The EU treats American companies like a personal piggybank

[Sauron]

How do we "fuck" with your companies by inventing laws to steal $5bn from them?

Give me an example.

Oh, we started this?

Show me.

Laws are always invented. This is not a retroactive law.

Standard chartered
BNP Paribas

There are countless more.

 

[Madmick]

How much have you fined Deutsche Bank by now for violating sanctions and other things?
That must be much higher than 5 Billion.

Yes and that is why they were fined. But no one cries about it.
You operate in the US and you break US law or regulation you pay the fine.

Even if that are completely made up laws like sanctions.

European countries sanction countries and institutions, too, including their own sometimes, so trying to move the goalposts to talking about sanctions is futile misdirection.

Anything of substance?

Yeah, it makes zero sense for the EU to specifically target American companies to fine simply for them being American. The two regions are complete allies and partners.

If American companies are getting fined, it's probably because they keep breaking the law. And this isn't the first time, either:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/27/the...out-by-the-eu-commission-facebook-google.html

"Rational self-interest!" fetishists should love this. These anti-trust laws are there so that consumers can make their own choices about what products to use, rather than some outside force requiring them to use their product.

None of these choices was precluded by Google's contracts. If one cannot comprehend the specifics of the discussion he should refrain from engaging in it.

 

[Squarechoke]

We should be glad when governments actually takes the side of the people before the corporations. It's good that they are making sure companies aren't abusing their positions, just as they should also continue to strengthen their net neutrality laws.

I much prefer that to the US selling out net neutrality, and by extension the people, by given the power to alter access to things on the Internet to the ISP companies.

 

[squeezewax]

Google are bad, m'kay.

 

[woodguyatl]

As much as I hate Google, I’d much prefer findings like these result in criminal charges against the person responsible for breaking business law rather than a loose fine against the company that

A) hardly affects the giant and does in not way deter such behavior and

B) create a non jury reviewed process to simply siphon money off a company the currently do not like

Also. The fine reason sounds completely bogus. Google didn’t make google the only search engine to use, just the default one that comes with their phone. A user can easily download and use a different one and delete google search/chrome

What’s next, fining Apple for having Safari browser pre installed on macs and IPhones? Fining Microsoft for having Internet Explorer on windows machines (actually I could get behind that last one)

Apple is different because it makes both the phone and the software. In this case Google was requiring another company to install Chrome in return for access to the App Store. I don’t agree with the ruling, but Google could solve this problem by creating a closed ecosystem like Apple in which they produce the hardware as well.

 

[Madmick]

We should be glad when governments actually takes the side of the people before the corporations. It's good that they are making sure companies aren't abusing their positions, just as they should also continue to strengthen their net neutrality laws.

I much prefer that to the US selling out net neutrality, and by extension the people, by given the power to alter access to things on the Internet to the ISP companies.

This has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Apple is different because it makes both the phone and the software. In this case Google was requiring another company to install Chrome in return for access to the App Store. I don’t agree with the ruling, but Google could solve this problem by creating a closed ecosystem like Apple in which they produce the hardware as well.

Chrome, like Google Voice, is a core app in the Google ecosystem.

Google is not a pure open-source platform. It's not Linux. It's semi-open like Microsoft. Google "demanding" phone makers to install Chrome/Search as part of their app system amounts to them "demanding" you install their OS as they sell it. This would be like fining Microsoft for "demanding" you install Cortana or Windows Media Player with Windows. They're part of the freaking OS. They are not designed to be separated from the OS:
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us...-cortana/423db470-632a-4498-9e82-13ee1ca4ade1

If Europe doesn't like how well Google is dominating their search advertising market, then they need to take a page out of China's book, build their own goddamn operating system, and stop using Android. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. They literally want to tell Google how to engineer their core product so that they can keep it, but without it being so profitable to specifically Google. They want Google to build the mall, then let all their competitors have a storefront in that mall for free.

