EU Launches Antitrust Probe into Google Search

[f-14]

"The opening of formal proceedings follows complaints by search service providers about unfavourable treatment of their services in Google's unpaid and sponsored search results
coupled with an alleged preferential placement of Google's own services."

hahahaha this is a search tool choosen by users, not bundled with an operating system, the USER SPECIFICALLY choose to use google and or install google toolbars and search.

"The Commission's probe will additionally focus on allegations that Google imposes exclusivity obligations on advertising partners, preventing them from placing certain types of competing ads on their web sites, as well as on computer and software vendors, with the aim of shutting out competing search tools,"

what? advertisors make an ad that google says only google can display this ad on a google site and the advertiser can't use that specific ad on a competitors site? what is wrong with that? that's the price you pay to advertise with them, it's as much of part of a contract stipulation as how much the advertiser pays for each view? what's next the advertisor is going to say they shouldn't have to pay google? you don't like the terms of the contract don't sign it, no one is forcing them to do business with google, there's always yahoo and microsoft and other sites. who did they hoodwink in the EU to get this on the docket? good gawd don't tell me george bush jr is on this EU panel?! ahahahaaaaa

"Finally, it will investigate suspected restrictions on the portability of online advertising campaign data to competing online advertising platforms."

wth? this sounds like Facebook is suing google by crying to the EU that google will no longer let facebook havegoogle users info because facebook then considers this info their own property & doesn't let people take their facebook info to other places such as idk google and other services similar to Facebooks!

 

[Dirtman73]

[citation][nom]cheepstuff[/nom]I mean, look at what they did in China.[/citation]

You mean caving in?

 

[xerroz]

I hope people wake up and support the EU. I hope Google loses, theyre way too big and are getting rich of our precious personal info and theres nothing we can do about it

 

[jimmysmitty]

[citation][nom]Tamz_msc[/nom]The EU couldn't have enough out of Microsoft and they're now aiming for a piece of Google's pie.[/citation]

Sad thing is that I so called this back after the EU fined MS. They are having some monetary troubles so they will go after every giant corporation for anti-trust.

While I don't love Google (I will admit Android is pretty awesome) their search engine is one of the best. Bing is better than the rest and almost on par with Google but Google still holds a lead.

And the reason why is because they introduced the backdoor search that was amazing. And apart from Instant search (which I am ok with) they haven't changed it or bloated the crap out of it. Thats why Google is a unwilling monopoly in search engines. As I said, Bing is good so they may take some market share but the others just blow.

But to the EU, Google somehow did something wrong. As far as I know, search results depend on keywords and of course if the website pays to be at the top. I search for Microsoft and www.microsoft.com comes up on top.

As for why the EU wont go after Apple, it is due to their small marketshare even though they make tons of money. And if you look at it, Apple technically is worse than a monopoly. If they were in Microsoft or Google position we would not have custome PCs and would all be told what we should use. I asked why MS got in trouble for including IE yet Apple includes Safari tons of crap and they are ok.

Guess you can't reason with the EU. I will await a major fine for Google and demands to make their search engine give choices to other search engines on the front page. You know, much how Windows 7 included a choose your browser BS.

[citation][nom]i_guy[/nom]So you think that Intel and Microsoft did nothing wrong? Really?You think paying retailers to exclude the competitor's (at the time) better product is fair enough? That it helps consumers? How would you have felt if you were AMD with a better product but couldn't make the most out of it because of anticompetitive practice by the industry giant? Do you think that the company making the OS that runs on 90% of computers has a right also to all revenue derived from internet browsers? Do you think that a fine of a few $1000 would have hurt Intel or Microsoft enough to make them think twice about doing it again?Grow up. The EU is many things, but saying it hounds innocent Amercian companies is pure nonsense. AMD, Google, Apple and Mozilla are all American companies too, and the EU defended their position with their probes into Intel and Microsoft.If Google is guilty of unfair self promotion and downgrading of the oppositions' services then they should be afraid of the EU courts, and rightly so. If the American courts are fit for purpose then they should be afraid of them too.It is the rule of law that makes the West what it is and allows innovation to flourish, ensuring that innovators get rewarded for their effort. You propose a lawless system where a few lethargic giants get to dominate by default and stiffle change, and then hide behind the banner of "American company" to avoid "victimisation" by the evil EU courts. Seriously, grow up and stop biting the hand that feeds you.[/citation]

