers have their heads shoved so far up each other's asses that they haven't delivered oxygen to their brains in months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
Google has a natural monopoly. That's true, but it has become a harmful natural monopoly.
It's very common for corporations to establish monopolies naturally. That doesn't make the monopoly any less harmful.
You act as if European consumers are headless chickens who cannot simultaneously have grievances with corporations they are using services from. They could "choose" to use a different service but there is little to "choose" from, because it is nearly impossible for significant competition to emerge naturally.
This is the nature of natural monopolies and regulation against natural monopolies. I'm sorry, but if I'm supposed to feel sympathy for a huge colossus of a corporation because it's not allowed to have the 90% market share it has, then you suggest you try finding it for me between 'r' and 't' in the dictionary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
Or should we all believe you just because? As you reiterate your dislike of Google with no arguments whatsoever of any real harm to customers.
You claim there is (almost) nothing to choose from. Well, apparently US citizens are better than you in searching for alternatives. And there are some - bing, yahoo, duckduckgo, ... What is a cost for the customer of change from Google to anything else? Close to 0. Possibly slight inconvenience at different user interface. So what is stopping European lemmings to switch? Especially in the light of article's claims that Google's search results are skewed? Maybe they are just good enough for people not to switch? Or maybe they just don't care? But then - why should you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
First, let me underscore that you do not get to set the terms as to what suffices to make the point. To let you do so would only allow you to construct a little hamster wheel for me run in.
Second, the illiteracy of your request is blinding, given the fact that the very article you're commenting on contains the information you request. But I'll oblige you this way:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/14/european-commission-antitrust-charges-google
Given the emotional diarrhea in your wording, what do you really care if they change? If you hate these customers so much, tell them to fuck off yourself. I can just sense the entrepreneur in you.
Why do you think good search results and commercially skewed are necessarily mutually exclusive?
Because if there's one thing I despise, it's that pompous effluvium of special privilege, that sort of exceptionalist, personal fable horse shit you exude that tells me you think American companies are the best thing since angel piss and above the law, including antitrust law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
Because in all you said, and all that the Groniard produced, there is not a single mention of a single mark, a yen, a buck, or a pound of an actual loss to the customer.
So please, do your homework, then come back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=List+of+search+engines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
And should I mention how idiotic and ironic it is for you to use Google to make your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
The EU considered that anti-competitive behavior, and Google will now pay a multi-billion dollar fine, be forced to make changes to their search engine, and continue to watch their stock price and margins stagnate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
... really, could you lot at least try and come up with some better ad homs? I know, I know, you may not be that creative, but really, reading the same old debunked rubbish is just boring, could you at least try to be a little bit more entertaining?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
Yes indeed, quite the compelling counter-argument you've presented there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
also, if you block what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: EU Proves that they are galactic-ally stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Er...
> regulators seem to think that they know how to better design a search engine or a social network than the companies who have actually been doing so.
Er... You missed "operating systems" in your remark. Browser Wars EU weren't that long ago, and Microsoft Interoperability not that much longer ago.
It is unseemly to be cheering Google on but not Microsoft under the same conditions. Yes, Microsoft is a leprous hunchback that eats young companies and farts in public. But if your stance is "companies know better than regulators", or even "freedom of the market", you've a bit of crow waiting for you on the supper table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Er...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Er...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Er...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
Google by contrast has at least three other competitors, one of which has more than enough clout to keep them on-track (Apple).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Er...
Because I couldn't see how the EU's actions helped consumers in any way shape or form:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070917/033526.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
Yes. I believe there's a role for antitrust in situations where it is clear that there is an abusive monopoly that harms consumers.
the free market was already trending toward a homogenous outcome: Microsoft
I see little evidence to support that -- and the results of the past decade or so seems to suggest that's not at all what was happening. The world moved and Microsoft didn't and Microsoft flopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
Personally, I pretty much despise Microsoft and their products, (I think this more of because of my anti-authority issues than any thing else, though) but I still have never agreed with the anti-trust actions against them, with a couple of caveats:
- Internet Explorer should have never been intregrated so far into the OS that removing it complete became impossible.
- UEFI secure boot protocol should be curtailed. When I purchase hardware, it's mine to load whatever OS I desire. Full Stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
In all fairness, right now, Microsoft requires OEMs to allow UEFI to be turned off in the BIOS. They removed that requirement for Window 10, which is a horrible, sucky move. Nonetheless, OEMs can continue to allow UEFI to be disabled if they wish.
So if you've purchased hardware that UEFI has locked you out of, the proper blame goes to the OEM, not Microsoft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Er...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cuddling Corporate America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate their creepy surveillance. I hate the way they run YouTube. I hate the fact that they've tried to get everyone to take a Google Plus account. Google Maps is really slow. Street View is awkward and annoying to use.
