backtop


Print 69 comment(s) - last by evo slevven.. on Dec 27 at 2:42 AM


Google CEO Eric Schmidt
If the EC doesn't see any worthwhile changes at Google, the search company could be fined an amount that equates up to 10 percent of its annual sales

The European Commission (EC) isn't pleased with Google's latest efforts to resolve antitrust complaints regarding abuse of its dominant position in the search market. 

According to AFP, the EC -- which is the executive body of the European Union -- said Google failed to properly meet concerns regarding a search-related antitrust investigation that has been ongoing since 2010. 

The EC and Google's competitors have said that the search giant "distorts" user choice by abusing its dominant position in the search market. More specifically, Google arranges search results in a way that benefits itself and not competitors. 

"The latest proposals are not acceptable in the sense that they are not proposals that can eliminate our concerns regarding competition," said EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia.

Google submitted the proposals back in September, which addressed EC concerns over the way search results are presented as well as Google's "scraping" (or gathering results) from its competitors’ services using automated scripts to improve the quality of its own results.

But it looks like these proposals could use some work. The EC says it has four main concerns: Google gives unfair preference in search results to its own services, tries to prevent clients from using other advertising platforms, duplicates content without permission, and ties up publishers with exclusivity deals.

"We have made significant changes to address the (EU's) concerns, greatly increasing the visibility of rival services and addressing other specific issues," said Google in a statement.

If the EC doesn't see any worthwhile proposals or changes at Google, the search company could be fined an amount that equates up to 10 percent of its annual sales.

Google was recently slapped with a 900,000 euro ($1.23 million USD) fine from the Spanish Agency for Data Protection, which is a privacy watchdog in Spain. Google was fined due to breaking the country's data protection law by mixing customers' personal information from its many different online services and failing to inform users clearly on how their data is used. 

Source: Google



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I have mixed feelings about the charges
By troysavary on 12/21/2013 2:14:04 AM , Rating: 2
1. Showing Google services higher in the search results. Who cares? It is Google's prerogative to show what they want wherever they want in the search results. No legal action needed to change that. Let the users decide if the search results are still good enough. If Google skews the results too much, people will just start to use other search engines. No government intervention needed.

2. Trying to prevent clients from using other platforms. Id have to see the details of the allegations. If they were acting like Intel, and actively punishing people for using a rival service (for example, removing a client's ads if they find a similar ad on Bing), then yes, go after them. If they are simply giving discounts for exclusivity, I don't see the problem.

3. Duplicating content without permission. Nail them on this one. More evidence for my allegation the Google are thieves. They have to be taught that other people's content does not belong to Google.

4. Exclusivity deals. Isn't this basically point 2 reworded?




RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By bug77 on 12/21/2013 5:22:47 AM , Rating: 2
#3 is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. If you don't want your content on Google all it takes is adding two lines in a text file and Google forgets about your site. Yet no one uses that because it would be suicide if Google wouldn't point people to their websites. But when Google sends them clients and makes some money while doing so, content owners cry foul anyway.


By lostdummy on 12/24/2013 7:32:17 AM , Rating: 2
I do not fully agree. That is like saying "I will go and copy all copyrighted books, but if you *only* add on first page of your book text saying "171985donotcopy" , I will not copy it"

Showing links on google does benefit companies "indirectly", while benefiting google "directly". Showing content from other companies benefits google even more directly, while it can hurt some of those companies (those in business of showing content themselves).

Also, I see many comment here about EU "arbitrary punishing US companies", but please remember that Google is NOT "real" US company here - it is Ireland company, or BErmuda+Ireland company (or whichever Irish/Duch sandwitch variant they chose), just like Microsoft and most of other "US" companies. In other words, majority of their TOTAL world revenues are based in EU. So EC here is regulating EU companies too.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By michael67 on 12/21/2013 6:02:59 AM , Rating: 2
Why don't people understand that if your a monopolist (89% market share makes you one) like Google is in the EU.

I would say read this: www.fairsearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Draft -Core-FairSearch-Fact-Sheet-051812.pdf
And look at the arguments on the same site: www.fairsearch.org/

(First link broken due to DTs crappy comment system, use copy past for the link)

Al your arguments would be valid, ware it not that by being smart and doing on a smart way business they have to pay the price for there successes!

Because being Nr1 and a monopolist, means that there come extra rules in play, and that is just to keep you honest, otherwise any small or new player will never have a chance to flourish like Google it self did.

If companies can do what ever they want, we will have in a couple of years only just mega corporations, and literately Google will be the only global online advertizing option.

