The EU treats American companies like a personal piggybank

[Madmick]

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.

Yet they tend to have the same goals. Yes, the difference is unilateralism. That's irrelevant. I'm dismissing embargoes, trade wars, sanctions, and other forms of politically-oriented spats between two (or more) sovereign nations themselves. The EU isn't shaking down the US government, or attempting to restrict our cash flow because we're secretly shipping weapons off to all of their enemies.

They're just stealing money from an American company on the pretense-- a bullshit one-- that they are protecting European consumer choice. It has nothing to do with choice, or with cold war machinations, and everything to do with EU coffers.

 

[Sauron]

Yet they tend to have the same goals. Yes, the difference is unilateralism. That's irrelevant. I'm dismissing embargoes, trade wars, sanctions, and other forms of politically-oriented spats between two (or more) sovereign nations themselves. The EU isn't shaking down the US government, or attempting to restrict our cash flow because we're secretly shipping weapons off to all of their enemies.

They're just stealing money from an American company on the pretense-- a bullshit one-- that they are protecting European consumer choice. It has nothing to do with choice, or with cold war machinations, and everything to do with EU coffers.

They're not just unilateral. They're extra-jurisdictional i.e. the US is trying to limit European trade sovereignty by applying its laws outside of its borders; and, no, it's not irrelevant.

These countries are not enemies of the EU, and yes, the US is shaking them down - just like they did to ZTE.

The EU has anti-trust laws, and it's a huge component of EU law. I remember studying this 10 years ago. These companies know it as well. This speaks more to your ignorance of the EU, than any kind of shake-down.

The US has pioneered the weaponisation of its financial system, and in my opinion, will only accelerate a process where countries seek to limit their exposure to it. Probably less so in Europe, but definitely in China where they are already looking to move away from American suppliers.

The EU is just applying its own anti-trust laws that have been in operation for a long time.

 

[Madmick]

They're not just unilateral. They're extra-jurisdictional i.e. the US is trying to limit European trade sovereignty by applying its laws outside of its borders; and, no, it's not irrelevant.

These countries are not enemies of the EU, and yes, the US is shaking them down - just like they did to ZTE.

The EU has anti-trust laws, and it's a huge component of EU law. I remember studying this 10 years ago. These companies know it as well. This speaks more to your ignorance of the EU, than any kind of shake-down.

The US has pioneered the weaponisation of its financial system, and in my opinion, will only accelerate a process where countries seek to limit their exposure to it. Probably less so in Europe, but definitely in China where they are already looking to move away from American suppliers.

The EU is just applying its own anti-trust laws that have been in operation for a long time.

Yes, it's irrelevant, because the US is targeting governments and their administrations that are hostile to it, not the EU who is their ally and incidental to our sanctions thats declared aims are clear.

Meanwhile, the EU is deliberately targeting an American company under a false pretense that hasn't shown it any militant hostility. I don't care how long unethical laws are on the books.

 

[Sauron]

No. The US is targeting European companies and trade to serve it's own narrow interests. It's not incidental. It's absolutely on purpose, and they've communicated this position explicitly. The idea is to directly curtain European trade with these countries when they have friendly relations.

Just like the US trying to stop Nordstream to serve its own narrow interests. This pipeline is massively in Germany's interest, but the US is desperate to stick it to Russia, and in doing so is threatening European business's for doing legitimate work.

You could easily twist this around and say an American company is not abiding by EU law. They have armies of lawyers and are not ignorant or naive. If they want to sell to the EU market then they'll just have to abide or come to some settlement.

lol at anti-trust laws being unethical. Maintaining competition is a key component in ensuring that capitalism works. You'll find that the US also has anti-trust laws as well.

 

[Sauron]

If you want to talk about bullshit then you should start with US tariff designations on national security grounds.

 

[Madmick]

No. The US is targeting European companies and trade to serve it's own narrow interests. It's not incidental. It's absolutely on purpose, and they've communicated this position explicitly. The idea is to directly curtain European trade with these countries when they have friendly relations.

Just like the US trying to stop Nordstream to serve its own narrow interests. This pipeline is massively in Germany's interest, but the US is desperate to stick it to Russia, and in doing so is threatening European business's for doing legitimate work.

You could easily twist this around and say an American company is not abiding by EU law. They have armies of lawyers and are not ignorant or naive. If they want to sell to the EU market then they'll just have to abide or come to some settlement.

lol at anti-trust laws being unethical. Maintaining competition is a key component in ensuring that capitalism works. You'll find that the US also has anti-trust laws as well.

