Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 361 posts

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#351

Post by AshamedCaptain »

shadowgovt wrote: post #349
AshamedCaptain wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, I already predicted that the EC would likely bend over and accept MS's ridiculous proposal, but we would never know since the CMA rejecting it first would leave the EC in a untenable position. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35772912 I guess it is not as untenable as I thought, and the EC believes it can just throw shit towards the CMA until they get away with it. I also have my confirmation on wheth…

Sure, back in the day. And they don't go out of their way to support it in the modern era. ...but this goes back to the US interpretation of "monopoly practice" vs. the European interpretation. Where was the consumer harm? How does MS "stifle" an OS that you can just pick up from a CD, floppy disk, or the Internet and drop on a machine you own? History seems to have shown "You can't." In general, the biggest hindranc…

"Back in the day" is stretching it since MS did this 2 months ago. With the same strategy they used to kill Be decades ago, which obviously works.

It's irrelevant what you think about Linux UX. It is just fact that MS is worried enough that _to this day_ they are using their monopoly position to stifle non-Windows OSes ( desktop AND server) every frigging time they can. Same way they have doing continuously for decades.

And also despite the fact their marketing dept says that "MS loves Linux" and the armchair analysts say that MS makes money from Linux servers.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#352

Post by bantunes »

golemotron wrote: post #315
bantunes wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're taking money in that jurisdiction, why is it not "being provided"?

Another way to look at it is that customer is sending money to another jurisdiction. Countries can and do pass laws about whom their citizens can trade with. It seems like that is a better route than inventing jurisdiction over foreign companies.

Again, if you "pass laws about whom their citizens can trade with" isn't that having jurisdiction over a foreign company?

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#353

Post by shadowgovt »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #351
shadowgovt wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, back in the day. And they don't go out of their way to support it in the modern era. ...but this goes back to the US interpretation of "monopoly practice" vs. the European interpretation. Where was the consumer harm? How does MS "stifle" an OS that you can just pick up from a CD, floppy disk, or the Internet and drop on a machine you own? History seems to have shown "You can't." In general, the biggest hindranc…

"Back in the day" is stretching it since MS did this 2 months ago. With the same strategy they used to kill Be decades ago, which obviously works. It's irrelevant what you think about Linux UX. It is just fact that MS is worried enough that _to this day_ they are using their monopoly position to stifle non-Windows OSes ( desktop AND server) every frigging time they can. Same way they have doing continuously for decad…

Are you talking about Be as in Be Incorporated? With the BeBox and BeOS?

They settled a lawsuit with Microsoft, but Be didn't fail because of anything Microsoft did any more than it failed because of anything Apple did. Nobody wanted yet another operating system to write code against. Be failed for the same reason that Plan 9 hasn't caught fire and served as a meaningful alternative to the Linux ecosystem; when your architecture is too far divorced from the existing ecosystems after the ecosystems grow sufficiently large, it doesn't matter if your solution is slightly better... Developers don't want to invest the time starting over.

Monopoly protection is a lot of things, but it isn't a mechanism for somebody to try and compete with DC power for long distance transmission when the world has already wired up AC.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#354

Post by golemotron »

bantunes wrote: post #352
golemotron wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way to look at it is that customer is sending money to another jurisdiction. Countries can and do pass laws about whom their citizens can trade with. It seems like that is a better route than inventing jurisdiction over foreign companies.

Again, if you "pass laws about whom their citizens can trade with" isn't that having jurisdiction over a foreign company?

Not at all. They never are subject to an enforceable court decision. Your citizens, on the other hand, are.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#355

Post by bantunes »

golemotron wrote: post #354
bantunes wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, if you "pass laws about whom their citizens can trade with" isn't that having jurisdiction over a foreign company?

Not at all. They never are subject to an enforceable court decision. Your citizens, on the other hand, are.

From the point of view of the consumer, if a government passes a law saying you can't buy abroad from Company X, sure feels like jurisdiction over it.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#356

Post by golemotron »

bantunes wrote: post #355
golemotron wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. They never are subject to an enforceable court decision. Your citizens, on the other hand, are.

From the point of view of the consumer, if a government passes a law saying you can't buy abroad from Company X, sure feels like jurisdiction over it.

Let's do it that way then. Problem solved.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#357

Post by AshamedCaptain »

shadowgovt wrote: post #353
AshamedCaptain wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Back in the day" is stretching it since MS did this 2 months ago. With the same strategy they used to kill Be decades ago, which obviously works. It's irrelevant what you think about Linux UX. It is just fact that MS is worried enough that _to this day_ they are using their monopoly position to stifle non-Windows OSes ( desktop AND server) every frigging time they can. Same way they have doing continuously for decad…

Are you talking about Be as in Be Incorporated? With the BeBox and BeOS? They settled a lawsuit with Microsoft, but Be didn't fail because of anything Microsoft did any more than it failed because of anything Apple did. Nobody wanted yet another operating system to write code against. Be failed for the same reason that Plan 9 hasn't caught fire and served as a meaningful alternative to the Linux ecosystem; when your…

Again, it's irrelevant what your opinion of the competition is. I'm just pointing that _they are_ abusing their dominant position to stiffle the competition, as recently as 2 months ago, and using the same tactiques they have been using since forever.