Don't be evil is a nice company statement, but if by not doing what you personally or publicly is considered more or less "evil", a company leader can actually be sued and lose for not doing its best for the interest of the stock holders.

So companies have to do everything the can do to make money, up till what is permitted by law en regulators.

Lawmakers and regulators have the job to make sure everyone is playing fair, and make new rules if needed.

And that is what the EU is doing now, its a shame that in the US there is a sentiment that all rule's are bad or businesses, as whit out is just dogy dog, eat or be eaten, and the world will be worse for it.

See what removing rules did for the banking industry.

Is it completely fair against Google ofc not, bud who says that life is fair, and if noting is done it will be even harder en less fair for the competition to compete.

So what the EU is doing now is try to find a balance between Google's interest, and its competition, that apparently justified complained that Google was not playing fair anymore


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By bug77 on 12/21/2013 6:49:13 AM , Rating: 4
Yes, monopolies must be kept in check. What irks people is making the rules after the fact. This makes the EU look like they first let things happen and then swoop in to demand money for arbitrary reasons. As opposed to setting the rules in a timely manner, which is what they are supposed to be doing.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By michael67 on 12/21/2013 7:21:51 AM , Rating: 2
I would agree on you on that, but that happens only in a ideal world.

New laws are always made after the fact, and in this case its just that Google's way of doing business is just new to the world.

Tell me how could lawmakers have know that in 15y time they grow from noting to one of the largest and profitable companies in the world.

So because Google is a unique case it needs a unique way of regulating.

Imho the EU is doing its best it can, and doing it more or less the right way, and think its doing it better then the US, that just lets Google take over the hole online advertising business.

If noting is done now, the US will in time only have the option to split up the company because it will be de facto a monopolist, and there will be no competition on the online advertizing market.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By bug77 on 12/21/2013 9:17:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So because Google is a unique case it needs a unique way of regulating.


Google is not a unique case. It is just another service provider, it should abide by the same laws other service providers do.
Unless you think providing services "on a computer" and "providing services on a mobile device" are novelties. Even so, e-commerce, search and advertising have existed long before Google. It was back then when the EU (and everybody else for that matter) should have set the rules in stone, if needed.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By michael67 on 12/21/2013 9:26:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Google is not a unique case.

Yes it is, the moment Google became a real monopolist it became a unique case, just like every other monopolist.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By Reclaimer77 on 12/21/2013 10:01:24 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
the moment Google became a real monopolist


You mean the moment the EU arbitrarily decided they were.

Google doesn't have a true monopoly. And they haven't used their position to eliminate competition, it's just that people are choosing to use Google of their own accord.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By kleinma on 12/21/2013 2:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
people use google as a search engine and expect it to be an accurate representation of a web search, not a fake search that artificially puts googles products above the competition. You might not care if you don't have a horse in the race. If you had some product, or worked for some company who had a product that had overlapping features with a google product, and no matter what you did, if you searched for that type of thing on google, theirs always was ranked above yours, that is a bunch of antitrust, monopolistic BS. It is basically the definition of being evil.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By bug77 on 12/21/2013 3:39:02 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
people use google as a search engine and expect it to be an accurate representation of a web search, not a fake search that artificially puts googles products above the competition


Yes, that's a recurrent problem within EU. People also expect somebody else to pay for their healthcare, education and possibly housing and vacation. The EU insists on trying to address the wrong end of the problem.


By michael67 on 12/22/2013 2:07:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, that's a recurrent problem within EU. People also expect somebody else to pay for their healthcare, education and possibly housing and vacation. The EU insists on trying to address the wrong end of the problem.

Ooo i wont denies that there are no problems with our system, still i prefer a social net over what happens to you if your unemployed in the US.

And being unemployed in the EU is also no picnic, its for sure not something i would like to be in, as you really just get enough to get by, tho they do spend a hole lot more on reeducation so you can get out of your misery.

First hit on Google Dutch pages, search query = minimum+social+benefits+mother+kid

And The Netherlands is one of the more wealth country's, and has one of the better social systems in the EU.

quote:
Question: What is the budget of a welfare mother? Does anyone have an idea of ??the income and expenses of her? And what has she left for groceries?

