Noncompetitive Europe unable to innovate so they sue U.S. companies

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Apr 25, 2015.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    The colossal stumbling bureaucracy called Europe has lost their entrepreneurial spirit. Today, their economic advantage comes from armies of lawyers and apparatchiks. Case in point: their frivolous lawsuit against Google. I hope Google fights back with every weapon in their arsenal.

    http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21648606-google
     
  2. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #2
    Yeah, because unregulated monopolies are such a good thing and need absolute protection from their own wrong doings !!
     
  3. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #3
    The reason the Commission opened an antitrust investigation into Google is because other companies complained that its dominant market position allowed it to unfairly compete by placing its own services higher in search results than others'.

    There is no doubt that there is some European rivalry with the U.S., but if a company wishes to do business in the European market then it must follow EU rules.

    Google controls 90% of the European search market (which is higher what it controls in the U.S. market). I think having protections in place to ensure that Google does not abuse its position against competitors is a sensible thing to do.
     
  4. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    HOW does. Google control it?
    Are you Guys not able to use BING or any other search engine?
     
  5. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #5
    The complaint did not come from search users but from advertisers.

    If you are a business and want to advertise then you are going to choose the search provider with 90% market share. That much is common sense. It's about Google unfairly competing with companies that provide competing services to their own.

    As a competing business, you have only two options: continue to use Google and put up with unfair downgrades to your own adverts compared to Google's own services, or don't use Google and instead advertise on searches using only 10% of the market. Either way you're getting a bad deal.
     
  6. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #6
  7. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #7
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
  9. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    So they are trying to punish Google because it's successful? dont like Google then advertise elsewhere , Google would be "fair" if it has some competition, this is the advertisers fault for feeding Google, I don't like Verizon's prices either, but I had crappy/worthless service from ATT so I stick with VZ
     
  10. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #10
    It’s not just Europeans going after Google, some US companies are too.


    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/eu-vs-google-what-is-the-case-all-about-1.2177189

    http://rt.com/news/249733-eu-google-antitrust-case/
     
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #11
    That just shows you how stultifying the EU's bureaucracy is.

    It's even affecting U.S. companies.

    ;)
     
  12. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #12
    What kind of rules does the OP support? Does the OP support a truly free market?

    If Google should be allowed to unfairly place its own adverts above competitors in a market in which they hold 90% share, then what other things should be permitted? Should Google be permitted to completely halt offering adverts to competitors?

    Should Intel, which controls between 70% - 98% of various CPU markets, be permitted to continue paying OEMs to not use AMD CPUs? Intel started to lose substantial market share to AMD in c. 2004, at which point it resorted to unfair (and some illegal) practices of using its market power to effectively crush AMD. More recently, it was discovered that Intel paid off major benchmark providers to intentionally slow processing when an AMD processor was detected. AMD has consistently lost market share since its high point in 2004 (when its products were objectively better). Who knows how much innovation from AMD was killed by Intel's unfair competition?

    If Google should be allowed to do what it wants regarding the placement of competing adverts in a market in which it is effectively a monopoly supplier, then should Intel have been allowed to enter into those agreements with OEMs and manipulate benchmark providers to make AMD processors appear less capable than their own?

    The reason I'm bringing up Intel and AMD is because the Commission also filed a suit against Intel last year and fined them over €1 billion for abusing its dominant position, mostly against AMD. The FTC in the U.S. also settled with Intel for similar abuses.

    What line should be drawn in order to protect competition from dominant market providers? Nobody but a fool would believe that a free market eventually tends towards perfect competition. It would be the opposite.
     
  13. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #13
    Agreed.

    This is not 'non-competitive Europe failing to innovate' (which is an area well worth discussing properly) but a wail of appalled horror that the EU Commission decline to allow an unregulated monopoly situation to arise in the EU.

    Not for the first time a misleading and somewhat disingenuous thread title.

    As for The Economist, much of what it writes is well informed and intelligent analysis, but it would be most foolish to read it without forearming oneself with advance knowledge of its particular perspective on such matters, so that one can filter what one reads, accordingly. And I write that as someone who is a subscriber to the publication.
     
  14. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #14
    How do you know the competing services are worse if, because of Google, they are effectively censored from 90% of searches?

    The Verizon and AT&T analogy isn't really related.

    Imagine that AT&T controlled a search engine with 90% share of the market. When people searched for "best cell services", AT&T censored Verizon and instead only prominently showed their own even though, from your own words, Verizon provides a better service in your area. If Verizon were a small business and not well-known then you would never even know about them even though their service is better.
     
  15. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #15
    IMO I would like to point out that the OP has a history of posting anything that has an anti European slant. Feel free to look through the archives.:cool:
     
  16. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #16
    Why should Google include the competition in THEIR service? Why would ATT tell me about verizon in their service? If Google is selling advertising then it's up to Google to show the advertising it sees fit
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    Because Google is a monopoly.
     
  18. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #18
    Because there is an understanding that a search engine gives the neutral data, not data that has been manipulated.

    The reason the EU can fine Google 10% of 6 Billion and ban Google from doing any business in all 28 countries of the EU.
     
  19. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    How when there are other search engines out there ?
     
  20. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #20
    You do understand that it's not the users in Europe that are bringing this lawsuit. But companies like Microsoft, or Yelp. They find that Google manipulates the data so that companies that pay get higher ratings.
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Because Google has the vast majority of the market.
     
  22. VulchR, Apr 25, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2015

    VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #22
    The EU is free to do as it sees fit within its borders. Rather than a lack of European innovation, what I see here is a certain amount of American whining - awww diddums. :rolleyes:

    (FWIW I am a US citizen living in the EU.)
     
  23. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #23
    I don't see a problem with it. That said I agree with the below quote
    Their country / their rules
     
  24. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #24
    Plus I would like to point out that it's also US companies which are acting on this, they believe that the EU will act where as the US courts will fold like they did in the 1980's against Microsoft.

    Plus the fine of 10% of 6 Billion will make even Google understand that is is not above the law.
     
  25. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #25
    No, it's up to Google to show the advertising that the advertisers have paid for, or to rank it in search by actual popularity.

    I understand your point, but it's exactly the way monopolies work, and how they become monopolies.
     

Share This Page