"The competition sucks" has never been an argument _at all_ in any antitrust case and never will, by definition.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#358

Post by shadowgovt »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #357
shadowgovt wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about Be as in Be Incorporated? With the BeBox and BeOS? They settled a lawsuit with Microsoft, but Be didn't fail because of anything Microsoft did any more than it failed because of anything Apple did. Nobody wanted yet another operating system to write code against. Be failed for the same reason that Plan 9 hasn't caught fire and served as a meaningful alternative to the Linux ecosystem; when your…

Again, it's irrelevant what your opinion of the competition is. I'm just pointing that _they are_ abusing their dominant position to stiffle the competition, as recently as 2 months ago, and using the same tactiques they have been using since forever. "The competition sucks" has never been an argument _at all_ in any antitrust case and never will, by definition.

"Competition is a ruthless process. A firm that reduces cost and expands sales injures rivals--sometimes fatally." ~ Ball Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1338 (7th Cir. 1986) (Easterbrook, J.)., sourced from the DOJ website. (https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol...). Also worth noting on that page: "At its core, section 2 makes it illegal to acquire or maintain monopoly power through improper means." Monopoly itself is not illegal in the US system; consumer harm is. This differs from the European interpretation.

... but yes, "Your honor, the competition is just too bad at this to compete" is an antitrust defense as a result. At least in the US system.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#359

Post by AshamedCaptain »

shadowgovt wrote: post #358
AshamedCaptain wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, it's irrelevant what your opinion of the competition is. I'm just pointing that _they are_ abusing their dominant position to stiffle the competition, as recently as 2 months ago, and using the same tactiques they have been using since forever. "The competition sucks" has never been an argument _at all_ in any antitrust case and never will, by definition.

"Competition is a ruthless process. A firm that reduces cost and expands sales injures rivals--sometimes fatally." ~ Ball Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1338 (7th Cir. 1986) (Easterbrook, J.)., sourced from the DOJ website. ( https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... ). Also worth noting on that page: "At its core, section 2 makes it illegal to acquire or maintain mon…

Your conclusion does not really follow from what you are quoting. Can you quote a case where "the competition sucks" was actually and succesfully used as a defense in the US?

I don't disagree with anything you quoted -- it is abuse of a dominant position that is illegal (even in my country at the very least, which last time I checked was in the EU). Just note that it doesn't really matter if you got your monopoly because "the competition sucked" or not, just the fact that you have a dominant position, and you abused it. So I disagree with the conclusion.

And let it be clear that all of this is an off-topic, since again the point was that MS is still using the same anti-competitive strategies they were using decades ago, to this day.

Re: EU suggests breaking up Google's ad business in preliminary antitrust ruling

#360

Post by shadowgovt »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #359
shadowgovt wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Competition is a ruthless process. A firm that reduces cost and expands sales injures rivals--sometimes fatally." ~ Ball Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1338 (7th Cir. 1986) (Easterbrook, J.)., sourced from the DOJ website. ( https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... ). Also worth noting on that page: "At its core, section 2 makes it illegal to acquire or maintain mon…

Your conclusion does not really follow from what you are quoting. Can you quote a case where "the competition sucks" was actually and succesfully used as a defense in the US? I don't disagree with anything you quoted -- it is abuse of a dominant position that is illegal (even in my country at the very least, which last time I checked was in the EU). Just note that it doesn't really matter if you got your monopoly bec…

> Your conclusion does not really follow from what you are quoting.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Emphasis mine: "At its core, section 2 makes it illegal to acquire or maintain monopoly power through improper means." The American system recognizes the notion of proper monopoly; if one company is doing something very well and every other company lacks the tools or skill to do as well, that is not actionable. Using market dominance is also not, by itself, actionable ("Competition is a ruthless process" &c). What the US does consider actionable is consumer harm... undercutting your opponents' prices because you can isn't actionable by itself ("Hey, look at all that competition lowering prices! Consumers love low prices!"), but undercutting them unsustainably and then jacking the price later when you grind them out of business is.

But you're right that we're having a two-ships-passing-in-the-night discussion on the topic now, because Europe takes a very different view upon this (protection of the marketplace, in the European history of antitrust, is protecting the right to make a living competing, not the consumers' right not to be screwed). Much of what I'm saying is in the American mindset, and reasonable people can disagree because reasonable people can come from different philsophical backgrounds on what constitutes protection-worthy antitrust behavior.

(Linux, as example, in the American system it's hard to make the argument that MS being unwilling to spend the money to port software they own to another OS is consumer harm. It can be made though; I believe that's one of the reasons the FCC was blocking the MS / Activision merger. But it's right on the edge of a defendable argument, because the counter-argument is "Who cares if Word doesn't run on Ubuntu distros if OpenOffice is right there?").

Post reply on HN