 

[woodguyatl]

This has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Chrome, like Google Voice, is a core app in the Google ecosystem.

Google is not a pure open-source platform. It's not Linux. It's semi-open like Microsoft. Google "demanding" phone makers to install Chrome/Search as part of their app system amounts to them "demanding" you install their OS as they sell it. This would be like fining Microsoft for "demanding" you install Cortana or Windows Media Player with Windows. They're part of the freaking OS. They are not designed to be separated from the OS:
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us...-cortana/423db470-632a-4498-9e82-13ee1ca4ade1

If Europe doesn't like how well Google is dominating their search advertising market, then they need to take a page out of China's book, build their own goddamn operating system, and stop using Android. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. They literally want to tell Google how to engineer their core product so that they can keep it, but without it being so profitable to specifically Google. They want Google to build the mall, then let all their competitors have a storefront in that mall for free.

I am not defending the decision, just pointing out the difference between Google and Apple. I believe it is fine for Google to put some requirements on the use of the OS that they give away for free.

 

[Amerikuracana]

It doesn't accomplish anything but give the EU 5 billion. That's the really bad part. I know they have a lot of 20-40 year-old male migrants to feed, the poor babies, but that money could go to soooooo many better things.

 

[Sauron]

European countries sanction countries and institutions, too, including their own sometimes, so trying to move the goalposts to talking about sanctions is futile misdirection.

Except it's not. The US is applying its domestic laws extra-territoriality on the conduct of companies in Europe. It's actively seeking to stop Europe from trading with these countries, to the detriment of billions of euros in lost economic opportunities.

Cry me a river.

The US has weaponised its financial system and opened a pandora's box of bad outcomes.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

My gut feeling is always to think that the big company is in the wrong. I trust the EU more than Google or anyone like them.

 

[Squarechoke]

This has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Both this and net neutrality has to do with the same thing, which is to prevent companies in dominating positions from having power that reduces the choices and possibilities for people. Just like when Microsoft was prevented from automatically pushing Internet Explorer on people.

I say this as someone that uses Google's services and related products (finding them both better and more open than Apple's competing ones), and I support this issue even when it's about issues that individually aren't too negative because failing to do so is what risks leading to worse consequences down the line.

So I say that you're wrong, this is only different from net neutrality on the surface as the overall issues are similar.

 

[Madmick]

Except it's not. The US is applying its domestic laws extra-territoriality on the conduct of companies in Europe. It's actively seeking to stop Europe from trading with these countries, to the detriment of billions of euros in lost economic opportunities.

Cry me a river.

The US has weaponised its financial system and opened a pandora's box of bad outcomes.

The idea of using economic sanctions rather than bullets to isolate and weaken enemies is championed on the U.N. floor, and waged by many sovereign powers including those in Europe.

Your lack of substantiation is noted.

 

[Madmick]

Both this and net neutrality has to do with the same thing, which is to prevent companies in dominating positions from having power that reduces the choices and possibilities for people. Just like when Microsoft was prevented from automatically pushing Internet Explorer on people.

I say this as someone that uses Google's services and related products (finding them both better and more open than Apple's competing ones), and I support this issue even when it's about issues that individually aren't too negative because failing to do so is what risks leading to worse consequences down the line.

So I say that you're wrong, this is only different from net neutrality on the surface as the overall issues are similar.

No, they don't. That is specific to net neutrality. You might try understanding the topic before commenting on it.

 

[Squarechoke]

No, they don't. That is specific to net neutrality. You might try understanding the topic before commenting on it.

You might try to discuss like an adult instead of trying to hide what your objections are. There's no point in me making any argument if that's on the level things are to be.

 

[Madmick]

You might try to discuss like an adult instead of trying to hide what your objections are.

I have voiced my objections quite concretely in this thread, Square. Please read the thread and understand what my objections are before dismissing them.