Russia is annexing sovereign territories that don't belong to it, and has meddled in our election. They're also assassinating ex-pats and journalists outside their borders, although it's far worse for those who politically oppose Putin in Russia. They're literally getting shot on the streets in front of the Kremlin. We're targeting a hostile foreign threat (unless you, like the Trumpets on my side of the pond, subscribe to the notion this whole Russian thing is a "witch hunt"). Iran is shipping weapons to Hezbollah, Assad, and insurgent Jihadis who are palatable to their interests.

We don't want to hurt Germany. We want to limit Russia's influence without using violence.

You're just trying to excuse the EU's theft with misdirection. Nothing you're talking about is pertinent to what the EU is doing, here, unless you are making the argument this is retribution for extraterritorial sanctions that don't even target an EU nation specifically, and therein you will have made my point for me more powerfully than could have ever been possible without this bitter "but Hillary!" breed of argument.

 

[abiG]

Russia is annexing sovereign territories that don't belong to it, and has meddled in our election.

This is outrageously hypocritical. I just stopped there. Full stop.

 

[Madmick]

This is outrageously hypocritical. I just stopped there. Full stop.

Well, if you stopped hyperventilating, you'd realize that if ruminated on your outrage, it would at best justify Russian sanctions against the US government, but not EU ones against an American company that have nothing to do with national security.

That's if you could prove we meddled in Russia's recent Presidential election, and hacked their official party and government servers as part of achieving this. That would be news to me.

 

[JDragon]

EU: Google illegally used Android to dominate search, must pay $5B fine

Google Search is the heart and soul of the company itself. In fact, this was its first product: a search engine. It's crazy for me to realize that some kids reading this probably don't know that Amazon started as an online bookseller, and Google started as a search engine. That was it.

So now integrating your flagship product into your most valuable product is...illegal? Negotiating contracts in favor of your product over a competitor is illegal? This is monopoly corruption?

Must be easy balancing checkbooks when you institutionalize theft.

Your threads never cease to amuse me.

 

[GSP_37]

If a phone maker is forced to install Google shit on the phone, they can't then work some deal to put some competing non-Google shit on the phone or it'll be harder since the Google shit is already there by default.

Sounds like monopolistic abuse of power. World fucking domination. I'm glad EU is slapping them corporations in the dick because corrupt Chump admin ain't going to protect consumers.

 

[Madmick]

Your threads never cease to amuse me.

Your government sometimes amuses me.

If a phone maker is forced to install Google shit on the phone, they can't then work some deal to put some competing non-Google shit on the phone or it'll be harder since the Google shit is already there by default.

Sounds like monopolistic abuse of power. World fucking domination. I'm glad EU is slapping them corporations in the dick because corrupt Chump admin ain't going to protect consumers.

Objectively, this is wrong.

 

[Sauron]

Russia is annexing sovereign territories that don't belong to it, and has meddled in our election. They're also assassinating ex-pats and journalists outside their borders, although it's far worse for those who politically oppose Putin in Russia. They're literally getting shot on the streets in front of the Kremlin. We're targeting a hostile foreign threat (unless you, like the Trumpets on my side of the pond, subscribe to the notion this whole Russian thing is a "witch hunt"). Iran is shipping weapons to Hezbollah, Assad, and insurgent Jihadis who are palatable to their interests.

And the US invaded Iraq illegally and is currently occupying parts of sovereign Syria, and is aiding and abetting mass slaughter in Yemen. The US fucked with Russia almost constantly and then they act surprised when a guy like Putin comes along. Trying to get Georgia into NATO. As if that wasn't a huge provocation.

It's probably best you step off your high horse.

We don't want to hurt Germany. We want to limit Russia's influence without using violence.

How benevolent of the US.

It's for your own good that we imperil your energy security. Its bullshit and the US has no right to do it. The US just wants to hurt a strategic rival and make it buy its own more expensive LNG. Its mafia like activity.

You're just trying to excuse the EU's theft with misdirection. Nothing you're talking about is pertinent to what the EU is doing, here, unless you are making the argument this is retribution for extraterritorial sanctions that don't even target an EU nation specifically, and therein you will have made my point for me more powerfully than could have ever been possible without this bitter "but Hillary!" breed of argument.

Anti trust laws that have been in operation for decades. You seem not to understand that. Ignorance is no excuse.

If fines on companies are theft then the US is the world's biggest thief. That was my point.

 

[Madmick]

And the US invaded Iraq illegally and is currently occupying parts of sovereign Syria, and is aiding and abetting mass slaughter in Yemen. The US fucked with Russia almost constantly and then they act surprised when a guy like Putin comes along. Trying to get Georgia into NATO. As if that wasn't a huge provocation.

