Forum Moderators: goodroi
Europe Readys Anti Trust Charges against Google
The E.U. is reportedly plotting a fine as large as $6.4 billion, roughly a tenth of Google’s annual revenue.
Europe’s antitrust regulator plans to file formal charges against Google Inc. for violating antitrust laws, a person familiar with the matter said Tuesday, stepping up a five-year investigation likely to become the biggest competition battle here since the European Union’s pursuit of Microsoft Corp. a decade ago.
The European Union will accuse Google on Wednesday of abusing its dominant position in Internet searches, opening the U.S. tech company up to a risk of massive fines and enforced changes in its business model, the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal said on Tuesday.
....accuse Google of breaching competition law by diverting traffic from rivals to favor its own services, said the FT, adding that some fellow commissioners had been concerned Vestager was narrowing the probe.
Your sarcasm is misplaced.I quoted the EC's Statement of Objections twice. You are merely providing an "interpretation" of it that doesn't agree with the facts.
What the EC "Statement of Objections" refers to as Google's "comparison shopping service" is advertising, pure and simple.No. It does not. You are the one referring to it as such but the EC's SoO did not do so.
Not only that, but it's also clearly labeled as advertising. (That's what the word "Sponsored" means.)No matter how hard you try to argue against the reality of what the EC statement said, it does not say what you claim it says. Legal documents like this tend to be very precise for a reason.
The bureaucrats who wrote the Statement of Objections apparently don't understand the difference between advertising and organic results.So you are here to tell us all what they really meant? It does not say what you claimed it said. Merely claiming that it said something different to what it really said does not change the reality.
Such a simplistic response overlooks the fact that Google's search engine is a gateway to ecommerce and information that is relied upon by 90% of end users. This leaves businesses reliant on Google whether they want to admit it or not.That's one of the main arguments behind this action. Google is no longer seen as the friendly startup but has become the Evil Empire.
No. It does not. You are the one referring to it as such but the EC's SoO did not do so.
The ads are ads. That's an incontrovertible fact.
That's exactly the problem. The EC bureaucrats either don't understand that price-comparison ads are ads or choose to ignore the fact.As I said, you are just some irrelevant poster of which the European Commission has never heard. What you think does not matter. This Statement of Objections is the EC's Statement of Objections and it says exactly what the EC wanted it to say. What you "think" it said does not matter. The only thing that matters is exactly what it said. Google will have its chance to put its position and it will be written in the same dry and precise legal prose. Your "interpretation" is irrelevant just as it will be when Google replies. These are the conclusions from the EC.
And by the way, calling Google's price-comparison ads what they are--ads--isn't an "interpretation." The ads are ads. That's an incontrovertible fact.There you go again trying to mislead people. Do I have to keep quoting the actual EC Statement of Claims continually? Please stop misleading people and try sticking to the facts rather than your "interpretations".
They know everything about the consumer.
Think of it this way: I own a railroad with 90% of the railroad tracks, build most of the railroad cars and use those railroad cars to transport mostly products I produce.
And don't forget Gmail also gives Google greater insights in the personal lives of individuals and business dealings that are discussed via email with one party having Gmail. Google has already been busted scanning emails. Search behavior (search), video interests (youtube), website interests (chrome), email communications (gmail) and travel patterns (android gps) has given Google unprecedented access to our personal data. Much of this data gets supplied to the Feds, which is why I think the US Government wants Google to keep growing and gathering more data. Nations outside of the United States, along with every citizen of the free world, have every legitimate reason to be very concerned.
[edited by: fathom at 8:35 pm (utc) on Apr 18, 2015]
citizen of the free world
citizen of the free world
I understand that phrase to mean "person with a Facebook account".
Such people do not seem too bothered about corporations mining their personal data.
...
Don't forget freedom isn't a crime in some parts of the world. Everything you noted was free to the world and still is free ... so Google is simply better at understanding the power of free.
Handing over a wealth of personal information to one company that acts as a proxy for government in lieu of special treatment, across a variety of services and devices, is not free. If anything, it is a precursor to tyranny.
Sounds like political propaganda to me not a valid legal claim.
Google executives and employees donated more than $1.6 million to Obama's two White House campaigns, and the online search giant parachuted top talent into both.And also:
One result has been a coziness with the U.S. government's executive branch that few other companies can match – marked by access for lobbyists, mentions in nearly half of Obama's State of the Union addresses, and a personnel feeder trough serving the White House with new senior hires.
Google has insisted it never received special treatment in that case, punctuating its denials with an animated GIF of a laughing baby as a jab at the news outlet that leveled the charge.
White House visitor logs suggest a different kind of story for the company whose motto is 'Don't be evil.'
Employees of the Silicon Valley behemoth have been in the White House more than 230 times since Obama took office – approximately once per week. At least 190 of those meetings were with senior officials.
They also said there were aliens in area 51, artificial sweeteners were safe, WMDs were in Iraq and Anna Nicole married for love...
As I said, you are just some irrelevant poster of which the European Commission has never heard. What you think does not matter.
Though FTC staff recommended pursuing legal action against Google, not one of the five Obama appointed Commissioners agreed with their own agency's recommendation. From everything I've read, the EC is more independent than the FTC and will hopefully reach a conclusion that is not tainted by politics.
When logic fails, resort to insults.No. It is simply the truth. Just like posting the EC's Statement of Objections in the thread to counter your inaccurate "interpretations", which could be argued are downright lies because they are so different to the wording of the document, of what it said.
resolt to insults
So it is a 100% sure bet that Google will be hung out to dry.Not necessarily. Google has to publish its reply and then things really get interesting.
So it is a 100% sure bet that Google will be hung out to dry.
Not necessarily. Google has to publish its reply and then things really get interesting.
Defying that 2+2=4 is more than an insult to most of us. I've always found it strange that those who mock all these 'conspiracy theories' cannot provide a proof that denies them.
I do believe we are in the conspiracies forum, so what are we arguing about?
They also said there were aliens in area 51, artificial sweeteners were safe, WMDs were in Iraq and Anna Nicole married for love...Shooter is a good movie. :)
I do believe we are in the conspiracies forum, so what are we arguing about?Well the EC has published its Statement of Objections (quoted a few times in the thread) and it seems that EditorialGuy is trying to push his own "interpretation" of what it says that's basically wrong and completely at variance with what was published. The tech media doesn't seem to understand that this is no longer a simple technology story and that it now has complex economic, political and legal aspects. But that doesn't stop SEO people offering "solutions" while being completely ignorant of the political, economic and legal situations in which Google is now mired.
it seems that EditorialGuy is trying to push his own "interpretation"