Anser: I am a mother with one child of eight at home.
My rent is 600, my gas and light 200, health insurance 95, internet / telephone 50, 250 debt repayment. which is approx 1200 fixed expenses per month. I get social benefits of 1050 per month. and my extra rent and care benefits is about 300. I have approx 35 euros per week for food, buy clothes etc. I really have to do everything with that. I dont manage that especially for my son. Try to give him fruit bread milk etc every day, and I have to give him part of my share. because of my health, I am unfortunately not able to work. it is that I occasionally get some groceries from someone, and that i occasionally can leave child my with a boyfriend of him for something fun to do. but a day to a amusement park or any other outing is there is not really for him. For myself, it does not really matter, but especially a child, I find it real hard.


Source: goeievraag.nl/vraag/financien-werk/financien/begrot ing-bijstandsmoeder-idee-inkomsten-uitgaven.35532
Really you should take your foot out of your mouth before you talk about something you have little or no knowledge of!

And I would ask if all those normal hard working middle class people that lost there jobs and houses during the finical crash of 08 also still think the same as you.

Most US citizens have not even bin to Europe or any other country for that mater, only 4% even own a passport, but still all think that they know how the world works and there system is the best. O_0


By TSS on 12/22/2013 4:10:21 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yes, that's a recurrent problem within EU. People also expect somebody else to pay for their healthcare, education and possibly housing and vacation.


I think you have the EU mixed up with the USA. Tax rates are much higher here and easily get upped whenever there's a financial crisis. $4 a gallon gas? We've had $10 a gallon gas for years and years now. We damn well know who's paying for the above.

The US on the other hand has no problem spending +$1 trillion a year more then they earn and asking the rest of the world and their own children to foot the bill. Economic problems? Tax break! Cutting spending? $85 billion spread out over a decade is the most the US could muster in the past 10 years.

I for one am glad the EU commission is still doing something in name of competition. The US certainly isn't, unless you count the NSA.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By Reclaimer77 on 12/22/2013 9:28:45 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
people use google as a search engine and expect it to be an accurate representation of a web search


Okay lets examine this logic. You are speaking of Google as if it were a public non-profit service, not a private enterprise.

There is no law that binds Google to give you an "accurate representation" of a web search. There is no law that says Google cannot monetize their web search.

You are just making up BS on the fly sir. Your argument has no merit.

quote:
if you searched for that type of thing on google, theirs always was ranked above yours, that is a bunch of antitrust, monopolistic BS.


LOL how so? You're seriously trying to say a company cannot promote it's own services and products over it's competitors? I can't believe this!

So when you walk into McDonalds, they're "evil" if they don't also provide you choices from Burger King's menu?

If this is the "definition" of evil (which it's not), you're the definition of moron.


By michael67 on 12/24/2013 9:04:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
There is no law that binds Google to give you an "accurate representation" of a web search. There is no law that says Google cannot monetize their web search.

Yes there is, its called misrepresentation off offered services.

Google got big because they presented the best and neutral results, now that they are market leader and "near" monopolist (at least in the EU), they change the way they represent there results.

And yeah to do that its apparently ok in the US.

But its not fucking ok to do that here!!!

Just as it not ok to show visual sexual results in some plases Asia.

The US dose not own or control the world, and all companies from ware ever they come from have to follow the law of the land, and if the EU is out off line, they can always take it up at the WTO.

quote:
You are just making up BS on the fly sir. Your argument has no merit.

I take his BS over yours any day of the week.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By michael67 on 12/21/2013 3:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
United States antitrust law

United States antitrust law is a collection of federal and state government laws, which regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. The main statutes are the Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914. These Acts, first, restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in restraint of trade. Second, they restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations which could substantially lessen competition. Third, they prohibit the creation of a monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power .

Monopoly and power

"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony , and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."
Sherman Act 1890 §2

The law's treatment of monopolies is potentially the strongest in the field of antitrust law. Judicial remedies can force large organizations to be broken up, be run subject to positive obligations, or massive penalties may be imposed the people involved can be sentenced to jail. Under §2 of the Sherman Act 1890 every "person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize... any part of the trade or commerce among the several States" commits an offence. The courts have interpreted this to mean that monopoly is not unlawful per se, but only if acquired through prohibited conduct. Historically, where the ability of judicial remedies to combat market power have ended, the legislature of states or the Federal government have still intervened by taking public ownership of an enterprise, or subjecting the industry to sector specific regulation (frequently done, for example, in the cases water, education, energy or health care). The law on public services and administration goes significantly beyond the realm of antitrust law's treatment of monopolies. When enterprises are not under public ownership, and where regulation does not foreclose the application of antitrust law, two requirements must be shown for the offense of monopolization. First, the alleged monopolist must possess sufficient power in an accurately defined market for its products or services. Second, the monopolist must have used its power in a prohibited way. The categories of prohibited conduct are not closed, and are contested in theory. Historically they have been held to include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitru...

