231–240 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In 2018, the European Commission slapped Google with the record-breaking penalty on the grounds that it abused Android's mobile dominance... What do you think?
Yes?
> Europe’s top court has upheld Google’s fine of around 4.1 billion euros ($4.67 billion) over alleged anti-competitive practices. If they lost the case, and the appeal was dismissed, what is ‘alleged’ about it?
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Perhaps believable, had it not survived eight years of litigation ending at the ECJ You're of course making the assumption the ECJ isn't biased towards ruling in favor of the EU in these disputes... > or had there been some informal "pay up or else" demand attached, neither of which is true. Isn't there a formal "pay up or else" demand attached? If Google doesn't pay, then what? I would take this a lot more serious…
> No, they're OK with Google apparently not changing much of anything and being allowed to continue operating so long as they pay the fine first. This is false. They were asked to: - Stop tying Google Search and Chrome to the Play Store. - Permit competing Android versions. - Stop exclusivity incentives for Google Search. - Provide genuine room for rival search engines and browsers. This is separate from the fine and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Perhaps believable, had it not survived eight years of litigation ending at the ECJ You're of course making the assumption the ECJ isn't biased towards ruling in favor of the EU in these disputes... > or had there been some informal "pay up or else" demand attached, neither of which is true. Isn't there a formal "pay up or else" demand attached? If Google doesn't pay, then what? I would take this a lot more serious…
> No, they're OK with Google apparently not changing much of anything and being allowed to continue operating so long as they pay the fine first. This is false. They were asked to: - Stop tying Google Search and Chrome to the Play Store. - Permit competing Android versions. - Stop exclusivity incentives for Google Search. - Provide genuine room for rival search engines and browsers. This is separate from the fine and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nothing was really gained by victory Windows users have a prompt to choose their browser after installing the OS.
and you might think this is a small or pointless win, but the whole point of this is that because users have this choice, microsoft is forced to make internet explorer actually good so that people willingly choose it instead of abusing it to make life harder and worse for everyone else while making things easier for themselves. Hence internet explorer was killed and we got edge
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure. Which is why alternative stores like F-Droid are under threat now. I would love to read the internal memos one day when Google decided to make their lifes hard.
When they saw everyone with a closed platform (apple, nintendo, sony, microsoft) not deal with any of this anti-competitive mess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google has attempted to allay the Commission’s concerns over the years such as allowing Android users to switch between search engines and browsers so they are not tied to the company’s apps.
Two words: Google Play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The EU doesn't have any equivalent companies. Out of the highest 50 grossing companies in the world ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_r... ) the only ones in the EU are Lidl's parent company, a handful automakers, and one French oil conglomerate. Grocery has practically no margin, the big European auto makers are all declining rapidly, and the EU already does everything it can to make exist…
> Europe’s top court has upheld Google’s fine of around 4.1 billion euros ($4.67 billion) over alleged anti-competitive practices. If they lost the case, and the appeal was dismissed, what is ‘alleged’ about it?
Are court decisions universally recognized? If a court rules someone true in one area, couldn't it still be considered slander/libel in another area if another court rules it as not being true? It is a bit like saying convicted murderer vs murderer. One is claiming the conviction for murder happened (which generally correlates to the murder happening but doesn't openly claim such) while the other directly claims the…
Are laws in any country universally recognized and respected?
> If the conviction is later overturned, does the second claim open one up to more libability for a false claim?
Common sense would say before you go claim libel you first demand correction, or place onus on publisher to correct a publication with the new developed news.
I know it became normal to police speech nowadays but if a conviction - even before appeal - doesnt allow the use of a label/word, what does?
Now, being CNBC reporting this i guess the issue is less about risk of libel and more to do with the current stance that europe is out to get american companies
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In general, yes, but I disagree with "It isn't Google's money". But it is. It's right there in their accounts. Possession is 9/10ths of the law as they say.
In the end it is legal tender, owned by the government of said legal tender. But Google owes another legal entity money. They're in debt to that other legal entity, and they should pay said debt (pay the fine). It is actually 4.7 billion EUR. And on top of all of the above, there's another reason Google owes us money. Google does not even pay fair taxes.
I'm not a fan of theGoog or any bigTech, but you especially seem to be taking this rather personally.