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

Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 458 posts

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#81

Post by BiteCode_dev »

guitarbill wrote: post #59
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really need the equivalent of jail time for companies. Clearly after a certain size, fines do not cut it. Jailing executives is too hard, so laws should exist that remove the company from a market for x years or something, like if they were in a cell.

> Jailing executives is too hard Do you mean "too difficult" or "too bigger punishment"? Either way, I disagree. If they reap the reward of huge salaries, they ought to take some of the risks.

Too difficult: you need to prove they knew and took a series of actions to get there, but it's very hard to do, and they usually have fall guys all the way to protect themselves. It's also easier than ever to destroy evidence.

The cost of going after those companies is ridiculous already, once they are proven guilty, it would be simpler if we could punish the company as a person, than to find a real person to punish. After all, companies are very happy to be persons for other legal purposes.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#82

Post by that_guy_iain »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #60
that_guy_iain wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before I could choose the same manufacturers but things were tied to those. I knew if I switched from Nokia to Sony for example, it would be completely different. In a way Android resulted in the choice to switch between manufacturers to be painless. Realistically, now you can choose whatever non apple device you want and know everything will continue to work.

Easy to switch between giving all your data to Google and giving all your data to Google, sure. Bear in mind, Android hardware is no longer unique or distinctive, every glass rectangle is the same, so those choices are pointless, but our lack of privacy is pervasive.

Steve Jobs pointed this out along time ago. No one cares about the hardware. Nice hardware is nice but what we care about is the software.

Previously, we would switch from Nokia to Sony we would lose our ringtones, our games, our apps, our photos, etc. When each phone operator had their own operating system, it was honestly terrible.

And honestly, shoehorning privacy into a conversation about choices in phones is a poor show. Feel ashamed.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#83

Post by sgjohnson »

dahfizz wrote: post #58
p-e-w wrote: post #32

> This is Google's third EU antitrust fine. Previously, the search giant was fined in a shopping case and an online advertising case. Apparently, "three strikes and you're out" only applies to individuals, who with a repeat offense of this magnitude would have their lives destroyed by the justice system, and get locked away for a decade or more.

I don't believe Europe has three strike laws. Anyway, in the US, three strike laws only apply to criminal charges and not civil ones.

> Anyway, in the US, three strike laws only apply to criminal charges and not civil ones.

And not even to all criminal charges. Three strike laws usually apply only to felonies.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#84

Post by synu »

p-e-w wrote: post #32

> This is Google's third EU antitrust fine. Previously, the search giant was fined in a shopping case and an online advertising case. Apparently, "three strikes and you're out" only applies to individuals, who with a repeat offense of this magnitude would have their lives destroyed by the justice system, and get locked away for a decade or more.

Wow, what country has three fines and you go to jail for a decade? That sounds intense.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#85

Post by spywaregorilla »

RandomWorker wrote: post #13

That increases the budget of the eu parliament with 2.2% on a yearly basis if paid out in one go. [1082B for 2014-2020, 4B/1082B*6y~2.2%] A loss of 4B is a decrease of revenue by 1.5% for google. [googles revenue was 256B in 2021 4/256~1.5%]

EMEA represents about 31% of revenues. Google makes about 76B in net income.

So another way to look at this is 21% of profits in Europe for a year.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#86

Post by cyphar »

robertlagrant wrote: post #77
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. And if you put Sundar Pichai and Mark Zuckerberg in jail for a year or two, watch the tech industry whip itself into shape in weeks. Hold people actually responsible for the damage they do and you'll see real change.

I doubt that giving the power to overseas nations to criminalise and incarcerate US citizens has no downsides.

Believe it or not, committing a crime in a foreign country as a US citizen will result in you being incarcerated in said country regardless of your citizenship status.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#87

Post by Normille »

imiric wrote: post #66
nottorp wrote: post #38

> Android has created more choice for everyone, not less Did it? I can choose between an iOS phone and an Android phone. I may be able to choose from different manufacturers on the Android side, but on the software side there are just two options.