You are right in some areas but TBH, exclusivity contracts are not illegal. If they were then McDonalds wouldn't exclusivley offer Coke products only World wide. You would be able to buy any brand of clothing from Wal-Mart.

Intel had exclusivity which did have benefits but its the same as nVidia providing resources so that a game performs the best it can on their GPUs. I see nothing wrong with that and wish ATI could do that much more often.

MS has 90% of the market share because they hit it big. If Apple hit it big before MS did we would all be running OSX. Same with Linux. Change is hard in the market of technology. Its why we still are running x86 based CPUs instead of IA64 or ARM.

I think if AMD pushed their marketing a bit more or at least had better marketing they could do much better. Their marketing consits of a YouTube channel that attacks Intels products. I have yet to see them just advertise their product without attacking Intel. But thats the way it is with smaller companies.

If the EU doesn't go after someone like Apple for the same reasons they went after MS, TBH it would seem they are targeting the biggest companies they can to get money out of them.

 

[figgus]

[citation][nom]Griffolion[/nom]And by the way (i'm assuming you're American, in fact i'll bet money you are), your very own President is implementing more socialist policies into your health care systems and in the financial reforms. These are probably the best things to happen to your country in a while as you are no longer at the mercy of major conglomerates and corporations when it comes to your health and your finances.[/citation]

I trust corporations more than I trust my government to run those things. I can just move my business/money to a different corporation if I dislike their service... a government I am stuck with no matter what.

It's a pity you eurolists decided you didn't need a choice in your lives anymore or there might still be some hope for you. As it is, you're shackled with whatever your governmental masters dictate to you.

 

[figgus]

[citation][nom]Cache[/nom]Someone should tell the EU that television programs aired on networks are not allowed to air on other networks! Or that you have to pay a fee to use ATM's at another bank versus your own! Or that an ad company might actually promote more of the ads that are paid for over other ones that are offered for 'free'.The EC is the sole money-making company in the entire EU at this point, and they will leach off any company they can under the mistaken idea that people who get services for free should be compensated for their gross and self-imposed inability to go to a competing free entity that offers the same basic services![/citation]
Actually, I'll go one further: someone needs to point out that governments have the ULTIMATE monopoly and the EU should start investigating them. No corporation can force you to use their services, abide by their TOS with no opt out, and JAIL YOU if you don't follow their rules.

Government is a bigger threat to your freedom than any corporation is.

 

[mayne92]

[citation][nom]deshimaru[/nom]You are so right .To bad most of the guys who writte here are to young and didn't learn yet in school what monopoly is.[/citation]
I'm surprised you could even make a correct sentence yet talk to us about edumacation...~wink~

 

[mayne92]

