Slashdot Mirror
EU Offers Google Chance To Settle Prior To Anti-Trust Enquiry
Fluffeh writes "The EU has accused Google of abusing its dominant position in advertising to benefit its own advertising services at the expense of competitors. In a twist however, rather than initiating formal proceedings, the EU has given Google a chance to settle the whole matter without much fuss. They outlined four changes that Google can make that will put it firmly back in the good graces of the EU. Google has been given 'a matter of weeks' to propose remedies to the four issues — which all tie in with how search results are displayed, their format and their portability to other platforms. This matter has come before the EU based on complaints by a few small companies and Microsoft."
The four issues: Displaying results to their own services specially, use of user reviews from other sites in search results, Advertising "...agreements result in de facto exclusivity requiring them to obtain all or most of their requirements of search advertisements from Google," and concerns that Google is imposing "...contractual restrictions on software developers which prevent them from offering tools that allow the seamless transfer of search advertising campaigns across AdWords and other platforms..."
This is actually what most people commenting on Google's antitrust issues miss. The comments about how easy it is for people to change search engines is not relevant because it isn't even the issue. They cannot see forest from the trees.
Google's antitrust issues are not about the everyday user. Remember, you are not their customer. You are their product. The antitrust issues are about abuse towards other companies, ad networks and services. You may not care about this if you're selfish and just think about yourself, but the issue is very real.
Google is intentionally abusing their position to promote their own products and hide competitors. Yes, this thing matters. And not only are they promoting their own services over competitors, much of the data they use is scraped off those services. Great example is hotel, restaurant etc reviews on Google Maps. They are all taken from competitors services, and promoted way higher than those services in google search results. Google prohibits these things for other websites and penalizes them, but yet seem perfectly fine to do it themselves.
Another case in point is the exclusivity agreement in AdWords. If you want to use AdWords (and you often have to because it's the prominent player and they also own Doubleclick since long time ago), you cannot run your ads on competitors services. It is prohibited in the terms. That is just monopoly abuse.
That said, "slight" might be worth millions to Google / its competitors, especially as smaller firms have complained as well as Microsoft.
There is no need to block Google. We can just keep fining them until they comply. If they refuse to pay the fines or comply, we will close their offices and order banks to stop money transfer to Google. As EU is huge revenue source to Google (unlike China where they were losing), Google will comply in seconds if that happens.
Google might be big, but it is not above the law.
What the EU is essentially saying is that Google is breaking the law. They can pay the fine, or battle it out in court (and risk a higher fine perhaps). The EU has many tools at its disposal. A fine would be step 1. But if Google would be so stupid to consistently break the law, or not pay the fine, then they might seize their European assets or otherwise obstruct their business inside the EU. A total block might be the final option.
Google is not stupid, they won't let it come that far. They don't want to lose 500 million users.
Google currently has 66% of the search market... Interesting that Microsoft is arguing that 66% market share amounts to a dominant, monopolisitic amount that puts Google into anti-trust territory. I wonder what market share Windows and Office currently have, and if Microsoft would accept that they have a monopoly there?
First, the EU begins their second assertion by not being sure. Are they serious? Emphasis is mine:
Our second concern relates to the way Google copies content from competing vertical search services and uses it in its own offerings. Google may be copying original material from the websites of its competitors such as user reviews and using that material on its own sites without their prior authorisation.
Then they base their next point on this unsubstantiated assertion...again, bold is mine.
In this way they are appropriating the benefits of the investments of competitors.
To make matters worse, they conflate the two issues to emphasize another point, this time focusing on the possibility. Again, emphasis mine.
We are worried that this could reduce competitors' incentives to invest in the creation of original content for the benefit of internet users. This practice may impact for instance travel sites or sites providing restaurant guides...
Here is the question:
Was any investigation done? Doesn't sound like it!
What this means is that Microsoft, having failed to compete in the marketplace, now attempts to compete via the courtroom.
You are clearly unaware of the difference between European and English style law.
European law is purposive, which is all about "vibes". You don't get highly specific laws and binding precedent to tell you exactly what's right and wrong. But you do get principles and cases which illustrate how those principles should be applied.
To an Englishman or American, it might be seen to be no rule of law at all - surely it's too easy for a biased judge to re-interpret principles, particularly with pressure from the government of the day? But it's just different, and a purposive approach stops the all too common result of one powerful party putting all its resources into a strong case to set horrible precedent.
(The far greater danger in the ECJ and much of Europe is the lack of jury system. A fine is a punishment, not a remedy, and eligibility for punishment should only be decided by a jury.)
Google is intentionally abusing their position to promote their own products and hide competitors. Yes, this thing matters.
LMFTFY:
Google is intentionally abusing their position to improve the overall user experience. Yes, this thing matters.
There, that's better.
When I do a search from JFK to LAX, guess what - it is NICE that Google immediately knows that I am interested in a flight and shows me prices. It is NICE that they will show me a map and photos of my destination. It reduces the number of clicks and get gets me what I want faster. The same can be said for all of Google's optimized in-line services. Furthermore, I have never in my life ever heard of evidence showing that Google actually hides the result of a competitor... do you have any evidence to back that up (that is not already refuted)?
Google is very upfront about everything they do, and there are ample other search engines you can use as a user, and that people can advertise on as well.
I have a feeling that if it was a French or Danish firm, we wouldn't see half this amount of noise from the EU throne.
This old caveat again, the fact still remains that the biggest fine EU has handed out so far was against an European company(Siemens I think)
And well if I remember correctly Google is incorporated in Ireland(because of the low corporate tax) so I guess technically Google is an European company...