> I may be able to choose from different manufacturers on the Android side, but on the software side there are just two options. What do you mean by "just two options"? The AOSP ecosystem has a healthy range of ROMs to choose from on many devices. The process of installing alternative firmware may not be for everyone, but the choice is there, which is pretty much nonexistent for iOS devices.

  >The AOSP ecosystem has a healthy range of ROMs to choose from on many devices.
But it's not true choice is it? It's just the same old same old with a different skin on top. Much the same as the similarly claimed 'choice' in Linux distros pretty much boils down to the same old same old collection of apps running on the same old same old collection of desktop environments. But with eleventy billion superficial skins layered on top, to choose from.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#88

Post by draw_down »

p-e-w wrote: post #32

> This is Google's third EU antitrust fine. Previously, the search giant was fined in a shopping case and an online advertising case. Apparently, "three strikes and you're out" only applies to individuals, who with a repeat offense of this magnitude would have their lives destroyed by the justice system, and get locked away for a decade or more.

No post body was provided.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#89

Post by tzs »

otippat wrote: post #52
p-e-w wrote: post #32

> This is Google's third EU antitrust fine. Previously, the search giant was fined in a shopping case and an online advertising case. Apparently, "three strikes and you're out" only applies to individuals, who with a repeat offense of this magnitude would have their lives destroyed by the justice system, and get locked away for a decade or more.

I don't think three-strikes laws exist anywhere other than in the US to be honest.

New Zealand had one until last month, when it was repealed. Their ACT and National parties have said they will bring it back if they ever get a chance.

I don't know enough about New Zealand politics to know if those parties have a chance of actually doing so.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#90

Post by registeredcorn »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #50
p-e-w wrote: post #32

> This is Google's third EU antitrust fine. Previously, the search giant was fined in a shopping case and an online advertising case. Apparently, "three strikes and you're out" only applies to individuals, who with a repeat offense of this magnitude would have their lives destroyed by the justice system, and get locked away for a decade or more.

We really need the equivalent of jail time for companies. Clearly after a certain size, fines do not cut it. Jailing executives is too hard, so laws should exist that remove the company from a market for x years or something, like if they were in a cell.

Pretty much what I was thinking too! If your company has violated the law previously in the same or similar manner, you should not be permitted to sell to customers in that market for the equivalent amount of time an individual would be jailed for. I am not opposed to the concept of treating a corporation as a legal entity, but I think that if a corporation is going to be considered a legal entity, they should inherit the same legal consequences a human would incur, if they break the law.

Realistically speaking, I don't see many politicians supporting this kind of change. I'm not even thinking of the issues around corruption, but merely the knowledge that hurting that company would in turn, also impact their own economy in the process.

Imagine if no business of a nation were searchable in Google for a 4 year period. It would be devastating.

Similarly, there are a lot of physical consequences to consider as well. If you lock out a company like Apple or Coke from operating in a country, suddenly there are a lot of related issues.

If Apple could not operate in a specific nation for a set amount of time, suddenly any stores they have would presumably be closed. This would impact customers ability to get their devices repaired. I would also have to assume that all employees at each of those locations would be fired, leaving a sudden glut of unemployment, impacting people who had nothing to do with the situation.

If Coke were to be banned for some set amount of time, it would make a lot of weird cases around things like Vending Machines and Grocery stores. The company might not be marketing or selling their products to distributors, but those distributors might still be selling that product. Once their stock ran out, if they were to attempt to purchase more from the company in a nearby country, who would be at fault? Coke, or the distributor?

I imagine it would create a ton of issues with other things, like agreements to pay X amount of money over time. Stock trading would be another big one, not just in individual stocks, but in mutual funds and ETFs that might be heavily invested in that company. In one sense, it might make investors and day traders more weary and discerning from who they decide to trade with, but trying to figure out which company is breaking which laws, and how likely they are to get caught doing it, is practically impossible to determine, without inside knowledge on the matter.

Post reply on HN