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.
Being a hypocrite doesn't automatically make everything you say wrong.
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!
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.
Are you kidding? They kicked Microsoft's ass and fined them almost 1.5 billion dollars -- even for Microsoft that's big. Since then they have this browser ballot screen and special Europe-only versions of Windows etc..
To Google, so far, they have written a letter.
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.
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.
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