[citation][nom]i_guy[/nom]So you think that Intel and Microsoft did nothing wrong? Really?You think paying retailers to exclude the competitor's (at the time) better product is fair enough? That it helps consumers? How would you have felt if you were AMD with a better product but couldn't make the most out of it because of anticompetitive practice by the industry giant? Do you think that the company making the OS that runs on 90% of computers has a right also to all revenue derived from internet browsers? Do you think that a fine of a few $1000 would have hurt Intel or Microsoft enough to make them think twice about doing it again?Grow up. The EU is many things, but saying it hounds innocent Amercian companies is pure nonsense. AMD, Google, Apple and Mozilla are all American companies too, and the EU defended their position with their probes into Intel and Microsoft.If Google is guilty of unfair self promotion and downgrading of the oppositions' services then they should be afraid of the EU courts, and rightly so. If the American courts are fit for purpose then they should be afraid of them too.It is the rule of law that makes the West what it is and allows innovation to flourish, ensuring that innovators get rewarded for their effort. You propose a lawless system where a few lethargic giants get to dominate by default and stiffle change, and then hide behind the banner of "American company" to avoid "victimisation" by the evil EU courts. Seriously, grow up and stop biting the hand that feeds you.[/citation]
Wait, isn't the EU the same group that said that M$ had to include list of competitors in THEIR OS and NOT include the Windows Media Player because Europeans don't know how to uninstall software or search the Internet for a different browser??? ~wink~ HOW PATHETIC.

 

[i_guy]

[citation][nom]Griffolion[/nom]Sorry for double post but, you sir are win incarnate.[/citation]

Thanks dude Easy to pwn such ill-informed, right wing, Fox-viewer style comments.

 

[i_guy]

[citation][nom]dtm4trix[/nom]Lets be frank, I am not saying that they did nothing wrong, its just that the EU seems to be very selective with whom it is targeting, those with the deepest pockets maybe? Why are they not going after apple? Because of their perceived lack of market share. What a crock!! The EU commission on anti-competitive behavior are a bunch of hypocrites. so get off you pedestal and don't preach to me the merits of the EU courts, this is plain and simply a legal version of an attempted heist.[/citation]

So the EU never investigates Apple?

http/www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/eu-launches-itunes-antitrust-probe/

Really?

http/www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/08/05/ftc_believed_to_be_investigating_apples_anti_flash_stance.html

Cos I'm confused. Looks like they've been investigated twice.

And the EU is only after money? So they'd never drop a case where wrong was done by a wealthy company? Both of these investigations were ended with no punitive damages when Apple backed down and changed its stance. You know, for the better of European citizens.

http/www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/25/european_union_ends_antitrust_investigations_of_apple.html

http/www.zeropaid.com/news/9183/apple_settles_eu_antitrust_case_against_itunes/

That's funny behaviour for an organisation that's only out for money, and not for the protection of consumers. You should recognise that you are the one on a high horse with opinions a mile wide and an inch deep. You can't say that Google is guilty of abusing it's position and then say that the EU is wrong for investigating it. You should be asking why the US isn't

Oh, and while you're at it, please explain to the whole class how the EU courts are hypocrits for investigating big businesses? Monopolies tend to be big businesses.

 

[i_guy]

[citation][nom]mayne92[/nom]Wait, isn't the EU the same group that said that M$ had to include list of competitors in THEIR OS and NOT include the Windows Media Player because Europeans don't know how to uninstall software or search the Internet for a different browser??? ~wink~ HOW PATHETIC.[/citation]

And wasn't that decision in the best interests of the European people? Do you think that all Americans are able / motivated to remove the default browser? Have you seen what has happened to Firefox / Chrome in Europe uptake since the EU decision?

http/www.prosyn.net/article9.php

I don't think that's pathetic at all. What exactly is your point here?

 

[i_guy]