It's probably best you step off your high horse.

How benevolent of the US.

It's for your own good that we imperil your energy security. Its bullshit and the US has no right to do it. The US just wants to hurt a strategic rival and make it buy its own more expensive LNG. Its mafia like activity.

Anti trust laws that have been in operation for decades. You seem not to understand that. Ignorance is no excuse.

If fines on companies are theft then the US is the world's biggest thief. That was my point.

I'm trying to focus you on the crimes of a European trade organization against a company that doesn't even belong to it, whose home country isn't even an enemy to this organization, on the grounds that these "antitrust" laws themselves make no sense as they have been applied, with profoundly unethical foundations, and you're talking about the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Your continuing rant has amounted to a concession that you don't have a counterargument. You can't justify the law, or its aims, on the virtue of its own grounds. You are justifying this with unrelated politics. I'm not even trying to justify our extraterritorial sanctions, I'm simply pointing out they are unrelated.

When I talk about bitter anti-Americans who are so hateful that they are incapable of rational and honest debate surrounding any topic concerning my country...I'm talking about you.

 

[chardog]

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.

naw, it's about complying with rules

google can be pretty heavy handed, and caught with their pants down. Apple doesnt have a search engine on the iphone. It can give suggestions and search methods, but the search engine is not from apple. M$ has given the option of search engines, but they do have BING.

 

[Madmick]

naw, it's about complying with rules

google can be pretty heavy handed, and caught with their pants down. Apple doesnt have a search engine on the iphone. It can give suggestions and search methods, but the search engine is not from apple. M$ has given the option of search engines, but they do have BING.

And Google allows them on their platform. The user can set this as their default search engine. They have an app. You can download it at any time.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.microsoft.bing&hl=en_US

I mentioned Apple specifically to point out how they benefit from not allowing any competition. Google makes their own phones, too, but because they allow other manufacturers to use their operating system, they are punished for being the ones to constrict competition? Those mentioning the hardware difference are overlooking how the argument undermines the greater integrity of the argument for EU laws.

Microsoft is a better direct analogy to Google because they are exactly the same. They make their own hardware, but their core product, historically, was a semi-open software platform. By this same logic Microsoft would be punished for making Internet Explorer its default browser as part of Windows out-of-the-box, or the fact that Cortana is the built-in voice search technology to the operating platform.

Perhaps more ironically, let's remind everyone that the freedom of competition doesn't always serve the little guy. What if Apple files a complaint they aren't able to "compete" in the EU because Microsoft "forces" Windows machine manufacturers (ex. Lenovo, Asus, HP, etc) to stick to the above. Maybe Apple wants to get their juicy marketplace onto Microsoft. Hey, why can't we make iTunes the default music and video player instead of Windows Media Player? Sick 'em, Hague!

 

[Sauron]

Your continuing rant has amounted to a concession that you don't have a counterargument. You can't justify the law, or its aims, on the virtue of its own grounds. You are justifying this with unrelated politics. I'm not even trying to justify our extraterritorial sanctions, I'm simply pointing out they are unrelated.

When I talk about bitter anti-Americans who are so hateful that they are incapable of rational and honest debate surrounding any topic concerning my country...I'm talking about you.

You can think that if you want.

If you can't understand anti-trust laws that nearly every country has, and which forms a core part of EU law then that's your prerogative. Anti-trust law is there to prevent monopolies and to stop abuse of market dominance. it's there to ensure competition and protect and make sure capitalism doesn't defeat itself. You just seem pissed that it's an American company which has fallen foul of the law rather than, say a German company. That's speaks more to your nationalism and sense of grievance than any true concern with the law.

How am I supposed to rebut your ignorance of competition law. What Google is doing is anti-competitive and an abuse of its dominant market position. It's taking action to prevent market entrants. Ergo the EU has applied its laws to counter that. Whether Google started off as just a search engine is irrelevant; they are much more than that now. They are not a shrinking violet. They chanced their arm and fell foul of the law.

You got on your moral high horse about Russia and I simply countered you. If you didn't want to have that argument then you shouldn't have opened the door.

Fact of the matter is that the EU is a market of 400 million plus people and Google will have to pay the fine. That's the price of doing business here.

 

[GalegoREB]

Microsoft is a better direct analogy to Google because they are exactly the same. They make their own hardware, but their core product, historically, was a semi-open software platform. By this same logic Microsoft would be punished for making Internet Explorer its default browser as part of Windows out-of-the-box, or the fact that Cortana is the built-in voice search technology to the operating platform.