This isn't about legality. This is about the ethics of the law itself.

 

[Squarechoke]

I have voiced my objections quite concretely in this thread, Square. Please read the thread and understand what my objections are before dismissing them.

This isn't about legality. This is about the ethics of the law itself.

It's better if you specify them since this post suggests that your objections are to things I didn't comment on whatsoever, as I said nothing about legality.

I said that antitrust laws are good and that I support having strong laws in that regard even when it goes towards relatively harmless cases as laws generally don't tend to land perfectly exact so I'm more inclined to lean towards that side when the offenders are huge corporations. I still think net neutrality on the whole is a very similar issue, regardless of what details that differ, and I think we've seen where lax laws, or even governments taking the corporations' side over the people, tend to lead.

I'll point out again that I didn't say anything about the legality and I don't see much point to it either since the case is being appealed and the correctness of the verdict will be analyzed by far more competent people on the matter than I.

 

[Madmick]

It's better if you specify them since this post suggests that your objections are to things I didn't comment on whatsoever, as I said nothing about legality.

I said that antitrust laws are good and that I support having strong laws in that regard even when it goes towards relatively harmless cases as laws generally don't tend to land perfectly exact so I'm more inclined to lean towards that side when the offenders are huge corporations. I still think net neutrality on the whole is a very similar issue, regardless of what details that differ, and I think we've seen where lax laws, or even governments taking the corporations' side over the people, tend to lead.

I'll point out again that I didn't say anything about the legality and I don't see much point to it either since the case is being appealed and the correctness of the verdict will be analyzed by far more competent people on the matter than I.

So you're siding with the EU law because you perceive it to be against big corporations without trying to understand why, or the nature of what Google's "offense" is.

This dialogue isn't going places.

 

[Squarechoke]

So you're siding with the EU law because you perceive it to be against big corporations without trying to understand why, or the nature of what Google's "offense" is.

This dialogue isn't going places.

It's not going anywhere since you're not actually saying anything. I'm stating my opinions, you're just rambling about what you think I think (and you're clearly not getting the point there either). Why speak if you have nothing to say?

 

[Madmick]

It's not going anywhere since you're not actually saying anything. I'm stating my opinions, you're just rambling about what you think I think (and you're clearly not getting the point there either). Why speak if you have nothing to say?

Again, I've already said quite a bit.

I'm claiming that the EU is a glorified mafia cornerman shakedown artist.

Look at the first two "offences".

In #1, they're saying that Google broke antitrust laws because they required Google Search be installed with the Android operating system, but of course Google Search is a core appilcation of the Google Operating System. Know what that means? It means there is no version of Android without Google Search. Even the guys on XDA or other hackers who run "Vanilla Android" are installing a core application pkg (Gapps) that includes Google Search. In fact, the only phones running on Android without Google Search would be hacker-modifications of this package that one would no longer call "Android" because it has been modified-- like Cyanogenmod. Google warns against this even to the hacker community as it may affect overall OS stability. These apps were not designed to be removed.

Meanwhile, #2 is Google committing a crime because they forged contracts where they paid the mobile operators in Europe (like Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile here) a hefty sum in order to install their search exclusively on certain handsets. This is little different than how it used to be here in the USA where, for example, Apple would pay large sums to AT&T, effectively subsidizing them, in order that their physical locations would sell iPhones down at cheap entry prices of $99 or less (or offer better buybacks in store). They would also enjoy unique plan benefits or features (ex. Redzone NFL app for Verizon users).

What "small third party operators" get hurt? They want us to cry for Duck Duck Go, but what pull does Duck Duck Go have? No, it's Samsung with their garbage in-house search app (I'm sure they have one) that gets pushed out. It's whatever bloatware them, Sony, LG, or the rest of them would throw onto your phone in exchange for a cut from that search engine software company. Nobody is preventing these companies from making their own deals, either. Ironically, Google is punished because competitors exist on its platform. Apple didn't even used to allow third party applications for most features. I wonder if they're being sued for the same reason, now? Does them owning the hardware, too, insulate them from this type of thievery? Too big to shakedown?