[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]Sad thing is that I so called this back after the EU fined MS. They are having some monetary troubles so they will go after every giant corporation for anti-trust.While I don't love Google (I will admit Android is pretty awesome) their search engine is one of the best. Bing is better than the rest and almost on par with Google but Google still holds a lead.And the reason why is because they introduced the backdoor search that was amazing. And apart from Instant search (which I am ok with) they haven't changed it or bloated the crap out of it. Thats why Google is a unwilling monopoly in search engines. As I said, Bing is good so they may take some market share but the others just blow.But to the EU, Google somehow did something wrong. As far as I know, search results depend on keywords and of course if the website pays to be at the top. I search for Microsoft and www.microsoft.com comes up on top.As for why the EU wont go after Apple, it is due to their small marketshare even though they make tons of money. And if you look at it, Apple technically is worse than a monopoly. If they were in Microsoft or Google position we would not have custome PCs and would all be told what we should use. I asked why MS got in trouble for including IE yet Apple includes Safari tons of crap and they are ok.Guess you can't reason with the EU. I will await a major fine for Google and demands to make their search engine give choices to other search engines on the front page. You know, much how Windows 7 included a choose your browser BS.
You are right in some areas but TBH, exclusivity contracts are not illegal. If they were then McDonalds wouldn't exclusivley offer Coke products only World wide. You would be able to buy any brand of clothing from Wal-Mart.Intel had exclusivity which did have benefits but its the same as nVidia providing resources so that a game performs the best it can on their GPUs. I see nothing wrong with that and wish ATI could do that much more often.MS has 90% of the market share because they hit it big. If Apple hit it big before MS did we would all be running OSX. Same with Linux. Change is hard in the market of technology. Its why we still are running x86 based CPUs instead of IA64 or ARM.I think if AMD pushed their marketing a bit more or at least had better marketing they could do much better. Their marketing consits of a YouTube channel that attacks Intels products. I have yet to see them just advertise their product without attacking Intel. But thats the way it is with smaller companies.If the EU doesn't go after someone like Apple for the same reasons they went after MS, TBH it would seem they are targeting the biggest companies they can to get money out of them.[/citation]


This is such an ill-informed and rambling post I don't know where to start. Perhaps the best place is with an excellent Anandtech article about Intel Antitrust. See if you still think their business practices were hunky-dory after you read this. Oh, and this is about an American Federal antitrust investigation, which is even wider in scope than the EU one...

http/www.anandtech.com/show/2887

And while you're chewing on that, explain why Intel settled with AMD, you know, if they didn't do anything wrong...

http/www.anandtech.com/show/2873

As far as you know search results depend on keywords, and paid partners get top results. Well that's fine then. That must be how it works. Except some people are claiming that that's not how it works at casa Google. That Google downgrades rival services' results. Maybe we should wait for more information before forming baseless beliefs, hmmm?

As to all your nonsense, likening MS and Intel (and Google?) to McDonalds. Get real. There's a big difference between illegally bribing, coercing and bullying OEMs, and developing a legal exclusivity deal. You know EU lawyers do actually go to law school and learn a lot about this stuff. Hell, MS, Intel and Google lawyers go to law school too, and that's why Intel and MS hid their actions for so long.

The ridiculous comment about the EU going after big, lucrative companies really made me laugh. The reason EU antitrust probes focus on big business is obvious to the point of banality. There is a very strong tendency for antitrust / anticompetitive violators to be big companies. It's simple - they need to be big to be able to abuse their market position. How is that so difficult to understand?

And one final point. The EU courts don't victimise American companies. If a company wants to do business in Europe (a larger population and a larger trading bloc than the US) then they have to comply with EU law. It's that simple. Here is a list of EU antitrust cases from 1998 - I couldn't get a more recent list with a simple search, but I'm sure someone can. How many American companies do you recognise on this list?

http/ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/closed/en/ind1990.html#1998

Nuff said.

 

[i_guy]

[citation][nom]figgus[/nom]Actually, I'll go one further: someone needs to point out that governments have the ULTIMATE monopoly and the EU should start investigating them. No corporation can force you to use their services, abide by their TOS with no opt out, and JAIL YOU if you don't follow their rules.Government is a bigger threat to your freedom than any corporation is.[/citation]

We don't get to vote in the CEOs and executives of corporations. Or vote them out. As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried".

You'd be a fool to put your faith in a corporation always to do what is best for a people that don't control them.

 

[figgus]

[citation][nom]i_guy[/nom]We don't get to vote in the CEOs and executives of corporations. Or vote them out. As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried".You'd be a fool to put your faith in a corporation always to do what is best for a people that don't control them.[/citation]
I have a LOT more control over where I spend my money than I do over who gets voted into office.

