The laws clearly state it's not bribery. Just how it's not insider trading if Congress Persons act on information they received in the line of work.
Segregation was legal and called "separate but equal." Unjust and incorrect laws have existed.
People tend to assume laws are right, fair, just, and moral. They're not. People also assume right equals fair equals just equals moral. Again, they're not.
There may or may not be overlap on many of these but there's never a 1:1 relationship between any of them.
The other main difference it that the EU is punishing Google, while turning a blind eye to Microsoft's behavior. They were only fined for bundling IE and WMP with their OS. Locking customers out of competing operating systems is much more harmful in my opinion. The only EU mention of Windows bundling I can find is an Italian court ordering that customers should be able to get a refund for the Windows tax.
microsoft not forbids manufacturers to install OS other than windows, that's why you can buy computers with linux. There are always options, there is nothing to blame microsoft for this. If you don't want to buy Windows, you can choose a model without windows. If you cannot find a satisfied model without windows, go to blame your PC manufacturer
Microsoft used to threaten PC manufacturers that bundled any other OS other than Windows or no OS at all. They claimed that not bundling an OS was the express purpose of installing a pirated copy of Windows.
I am arguing there is no real difference between tying, and not selling to 3rd parties at all and only using your product in a vertically integrated business. Vertical integration amounts to tying with extremely onerous requirements that only the selling company (i.e. Apple) can meet.
I think it would be difficult to implement that argument without a weird slippery slope of forcing SAAS companies to sell their cloud infrastructure.
From the press release: the fine has been calculated on the basis of the value of Google's revenue from search advertising services on Android devices in the EEA. In other words, Google had an unfair advantage for search on android devices and leveraged that into revenue. The fine is a percentage of that ill-gotten revenue. There’s an official guideline for calculating damages when anticompetitive behavior is found:…
> the fine has been calculated on the basis of the value of Google's revenue from search advertising services on Android devices in the EEA. "They have a lot of money and we would like to have that." The actual "damages" have nothing to do with their total revenue, only the revenue incident to the behavior in question, which is an independent value and not a percentage of total revenue. For example, if they improve t…
Well you're making some assumptions about damages and maybe have opinions what constitutes damages. I think the other side you have to consider is if revenue related to wrong doing is in the billions and your fine is in the thousands, it's toothless. Companies will gladly pay a pittance in fines over and over again against billions in revenue. That's not ideal from and enforcement standpoint. It doesn't get companies to follow the law and play by the rules. There's consequences for that too, voters have opinions about their governments letting companies run amok without any real consequences or deterrents.
Google could absolutely close-source enough of Android to make it essentially closed. As I posted elsewhere: Couldn't Google have had Samsung OEM phones? With co-branding? And all of the profits going to Samsung? This would merely be a different way to structure access to Android, right? Android is closed source, but literally everything else is the same... Except now it's not "anti-competitive," because the phone ma…
> Couldn't Google have had Samsung OEM phones? If 1. Android still reached 80% of market 2. Terms of OEM prohibited Samsung from making phones with another OS That would be the same anticompetitive violation
The terms wouldn't prohibit Samsung from making phones with another OS.
The terms would say that Samsung installs the version of Android 2 (the new and closed source one) that Google tells it to. As manufacturing partners are always told what to do.
Not necessarily. Byod is commom. And quite frankly even if it is my employers box im not gonna put up with restrictions against installing a web browser. Or deal with some paperwork request, I'll work around it and just do it.
Who would bring their own equipment to work in software unless they are a founder? That's like paying to work. Especially when employers like to claim ownership rights to all data generated by their employees in the course of business. Mechanics bring their own tools frequently but their employers don't try to repo their personal vehicles just because the mechanic used the same tools at home and at work
My company hands us out shit laptops running 10 different layers of security devices. Fuck that. I bring my Surface Pro in and actually enjoy my life.
Who would bring their own equipment to work in software unless they are a founder? That's like paying to work. Especially when employers like to claim ownership rights to all data generated by their employees in the course of business. Mechanics bring their own tools frequently but their employers don't try to repo their personal vehicles just because the mechanic used the same tools at home and at work
It's fairly common to byod. Just think about personal phones. Do you have corporate phone or do have slack installed on your personal one?
I don't have work slack on my personal phone on principle. If the company wants to require me to be available on their systems they need to provide the hardware
Not necessarily. Byod is commom. And quite frankly even if it is my employers box im not gonna put up with restrictions against installing a web browser. Or deal with some paperwork request, I'll work around it and just do it.
Who would bring their own equipment to work in software unless they are a founder? That's like paying to work. Especially when employers like to claim ownership rights to all data generated by their employees in the course of business. Mechanics bring their own tools frequently but their employers don't try to repo their personal vehicles just because the mechanic used the same tools at home and at work
My company hands us out shit laptops running 10 different layers of security devices. Fuck that. I bring my Surface Pro in and actually enjoy my life.
I can understand that. I just don't want to have a reason why my employer could call me in off hours, nor for them to claim ownership of stuff I've done.