I recognize that US law is not governing in this case, but US antitrust law has an element that is directly on point here. One permissible defense that a monopolist can present in the US is that they possess "skill, foresight, and industry" that directly led to their market share. If that defense describes anyone, it describes Google. Not only that, but what standard are the EU authorities advocating? As an example, suppose you are reading a paper copy of The New York Times. Does anyone really expect the Times to direct someone to the internet, or Sports Illustrated, for baseball coverage? Of course not--they will direct the reader to the Sports section of the Times, even though better options exist. Similarly, Macys will direct a customer to "Jewelry, 8th floor" rather than to Tiffany's, even if the customer would be better served by going to Tiffany's. Google is being held to an impossible standard.
Cretinous users of Nextel phones have got to be the worst. For those who haven't experienced this, it's all the fun of hearing one side of a conversation, together with the other side of the conversation, _and_ a piercing BEEP-BEEP when the half-duplex switches directions. Beyond the merely rude, these devices monopolize any environment they're in. So far, my only countermeasures have been to face the user and shout "Breaker 1-9" at random intervals.
As a non-EE, I can't tell whether this passage is pure bloviation or not:
Niue has no natural Earth ground, and
therefore actually appears to an energy
source as a giant capacitor-resistor floating
on the ocean floor some thousands of feet
down. Add to that the dielectric constant
of ocean water, with a fresh water lens
floating in coral and it makes Niue a very
interesting specimen of electrical properties.
Instead of being called one of the
largest coral atolls in the world, perhaps it
should better be called the worldâ(TM)s largest
electronic component, a virtual âoepie network
tankâ or âoecapacitive resistance tank.â
The quote is from the pdf referenced at the bottom of the news item, http://www.niue.nu/images/Nuiepaper38.pdf
Slashdot Mirror
I recognize that US law is not governing in this case, but US antitrust law has an element that is directly on point here. One permissible defense that a monopolist can present in the US is that they possess "skill, foresight, and industry" that directly led to their market share. If that defense describes anyone, it describes Google. Not only that, but what standard are the EU authorities advocating? As an example, suppose you are reading a paper copy of The New York Times. Does anyone really expect the Times to direct someone to the internet, or Sports Illustrated, for baseball coverage? Of course not--they will direct the reader to the Sports section of the Times, even though better options exist. Similarly, Macys will direct a customer to "Jewelry, 8th floor" rather than to Tiffany's, even if the customer would be better served by going to Tiffany's. Google is being held to an impossible standard.
Where do you think the term 'Motorola' originated?
Cretinous users of Nextel phones have got to be the worst. For those who haven't experienced this, it's all the fun of hearing one side of a conversation, together with the other side of the conversation, _and_ a piercing BEEP-BEEP when the half-duplex switches directions. Beyond the merely rude, these devices monopolize any environment they're in. So far, my only countermeasures have been to face the user and shout "Breaker 1-9" at random intervals.