Democracy is indeed the best form of government, but corporations are far more accountable because I can opt out of dealing with them.

 

[False_Dmitry_II]

It isn't that I think intel did nothing wrong (won't try to put words in the mouth that that post got directed to) it's that it was handled by simply a fine. They absolutely did something wrong.

There is a sleazy way to go about punishing them and a not sleazy way. If found guilty of such things like anticompetitive practices, then you go ahead and tilt things in AMD's favor, such as declaring that the government will only buy AMD based computers when it needs to instead of intels. Or if they take money it needs to be awarded to the wronged parties. Where did it go? Straight into the EU's pockets. That's the problem.

The entire point of finding them guilty of something like antitrust or anticompetitive practices is that you are trying to restore balance to the marketplace. The measures they use do not do that, at least not directly. It's more stealing to support the budget and then claiming that it was only done to "help" AMD or whoever was wronged.

 

[beachbod]

Google should just start charging europeans to use their services to recoup their losses.

 

[i_guy]

[citation][nom]figgus[/nom]I have a LOT more control over where I spend my money than I do over who gets voted into office.Democracy is indeed the best form of government, but corporations are far more accountable because I can opt out of dealing with them.[/citation]

If corporations had their way you would have no control over where you spend your money. We'd all be shopping at Buy'N'Large, the one, final, conglomerated supercompany. All competition, diversity and innovation would be squeezed out of the market, and there wouldn't be a single unexploited natural resource or undamaged ecosystem on the planet. Monopolies and mergers and antitrust cases are part of a large and clever mechanism to prevent that from happening.

For the record, I don't hate corporations, or companies, or capitalism, but I understand that unfettered by legal checks and balances they would conspire to destroy the very system that gave birth to them.

 

[i_guy]

[citation][nom]False_Dmitry_II[/nom]It isn't that I think intel did nothing wrong (won't try to put words in the mouth that that post got directed to) it's that it was handled by simply a fine. They absolutely did something wrong.There is a sleazy way to go about punishing them and a not sleazy way. If found guilty of such things like anticompetitive practices, then you go ahead and tilt things in AMD's favor, such as declaring that the government will only buy AMD based computers when it needs to instead of intels. Or if they take money it needs to be awarded to the wronged parties. Where did it go? Straight into the EU's pockets. That's the problem.The entire point of finding them guilty of something like antitrust or anticompetitive practices is that you are trying to restore balance to the marketplace. The measures they use do not do that, at least not directly. It's more stealing to support the budget and then claiming that it was only done to "help" AMD or whoever was wronged.[/citation]

You have made the mistake of thinking that AMD was the only party damaged by Intel's actions. The primary responsibility of the EU monopolies commission is to protect the European people (there are over 500 million of us) from the unscrupulous actions of large companies. By breaking European anticompetitive laws, Intel effectively stole from the pockets of Europeans. It is absolutely right that we should try to recoup some of those losses. It has to be enough to hurt or what's the point?. The upper limit is set at 10% of the company's value. In my opinion, Intel had it coming.

 

[i_guy]

[citation][nom]beachbod[/nom]Google should just start charging europeans to use their services to recoup their losses.[/citation]

This comment does not bear the slightest amount of critical thought. Google don't operate a charity in Europe, you know. We already pay them for the service they provide - or rather our companies pay them and we pay our companies.

Actually, I think Google is a shining light of a company that perfected something important and continued to innovate to give us things like Google Earth, Google maps, gmail... the list goes on. But that doesn't make them immune to prosecution for breaking EU law. If they have been engaging in anticompetetive practices then they need to stop doing that, as that costs us all in the long run. I actually doubt that this case will come to much - I reckon Google will change their ways and the EU will drop the case, just like it did with Apple. That's just my opinion, mind you and I'll be very interested to learn more about the specifics as time goes on.

 

[Lutfij]

blasphemy!