Considering the sort of actual real privacy rubbish that say Facebook, or Apple engage in, I'm perplexed why they don't hit the headlines as much.
I don't know that Apple or Facebook is considered large enough in a specific market to be covered by the antitrust legislation, that is possibly why. But the European Council is preparing legislation that forbids Facebook to sharing user information with advertisers etc, without the users express permission. The Council is apparently also investigating whether Facebook's facial recognition system is contradictory to EU privacy legislation.
Personally I think it's good that there is at least one Governmental organization that doesn't instantly roll over whenever big corps complain.
Short story: Google may be using their corporate size to create a monopoly but no-one has checked. Former top-dogs Microsoft and friends are whining that (business) life isn't fair.
Nothing to see here. Move along, now.
Since Google is incorporated in Ireland(which is a member state) the Council can technically seize all of Google if they persist.
So yes very much I doubt Google is stupid enough to hope the problem goes away if they ignore EU.
The lack of a jury is just as much a difference in style of law. In the European system the courts cannot judge the law, they merely enforce it, and they argue that this function is better fulfilled by competent(hopefully) and trained professionals rather than some random person picked off the street.
Juries makes sense when they are empowered not to just decide on guilt or but also whether the law is fair, but from what seems to be the norm in the US today judges routinely strip juries of that power.(at least it seems that way according to the information that makes it across the Atlantic)
Entertaining isn't it. Not long since the their competitors were bitching about Googles own and paid results not being conspicuously enough marked. Google changed that and it didn't magically drive business to the complainers. Now the same leeches have told the EU that marking them conspicuously gives Google an unfair advantage!
After wading through 400 pages of self serving complaints from Microsoft fronts and ineffective businesses it seems the EU aren't really convinced they need to leap into action. 2 vague 'it's unfair' claims they've basically asked Google to justify, discredit or promise not to do, 2 contractual limitations they need to remove that probably won't noticeably affect their business.
The complainants still can't accept that they have to fight for market share by being good at what they do, that they're failing all by themselves.
I use VLC and XBMC. I have not heard of RealPlayer for a while!
Yes if implemented properly juries can be a barrier against tyrannical laws but since the SCOTUS thinks that a trial judge should have no obligation to inform a jury of their right to nullify laws and if Wikipedia is to be believed then it is common practice for a judge to remove a juror if they believe that the juror is aware of the power of nullification(if true then how can this be allowed to persist in a system that is designed with the sole purpose to prevent such things?). When this is the system it is actually much much worse than a non jury system because it practically removes that barrier function and introduce alot of flaws that is often contrary to a fair and impartial ruling, for example the jury will typically have little to no education and therefore lack insight neccessary to render a fair and impartial ruling based on the facts and not the facts as presented by lawyers.
Given such limitations I feel that the system with a panel of judges is better, because if the public disagrees with a jury sentence the system can just blame it on the incompetence of the jurors or that the lawyers managed to trick them, if the ruling is rendered by a panel of judges their only defense/explanation is that the law demands the verdict and thus pressure can be put on the system to change those laws.
If a jury system is to be functional and fulfill it's purpose of the jurors must be well informed about their rights, duties and obligations as well as they should receive a fair compensation for the loss of income due to serving as a juror and they must be allowed to ask leading questions and allowed to seek information to better allow them to render a fair and impartial ruling. The jury as a silent and uninformed interpreter of facts is fundamentally flawed and provides no protection from tyrannical laws and in no way guarantees a fair and impartial ruling.
Ok my bad, but the purpose of incorporating is typically to take advantage of the lower corporate tax so Google probably funnels much of their profits through that subsidiary and those funds can then be subject to seizure if Google repeatedly breaks EU law.
They didn't stablish any fact yet. That happens during the trial, and they are trying to get into an agreement to avoid the trial.
Rethinking email
No, this is just a preliminary investigation, if it proceeds and finds the Google is indeed breaking any rules those will be revealed and the Commission will start a legal process against Google.
This is more of a "Hey Google, "some people"(those Microsoft dudes we fined for $1.4b a few years back) are complaining that you are breaking our laws. We have decided to investigate whether this is true or not, in the interest of everybody involved(this is in your best interest because if you cooperate we will give you the chance to stop breaking our laws rather than drag you to court over it.) please cooperate with our investigation. In case you should decide not to cooperate with this investigation there will be one anyway and we will drag you to court over anything we find, please remember that this can quite possibly cost you billions of euros if you are breaking any of our laws."
You seem to think that the EU Commission is biased against foreign countries which is a really old(and faulty) caveat that has repeatedly been disproved because the Commission regularly brings these type of cases against European companies as well, the biggest find ever handed out by the Commission was to an European corporation(Siemens I think it was). That is just another case of the EU and US having extremely different views on how corporations are supposed to operate as well as what is and what is not an acceptable behavior.
Walk into a department store with computers running windows and you'll see microsoft displaying ads for Bing. Then Microsoft used their monopoly to push their IE product, instant messaging, and a plethora of other products. Can we expect investigations into Microsoft? How about apple for itunes, amazon used their dominance to push the kindle fire. Keep in mind, these products often resulted in other companies go out of business. Why focus on Google? Your point is the rules can change, for no apparent reason, and companies can find themselves in hot water... at least certain companies? This seems like 3rd world-style governance.
Not unless Ireland conquered the State of Delaware when I wasn't looking.
Yes someone pointed it out a bit further down as well, my bad.
Though Google does have a subsidiary incorporated in Ireland and funnel most of their profit through it because of the low corporate tax.
Runnin around tryin to be Apple... runnin around tryin to be Sony/Nintendo... runnin around tryin to be Google.
If you ask me, the company is way over-diversified.