Good lord. Please go read up on the wiki page of anti-trust law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._antitrust_law) before making such stupid statements again.
Good lord. Please go read up on the wiki page of anti-trust law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._antitrust_law) before making such stupid statements again.
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
As far as I know, google isn't actively preventing entry (or competition) in the search engine market. Having said that, please link the relevant passage where it says that a lack of ability to enter the market is a requirement for a dominant position (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/anti...es_102_en.html), hint: you can't because it isn't. It is one of the relevant factors but it isn't a necessary one, in fact the only necessary one is the 40+% market share, which I think we both agree on is present.
No... it isn't BY definition, that you and other have provided. Market share is NOT the only determining factor. They do not control the commodity, therefore they do not control the market. They simply provide a superior service. There is nothing stopping competition in the market.
A company prioritizing their own interests, over interests of other companies is a monopoly... that is what you are saying.
So again going back to my florist shop analogy. I have a garden and I prominently display my flowers over flowers I have imported I am breaking law.
So the correct way to do business according to you and the EC is I should equally display all flowers both mine and others and give no preference to my own product? Because I am in the business of making other people money, not myself.
Damn first their #morethanarefugee campaign not getting the expected reaction in EU and now this.
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
I agree that there isn't a monopoly, however that isn't a requirement to have ''market dominance'', google was fined for abuse of market dominance. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/anti...es_102_en.html
"The Commission also takes other factors into account in its assessment of dominance, including the ease with which other companies can enter the market – whether there are any barriers to this; the existence of countervailing buyer power; the overall size and strength of the company and its resources and the extent to which it is present at several levels of the supply chain (vertical integration)."
Its literally the next paragraph down from the shit you are regurgitating.
Last edited by A dot Ham; 2017-06-27 at 06:52 PM.
Having competitors doesn't prevent a company from having a monopoly position under modern antitrust laws. And contrary to your previous brilliant post about US exceptionalism, US thresholds of market share are very similar to EU ones. So given how you're outright ignorant of antitrust laws in both EU and US, I'll jump on @Zelk's comment of "beyond parody" as being applicable here.
You keep saying that but you are still wrong. By definition they have market dominance.
A company with market dominance that is giving themselves an unfair advantage over other companies is smart business practice I agree with that. It also goes against anti-competition laws in pretty much every western country.A company prioritizing their own interests, over interests of other companies is a monopoly... that is what you are saying.
So again going back to my florist shop analogy. I have a garden and I prominently display my flowers over flowers I have imported I am breaking law.
So the correct way to do business according to you and the EC is I should equally display all flowers both mine and others and give no preference to my own product? Because I am in the business of making other people money, not myself.
Flower shop analogy really outlines your understanding of the subject, i.e. zero understanding.
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
I have a degree in economics...
I also happen to be a strong supporter of the free market. Fining a company billions of dollars for doing the exact same thing that other companies can get away with is en example of a double standard. It's an inconsistent application of logic, and is damn punitive.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm not ignorant of the laws, I simply disagree with them, and how they are applied.
I'm not sure where you have seen me unironically preaching American exceptionalism. If you can find it, please point it out. At best, you will find my assertion that the United States has more freedom of speech than most EU countries. That last point can be demonstrated to be objectively true for most EU countries.
Last edited by Machismo; 2017-06-27 at 06:55 PM.
Are people in the EU not aware of this?
I don't know anyone in America that uses google that doesn't know that the first several returns are paid slots. If you know that, and this isn't kept from the public. What is the issue?
Now if you return the information and you claim it is the top search result, best price, etc... and it isn't well you are deceiving the consumer. Which I don't know about EU law... but that is something else entirely. In America we'd call that false advertising... which isn't what the EU has brought against google.
I hope google fights this and they lose horribly in court. The tears of Americans looking to suckle the teat of Corporation will be fantastic.
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)