So basically the US has roughly the same laws as the EU, only they are interpreted differently.

And i don't blame Google the way they are doing business, they are a cooperation that just wants to maximize profit, and at least they are willing to work with the EU for a solution, and are not so so stupid to ignore regulation as Microsoft.

But don't start saying Google is not a Monopolist, as even under the definition of US law they can be called that


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By bug77 on 12/21/2013 5:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
You really, really need to learn the definition of a monopoly: "A monopoly ... exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
And then you may want to reevaluate some of your statements.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By michael67 on 12/22/2013 4:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When enterprises are not under public ownership, and where regulation does not foreclose the application of antitrust law, two requirements must be shown for the offense of monopolization. First, the alleged monopolist must possess sufficient power in an accurately defined market for its products or services. Second, the monopolist must have used its power in a prohibited way.

Read that part a couple of times, because with 89% market share the they fit the first requirement, and the EU thinks that the second the requirement is also fulfilled by Google and thats why they go after them.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By Reclaimer77 on 12/22/2013 9:37:23 AM , Rating: 3
The requirement is ridiculous, and nobody outside of a few Europeans with a nationalistic complex can get behind your way of thinking.

Calling something a "monopoly" when 15% of the market is open to competition and growth is asinine, and just another example of the EU being backwards.

This approach is backwards, that is so obvious. Instead of punishing Google for thriving, you need to examine why giants like Microsoft with billions to throw at the problem still cannot form a viable web search alternative.

But you don't do that, you don't even bother. The clear message that underlines your posts Michael, and others from Europe, is you support the EU going after Google because you have a strong dislike of America and/or Americans. You aren't even being subtle about it honestly.

If Google was a European subsidiary, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And that's frankly sad.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By michael67 on 12/22/2013 10:47:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But you don't do that, you don't even bother. The clear message that underlines your posts Michael, and others from Europe, is you support the EU going after Google because you have a strong dislike of America and/or Americans. You aren't even being subtle about it honestly.

Its true that i really hate and despise a part of America, but Google is not a part of that, and Google is actually pretty popular here in the EU.

The part i despise is what Snowden showed, the arrogant part that thinks its above all and can do anything in the world it pleases it self, and calls its self the land of the free and just!

Those selfridges hypocrites that think they are above the law you can keep, and i want them to stop spying on us.

But the EU only wants Google to follow EU anti competitive law in the EU, how Google shows its page outside of the EU is for local law.

If a EU company wane do business in the US it also has to follow US law, or the local law of any other country it it dose business in.

So stop making it sound like the EU is just after US companies, in this case there are not even talks of fines.

And the EU go's just as hard after EU companies, lets compare.

MS got $3b total in fines, mostly because because they did not follow earlier rulings and got fined extra (just as you would if you don't pay your speeding ticket), because they ware thinking we are a US company and we do business our way.

So its 3b dived by 0.5b people in the EU, is that $6 they had to pay per citizen.

Heineken got fined in the Netherlands (population 17m) $300m for cartel forming, thats $17.5 per citizen.

More often the EU go's after EU companies then US companies, only that you don't read in the US.

So pleas stop thinking the EU just go' after US companies because of the misconception that its just a money grape, its not, its a law thingy and EU anti competitive law is just a hell of a lot stricter then in the US, just as Google must filter sexual pages in many Asian country's, as they have other value's then us.

Dot try to push your morals and way of life on us, and we will do the same, but if you come to us follow our laws, just as we have to if we come to you!


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By Reclaimer77 on 12/22/2013 1:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those selfridges hypocrites that think they are above the law you can keep, and i want them to stop spying on us.


I don't support what the NSA is doing, but please, are you saying the EU isn't spying on US too? That's comical.

I see a lot of criticism of the USA, and a lot of it is deserved. But what I'm not seeing are any first-world nations standing up and disbanding their intelligence agencies, are you?


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By michael67 on 12/22/2013 5:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't support what the NSA is doing, but please, are you saying the EU isn't spying on US too? That's comical.

No not in the way the NSA is doing, i don't see any EU intelligence services taping US citizens, and for sure not Obama, maybe the British NSA counterpart GCHQ, but if they do they properly doing it on the request of the NSA, because they are after all the lacies of the NSA.

But the GCHQ get almost as much flack from the rest of Europe as the NSA.

quote:
But what I'm not seeing are any first-world nations standing up and disbanding their intelligence agencies, are you?