And much like the EU, I hate the fact that they drove around hoovering up wi-fi data, then lied about having done so, then lied about knowing they did it, then lied about doing it deliberately. Then refused point blank to delete that data when an EU court told them to.
Not a smart move against a supranational government with a history of making member states re-run referendums until they give the 'correct' result. 'No' isn't in their lexicon.
BUT...
I also loathe the EU with its meddling, bullying nonsense, like the stupid 'browser choice' thing that was foisted upon us, and the cookie warning that greets you on the first visit to each webpage, or if you visit it after deleting cookies, and appropriately enough none of the websites allow you to say 'no' and continue using the site.
Damn the lot of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s Like They Think Theirs Is The Only Government In The World That Matters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations, you fell for some quote mining
In his actual speech, the pertinent part reads:
Emphasis mine. He wasn't talking about the wish to kick current platforms out of the market, but the fact that all platforms go the way of Myspace sooner or later.
As for "on the same day", you might want to compare the date on that speech with the date on the press release about the investigation.
Also, what exactly makes the famously clueless Oettinger (of "we can't have net neutrality because it would lead to car crashes" fame) a "technocrat"? The fact that he can probably operate a light switch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congratulations, you fell for some quote mining
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Congratulations, you fell for some quote mining
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is Oettinger's solution? Hamstringing Google so it only operates in English? Or breaking it up into its component businesses, then perhaps demanding some kind of walled garden to make it more like certain other ISPs?
The man has no clue. That Google sometimes forgets to not be evil, it doesn't actively stop other search engines from operating. Heck, it's even got Bing at the top of its search results. I can't help wondering if Microsoft is involved in this somehow. They've got a history of fighting with Google.
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2196831/applications/the-10-bloodiest-battles-microsoft-a nd-google-fought-in-2010.html
I'm no Google fangirl but I do believe in fair play. This is emphatically not fair. Get them for tracking our movements online by all means, but not for being good at search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Always Suspected Something Wrong With This Company
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Always Suspected Something Wrong With This Company
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Always Suspected Something Wrong With This Company
I don't use any Google services except YouTube, but I've never understood why people have such a hate on for them. I put it down to simple envy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Always Suspected Something Wrong With This Company
Google is optional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why go after Google
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-k-clemons/the-eu-files-complaints-against-google_b_7069780.ht ml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why go after Google
Yeah, tell me about it!
Google's Ridiculous AdSense Morality Police Strike Again
Disappointing: Google Not Yet Requiring Phone Makers To Encrypt By Default
Google Gets Prude: Says No More Adult Content On Blogger
YouTube's Offer To Musicians Isn't As Bad As Some Believe, But YouTube Should Still Change Its Policies
YouTube Briefly Shuts Down Blizzard's Own YouTube Channel For Copyright Infringement
Google Bans Disconnect.me App From Play Store Based On Vague Guidelines
Big Tech Companies Agree To Pay Up Over Hiring Collusion
Google Rejects Postal For Google Play Store Due To Violence; GTA Games Still Available For Purchase
If you think this site has "long held Google cheerleader musings" then I think you may have reading comprehension problems...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why go after Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why go after Google
Um. No. The list is a lot longer than that, but I recognize that no amount of actual evidence about my distrust of Google will make you believe whatever strawman you've built up in your head, so go have fun with it.
It does make me wonder, however, why you feel the need to always flat out misrepresent my position. Does my real understanding of these issues threaten you so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why go after Google
It's a ridiculous, and ridiculously common, point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why go after Google
Not me. I read through that article. His arguments boil down to three basic themes:
1) "Google promotes their products higher on the platforms that they created and maintain."
Does Clemons also feel that General Motors should be forced to display Hyundais and Toyotas in their dealership showrooms? If not, why?
2) "Google's Android platform is really popular."
Clemons seems to think that Google and Android are some kind of "walled garden" type of thing, which isn't true. Android is pretty much the most open mobile platform available. Compared to Apple's continued "walled garden" philosophy, Android is like Montana and Apple is a backyard greenhouse with armed guards.
3) "Google is really successful and has the audacity to maintain that level of success by continuing to compete in the marketplace."
Where is it written that a hugely successful company MUST stop competing because it left it's competitors in the dust?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why go after Google
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100818/13200110672.shtml
Kind of says a lot about Clemons' view of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clemons and his theories.
Because he is an utter moron, no less. There is a simple way for stopping "plundering" - there is this small file called "robots.txt", that will stop all the "plundering" cold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why go after Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excerpts from FTC Staff Report on Google’s Search Practices
It's my view that Google has avoided antitrust rulings in the U.S. due to their lobbying and insider connections of former employees now directly working in the U.S. government. Don't be evil my ass...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Excerpts from FTC Staff Report on Google’s Search Practices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]