You know that I literally debunked your ''it isn't the only relevant thing'' above right?
Talk about cherry-picking.
Anyways the google definition doesn't matter in this case.
What is relevant is the concept of market dominance (and abuse thereof), which is what the aforementioned ruling is based on.
Actual lawyers disagree with you on the assessment that having a 90% market share which has existed over time and is unlikely to go away naturally doesn't constitute market dominance. In general, the source of that market dominance (be it a raw material or consumer preference) as well as the easy of access to the market are relevant things to keep in mind, but in this case the EC has decided that google is still market dominant. Unfortunately I am going to end this discussion here, because at this point it just comes down to you not accepting/understanding/personally disagreeing with that decision, which is your right. Having said that, I have a tendency to trust people with actual law degrees working for one of the most powerful institutions in the world over someone who is legally semi-literate on the internet when it comes to these matters.
Also, just because there are other factors EC looks at in establishing market dominance, it doesn't mean all have to be present. Each case is different. Also, generally, when the market share is above 50%, it usually is enough to establish market dominance just on the grounds of the market share, as per EU's legal practice on this matter.
Yes, EU rested their case on nothing but hopes and dreams
I guess when one's argument rests on deliberate misrepresentation of words, they may start to think they actually have a point. Anyway, in the real world, commodity in this context refers to, you know, goods and services. Whatever could be the service provided by a search engine.
You don't have to intentionally become a monopoly to be considered a fucking monopoly. If coke controls 70% of the pop market share, then coke has a monopoly whether they like it or not. If you can't understand that very simple logic, then yes you are beyond thick.
Is google unfairly prioritizing their own Google Shopping service? Are they charging their Google Shopping subsidiary the same rates as they would a third party company for their sponsored links? If they are not charging their subsidiaries the same rate they are giving themselves an unfair advantage. Whether they like it or not, whether they intended for it to happen or not, they are a monopoly. They have market dominance. And with that comes anti-competition laws and regulations which the EC has found that they have broken have a 2 year investigation.
You have still failed to provide any iota of evidence that google is predatorily preventing entrance and competition in the market place. There is NOTHING preventing competition... NOTHING.
If they haven't broken any anti-competition laws then they can fight it in court.
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
No it's not and neither is the US, EU lawmakers dont give a rats ass, what is and isn't a priority in the US.
When a company is doing business in the EU, it must obviously comply with the rules and regulations of the EU.
Just like companies must comply with US rules and regulations when operating in the US.
This is really not a hard concept to grasp.
Google has ''market dominance'' which is the relevant legal term (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/anti...es_102_en.html) as well as a 90% market share in internet searches in Europe. It doesn't have a full-blown monopoly but that is irrelevant in the legal matter at hand.
Advertising yourself on your own website really isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, especially when your website is supposed to display objective information based on an algorithm and not meant to advertise for yourself.
Ah, I wondered when in your random posting of meaningless shit you'd link this story (about which you made a complete whine thread in the past, in which you made a fool out of yourself, flailing about US being oppressed and showing that you don't understand anything the story is about and where even Orlong had more of a clue on the topic). And yeah, EU filing charges against Google after other venues failed is totes because of resentment towards America. Also combined with horseshit conspiracy theory about election motives, which, given how the guy in question was a fucking commissioner, showcases you don't have even a sliver of clue about how EU works and what the fuck you're bullshitting about.
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
If you have the option to click the top result on google or the third result, which one will you click?
If you don't say top result you are simply lying.
Anyways, let me have the facts do the talking:
The placement of Google’s product well ahead of its rivals was pivotal to the shopping service’s success as, even on a desktop, the 10 highest-ranking generic search results on page one generally receive approximately 95% of all clicks on generic search results. The top result receives about 35% of all the clicks and the trend is exaggerated further for searches on mobile phones. (https://www.theguardian.com/business...n-fine-from-eu).
Yup when I worked for a large construction company, the vast majority of my job was writing cheques to different departments in the company. Why? So we wouldn't be charged with anti-competition laws by favouring ourselves over the small mom and pop stores. We had to bill ourselves the same price we would anyone else.
Google probably wouldn't be in this mess if the charged Google Shopping for the sponsored links.
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)