Ofc not, gathering intel on friends and enemies is the job of any intelligence services, as the leaders need good intel to make good decisions, and passive espionage is something all friendly nations do, only the NSA took it to a active level that fits cold war practices between the West and the USSR.

They not just stepped a little over the line, they just completely lost sight of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gold


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By Reclaimer77 on 12/22/2013 5:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No not in the way the NSA is doing, i don't see any EU intelligence services taping US citizens


If it wasn't for one guy, Eric Snowden, you wouldn't be "seeing" us doing it either.

The NSA got caught and we have egg on our face. But don't pretend it's something everyone else isn't doing.

Of all the silly reasons to hate a country. As if the NSA has impacted your life in some way personally. This seems like just an excuse so you can keep nation bashing.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By michael67 on 12/22/2013 6:47:31 PM , Rating: 1
Really you think thats just it, its just a example of what the US has bin doing sins the 50s in the world that pisses me off, Americans in general are nice people, in Texas ware go to about month a year, ware my company has its Subsea workshop/office for the American market, and i actually have a lot of friends there.

The problem is most Americans don't know what there government dose covertly sinds the 50s in there name, just for the American financial interest.

If America really wants to be safer, then it should ease up on the war on terror, and start talking to the other side, and make some apology's to wards country's ware the US have done wrong things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax#U.S._r...

I once found a site that had a list of shady CIA covert operations, and there ware about 1 or 2 similar big operations and about 50 medium and 200 small operations every year, ware the locals found them on the wrong side of the US interest stick.

Operation Ajax for example is the sole reason why the Iranian students ware occupying the US embassy in Tehran, out of fear that the US would meddle again in its internal affairs, and put the shah back in power again.

Actions like these, and there are many more like them over the last 6 decades, made the world distrust, the west that only followed there self interest, over the heads of local people, and mainly the US and UK, most people in west don't know what there governments have done in there name, but the people how ware on the short end of the stick, they still remember, and they made sure there children and grand children also knew.

150 years after the American Civil War, there are still people from the North and South that dont like one and other because of it, what do you think people will learn there children after there country was fucked up by a shady operation of the CIA, or that finally over trowed a dictator that abused his people that was kept in power by the west.

Only following your self interest can gain you huge benefits in the short run, but in the long run, people start to distrust you, and be wary of you, and even wane get back at you, and we all know one of the results of that and what happened on 9/11.

You should read Tim Weiner's: "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA", it will open up your eyes to the country your so proud of, and after reading that, you properly will be a shame to call your self a American, i at least would be of that part if that was my country's foreign history.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By Reclaimer77 on 12/22/2013 11:34:20 PM , Rating: 2
Okay now you've crossed the line. American idiocy didn't start two world wars. America didn't throw 6 million people into mass ovens. If you want to give history lessons, better apply the same filter to your own backyard as you're applying to mine.

Please, tell me where you live, so I can sit there and Google up a bunch of dirty laundry on your country like you have mine.

quote:
150 years after the American Civil War, there are still people from the North and South that dont like one and other because of it


I can see how you believe that when you're on the outside looking in, and all you know is what's on the news and extremist blogs. But that is a completely ludicrous statement!

quote:
I once found a site that had a list of shady CIA covert operations


Well if it was on the Internet, it MUST be true!

quote:
i at least would be of that part if that was my country's foreign history.


And where is that? I want to know where you currently reside, not that I have any way of knowing if it's the truth.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By michael67 on 12/23/2013 3:47:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
American idiocy didn't start two world wars. America didn't throw 6 million people into mass ovens.

Correct, and we learned our lessons from it, and i personally properly own my existence due to the fact of the food drops on Holland during WWII.

I am also mostly thankful of "The Marshall Plan", as it reformed most European political systems to be more open and transparent, to prevent the abuse of power and the starts of new wars, its only a shame the US did not implement it, it self.

quote:
If you want to give history lessons, better apply the same filter to your own backyard as you're applying to mine.

Ooo, The Netherlands have a lot to be ashamed of, we ware the one of the first slave traders, and in the time Holland was the most powerful country in the world it did some real nasty things.

But the last government initiated atrocities that i know of and can find are the one's in our former colonies Indonesia between 1945 and 1950.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/colonial-a...

But was a despaired attempt to keep control over the colony, and then the public and even Parliament and most of the siting government did not know it and could not even know what was happening deep in the jungles.