Perhaps the most obnoxious thing about this is that Google's contracts would have amounted to protecting Europeans from bloatware. It's not like Apple has a search, or the Safari/Siri search (powered by Apple's cloud) on iPhones is available on Android. You wouldn't want a Blackberry search app on an Android. So really it's about those Android phones coming with Google search, and no bloatware crappy third party search apps that a user can download anyway.

It's such a joke.


*Edit* Furthermore, toward Mike's point, most of the third party app developers are Americans. The Chinese are beginning to rival us, but not he Europeans. The companies that would "suffer" by this aren't inherently European, so why are they collecting fines on the behalf of these aggrieved foreigners?

What a goddamn scam that outfit is.

Chrome, like Google Voice, is a core app in the Google ecosystem.

Google is not a pure open-source platform. It's not Linux. It's semi-open like Microsoft. Google "demanding" phone makers to install Chrome/Search as part of their app system amounts to them "demanding" you install their OS as they sell it. This would be like fining Microsoft for "demanding" you install Cortana or Windows Media Player with Windows. They're part of the freaking OS. They are not designed to be separated from the OS:
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us...-cortana/423db470-632a-4498-9e82-13ee1ca4ade1

If Europe doesn't like how well Google is dominating their search advertising market, then they need to take a page out of China's book, build their own goddamn operating system, and stop using Android. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. They literally want to tell Google how to engineer their core product so that they can keep it, but without it being so profitable to specifically Google. They want Google to build the mall, then let all their competitors have a storefront in that mall for free.

Please note the reference to the Redzone app on Verizon isn't exclusive to Apple. It's for Verizon users on Android, too. Verizon and the NFL have (or had) this exclusive offer. So does the EU sue the NFL for not "allowing competition" by making their Redzone service exclusive to Verizon users? In fact, this choice actually does prevent users on any other network from accessing this. Unlike Europeans on Android, they can't just download a third-party browser or search engine. It's walled-off.

Furthermore, even for Europeans who would used hacked phones with no Google Search/Chrome that Google wouldn't permit to access the Google market, it doesn't matter, because all of those apps are available on secondary app markets since it's a semi-open OS; in fact, there are more apps on these markets because many are prohibited from the official Play Store.

Zero consumer choice was prevented, here. The only thing that was prevented was major corporations like Samsung/HTC/etc and small independent third-party app developers like DuckDuckGo from building their own contracts to pay the telecommunications providers to shove bloatware onto the European consumer's phone (again, Chrome and Google Search are going to be on there no matter what if it's an Android). Meanwhile, those Europeans don't have to buy an Android. They could opt for an iPhone. During this period they could have opted for a Windows phone (still active) or any of the other operating systems. There's also nothing preventing them from ordering phones from outside these carrier stores that are still perfectly compatible on the carrier itself. This is actually one of the only areas where the tech market favors Europeans over Americans because all of these cheapest Chinese phones have stronger compatibility with European GSM/4G networks.

Did Google do wrong? Did they prevent competition? Did they restrict consumer choice? No, no, and no. So why are they really fining Google?

It's a shakedown, dude. It's institutionalized theft. I see it as little different than Chavez "nationalizing" the Chevron oil platforms.

 

[Sauron]

The idea of using economic sanctions rather than bullets to isolate and weaken enemies is championed on the U.N. floor, and waged by many sovereign powers including those in Europe.

Your lack of substantiation is noted.

I specifically mentioned extra territorial sanctions - not UNSC resolutions.

The US has abrogated a UNSC resolution and now is attempting to force other countries from trading with these countries by applying its laws outside of its jurisdiction.

Essentially it will backfire because countries will look to move away from the dollar.

Instead of justifying it you should be consistent.