Microsoft was fined by the exact same reasons in 2013 (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/technology/eu-fines-microsoft-over-browser.html).
Also, it's funny that you didn't mention that "the investigation also found that Google paid "significant" sums to other companies so they exclusively used Google products on their phones, and stopped competitors from creating modified versions of Android."(https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-android-changes-eu-fine-android-p).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Anti-trust law is there to prevent monopolies and to stop abuse of market dominance.

Monopolies that wouldn't exist without government enabling them in the first place. But that's another story.

 

[Madmick]

You can think that if you want.

If you can't understand anti-trust laws that nearly every country has, and which forms a core part of EU law then that's your prerogative. Anti-trust law is there to prevent monopolies and to stop abuse of market dominance. it's there to ensure competition and protect and make sure capitalism doesn't defeat itself. You just seem pissed that it's an American company which has fallen foul of the law rather than, say a German company. That's speaks more to your nationalism and sense of grievance than any true concern with the law.

You've pivoted to, "It's ethical because it's the law." That's an untenable appeal to authority-- circular logic. The law isn't inherently moral or ethical because it's the law.

Microsoft was fined by the exact same reasons in 2013 (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/technology/eu-fines-microsoft-over-browser.html).
Also, it's funny that you didn't mention that "the investigation also found that Google paid "significant" sums to other companies so they exclusively used Google products on their phones, and stopped competitors from creating modified versions of Android."(https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-android-changes-eu-fine-android-p).

Are you not comprehending this is my exact gripe? Microsoft is also an American company. I don't care that this unethical law is consistently unethical (with regard to American companies it rakes).

You also don't understand the Wired article. The "modified version of Android" they "wouldn't" let them install was one with added bloatware:

Give users a choice
For new phones running Android perhaps the most likely option for Google is to not include any default apps whatsoever. When a new device is turned on a series of options could be displayed. What web browser would you like to use? What search engine? What mapping app? What news app? What video streaming services?

Once the phone was setup all these apps automatically start being installed in the background.

It would also result in a less bloated Android. In response to the commission's decision Google CEO Sundar Pichai published a blog post saying most Android devices have up to 40 apps pre-installed when they're produced by manufacturers. Plenty of these are bloatware that users can delete and probably never wanted.

The move isn't unprecedented either. In 2009, after the EU found Microsoft installing Internet Explorer as default web browser had given it an unfair advantage in, the company agreed to create a BrowserChoice option. This showed web users ten different browser options, in a random order, that could be used instead of Microsoft's.

It made a huge difference. In July 2008, according to analysis firm Statcounter, Internet Explorer had a 68.57 per cent share of the web browser market. Today, it has just 3.12 per cent.

As Google head's toward the release of Android P it has started to make its operating system simpler for end users. More choice wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

LOL, no "default apps" whatsoever? Android doesn't exist without any default applications. How am I supposed to go download a new app if I can't type anything into my phone? I need a keyboard app. It also would make it impossible to sell a phone that "just works" out of the box. They're literally dictating to Google how to create their product.

The above paragraph describes what I have imparted in this thread already. The "modified version of Android" are the ones adding all the bloatware above. In the case of Microsoft, they're forcing Microsoft to advertise their competitors on their own operating system out of the box. Nothing about changing the search engine was impossible before. Guess who all these dopes-- these ignorant consumers-- switched to when they forced Microsoft to advertise competitors?

Fancy that. See my post above where I explained how the big companies are often the biggest beneficiaries of these laws?
(That's overlooking how the paragraph above ignores that the first iPhone was released in 2007, and the mobile revolution sort of had an effect on how people interface with the internet)

The next paragraph offers a much more sensible solution:

Stop letting Android be free
This one is a little more radical, but Pichai hinted there could be a future change. Phone manufacturers can easily download and edit versions of Android for their devices free of charge. The commission said Google has paid companies to include its software and hasn't allowed its app store to be used under licences where it doesn't approve of the modifications of Android. This could have big ramifications.

"So far, the Android business model has meant that we haven't had to charge phone makers for our technology, or depend on a tightly controlled distribution model," Pichai wrote

Here you have a just and reasonable solution.

If you want to modify Google, you pay them a fee to do it. They build Android, not the EU, not European consumers, and they then let all these manufacturers install it for free. If the manufacturers don't like how they package a product Google funded/built, then they should be forced to pay Google a licensing fee to change it.

This is highway robbery.

 

[AtomicPanther]

Hey Google, force a push to all Android handsets that disables any functionality related to Google search. Then tell the EU they win