Slashdot Mirror
EU Regulators Delay Google's Motorola Buy, Seeking More Info
judgecorp writes "The European Commission is delaying Google's proposed purchase of Motorola Mobility, saying it wants 'more infromation.' Europe may be nervous of the power the purchase will give Google in the mobile space."
Motorola Problems (opposite of Solutions) is a US company.
Google is a US company.
Why is the EU even getting involved at all? This has nothing to do with them, other than the fact that some of their lobbyists see Apple dollars and that hamstringing this merger would help keep Apple with the upper hand in this patent polka that all the phone companies are forced to play.
Maybe the EU should look at other things like banks, and their problems.
Although I am generally in favor of the government organizations checking on private companies (I think there is no such thing as a *fully* free market), I think the EU is sometimes overshooting their goal. It seems to me that there is no reason to disallow this deal. So generally what happens is just the delay, which can kill the value of the company that is being taken over. Sure, large take overs take time, but adding time to the deal in this fast paced sector can cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars really quick. Hopefully they will not take months (again) to validate the deal.
Bad troll, bad..
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
My question is, will they open the bootloader of the motorola phones that have been, or will be, released so that they have a truly open device?
And you don't see the difference between a US regulatory agency looking into a merger between two American companies and an EU agency doing the same?
Isn't it odd how people still believe a multinational corporation is "American" in spite of all of our previous discussions about how they have restructured themselves to minimize their US corporate taxes, spreading their assets and operations in different jurisdictions, and embedding their revenue gathering into many world markets?
On the one hand, I don't feel that these corporations deserve a very protective stance by the American people, since they have clearly turned their backs on us and attempted to minimize their obligations to us. On the other hand, I also see that their future depends on their access to multiple world markets, so they would be foolish to take an isolationist stance with what is a strategic merger of assets and operations.
You haven't been paying attention. The EU likes to make themselves relevant for all kinds of mergers that aren't any of their business. (Oracle/Sun and GE/Honeywell off the top of my head). Doubly so when it could affect a European company -- perhaps you've heard of Nokia?
If a US-based company is also registered in the EU and conducts massive business operations therein, then mergers and acquisitions by said company are, you know, kinda like "ZOMG Kim Kardashian LOLCATS" under EU jurisdiction. Ergo, it is their business to nose around.
I think the EU's nosing around in these mergers (Moto+Google, Oracle+Sun) are really stupid (and horrendously costly for the companies involved). But we are not debating the is/ought meta-ethics conundrum, but observing the EU exercising its legal jurisdiction muscles, which are sovereignty theirs to flex.
All of the companies mentioned operate in Europe, that makes it the EU's business. You clearly don't understand the situation.
I'm assuming you're an American, it seems you have very strong feelings about "your" companies despite the fact that they operate abroad. They're incorporated in Europe. If they operate in the EU, they're subject to European laws. If you want to sell your products in Europe, you will be subject to our market regulations and laws.
The same principle applies to European and other companies in other markets including the US. You're being very narrow minded and strongly nationalistic, yet your nation, the United States of America, is the strongest advocate of globalization and free trade.
If you can't take the pain, don't play the game!
As for your ludicrous claim that this has anything to do with Nokia, Europeans are not "Europeans" first and foremost. Nokia is a Finnish concern. There are few if any other European countries interested in what happens to a Finnish company. Did you even know that there are several other European cellphone makers? SonyEricsson of Sweden for example, and there are others.
Your next suggestion would probably be "lobbyists", however the European equivalent of the US Congress, the European Parliament, doesn't really have that kind of power and neither do the lobbyists. We're not as corrupt as the US on a federal level, that remains on a national level.
In the EU the national leaders are all naturally looking out for their own country's interests, the EU itself on the other hand cuts evenly and is only interested in fair competition regardless of your origin. The EU's competition authority and courts don't give a rats ass about your claims, they're vigilant and justly so, in the interest of the average European consumer.
To be frank, reading about the EU and Euro in a British publication is about as reasonable as reading about Jews in the Al-Qaida magazine.
I really don't see a reason why the EU will say no. Neither entity is posed to control too much of any market even after they combine. There are plenty of other industries that have both first and third party hardware on the market and they thrive.
I look forward to Google's first party devices because, hopefully, they will set the bar for what an android device should be. That's the problem that keeps me away from an android phone, really. It's that there is no truly practical standard level of device longevity, features, or, quality. Any given android device is a massive unknown and you're taking a huge risk getting a device as launch day. Is the carrier or device maker going to abandon it? Will it have nasty bugs? Will the bugs ever get fixed? Will I be able to use the next version of android? Will it be 12 months late when I can? The trouble is, you don't know these things until.. Well. The next generation is already out.
I want all the new toys and I want some safety in the longevity in my device and the platformitself. I have that, right now, with my iphone.
Google seems to be cleaning a lot of this up with ICS. New, stricter hardware requirements and more standardization of, well, everything. I'm pretty sure they recognize that bad devices hurt their brand name. With any luck my first android phone will be an ICS devices. I'd be many times more tempted if it were a first party device from Google itself!
Absolutely, only Microsoft and Apple should be allowed to patent trolls. Other companies should not even be allowed to defend themselves against MS and Apple.
By the way: how many scam lawsuits has Google filed? And how about MS and Apple?
Now that the DOJ's consent degree and Penfield's / Kotar-Kelly's solution has failed, MS is going into tablets, on ARM no less.
Naturally all their upcoming development tools will bind Windows servers to Windows tablets, for "an enhanced tablet experience".
So where is the outrage over the failed EU / DOJ solutions to the Windows monopoly problem?
There must be 20 search alternatives now in the IE list of choices.
I'm sorry but I strongly disagree. This is a case of 20/20 hindsight.
They did not know that the US banks were going to collapse and lead to worldwide problems.
Or that those problems would manifest in Greece. It was not common knowledge that Greece entered the Eurozone using inflated numbers. If you can show that they knew this I will retract my statement.
It was not clear at the time that it would be problem, the Eurozone worked until quite recently. The debt became a larger problem with the change of circumstances. Perhaps they should have taken this into account as well, but nations are not treated like ordinary bank customers.
The Economist did talk about their theories and the potential risks. That doesn't make it clear that they knew something we didn't. It was speculation and theories.
The British press is known for its bias, ridiculous claims and misrepresentation of facts.