And yeah i am ashamed of it, and a specially how it was handled after the public became aware of it in 1995, but later the current government made public apologies for what then was done in the name of the Dutch.

Also i seen first hand what Shell, a Dutch/British company (and France's Total) has done in Nigeria ware corruption and bribery of opposite party's has done to the country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3796375.stm

quote:
I can see how you believe that when you're on the outside looking in, and all you know is what's on the news and extremist blogs. But that is a completely ludicrous statement!

So you don't believe that if hatred is passed on to new generations?

It took the US more then 250 years to heal the wounds of the Independence war, as the US prior before WWII was planing to invade Canada, and only after the start of WWII when interest alined became the UK and US real friends.

quote:
Well if it was on the Internet, it MUST be true!

The US track record is a bid longer then ours and well documented and just as the Dutch atrocities in Indonesia beyond a shadow of a dough.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

Again read Tim Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA", or his other books, unless you think a Pulitzer Prize wining author is not credible enough as a information source?
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=searc...
http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/5904447/Legacy_of_A...

Or this book, "Prelude to Terror: the Rogue CIA, The Legacy of America's Private Intelligence Network the Compromising of American Intelligence", how Bush and consorted used the CIA for privet financial gains.
http://www.amazon.com/Prelude-Terror-Americas-Inte...

But if you don't read those books, we have noting to talk about anymore, as you then clearly don't wane see anything that your country has done wrong.

Seriously Snowden's revelations are literately only the tip of the iceberg.

quote:
And where is that? I want to know where you currently reside, not that I have any way of knowing if it's the truth.

Sure you can, i was born and raised in The Netherlands, and lived there till i was 34, tho as my work as piping foreman in the oil i spend about 10 years in some of the nicest and worse places on earth.

Now i am a Norwegian citizen, and again i also don't believe i have to be ashamed of its history.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By Reclaimer77 on 12/23/2013 9:06:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now i am a Norwegian citizen, and again i also don't believe i have to be ashamed of its history.


I'm not ashamed of mine either.

Go on and keep hating America and her people, I no longer care what you think. You've admitted we all have skeletons in our closets, so pointing the finger at others is hypocritical.

I also find your sources to be a laughable. They are unfounded conspiracy theory nonsense. The idea that the CIA and the Government is controlled by a "shadow" organization or secret Government is not a new idea, but it's tin-foil hat wearing rubbish.

This is a huge case of confirmation bias if there ever was one. You sought out to find proof that your bigoted feelings were based on substantiated facts, and so lo and behold, you found some "facts". You just Googled some books, great detective work there Columbo lol.

quote:
So you don't believe that if hatred is passed on to new generations?


Over the goddamn Civil War? No! That's so ridiculous I can't believe you went there.

Passed on? It's 2013! Do you seriously believe in America it is the stuff of bedtime stories to pass on North vs South hatred that's over 100 years old? I just...just..what!?

quote:
and i personally properly own my existence due to the fact of the food drops on Holland during WWII.


What food drops? Clearly these didn't happen as America is just a horrible nation who does evil things all the time and helps nobody but themselves. That food was probably meant for CIA operatives who were helping the Bush family take over Holland for Halliburton....


By michael67 on 12/23/2013 10:57:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Go on and keep hating America and her people

I actually like most Americans, and see them as descend hard working honest people, tho to trusting and misled in what small but powerfull shadowy part of there government is doing.

quote:
You've admitted we all have skeletons in our closets, so pointing the finger at others is hypocritical.

The difference is after the 50s we cleaned up our act, the USA just kept piling them up, and kept on thinking that they could keep getting away with it, the internet stopped that, as damning information could not be swiped under the rug.

quote:
The idea that the CIA and the Government is controlled by a "shadow" organization or secret Government is not a new idea, but it's tin-foil hat wearing rubbish.

You don't need complete control over the hole organization, just the right people in the right places, and a some misinformation and you can get away with a lot.

quote:
I also find your sources to be a laughable.

If you find a American Pulitzer price winner laughable, i then don't know what will convince you?

I personally find him well informed, and not anti US tho
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSyb-Ua5ZuA

Read the god them books and we talk again, if not then i agree with your quote:
quote:
I then also no longer care what you think.


By drevas2528 on 12/24/2013 4:22:50 AM , Rating: 2
Your entire narrative ignores the fact that the United States is a Super Power. You may not want to hear this, but the Netherlands could fall off of the Map on New Years Day and the future of the World would suffer little consequence for it.We do the things we do not just in our own self interest, but because we have global responsibilities that require us to do things that the Netherlands, or most any individual country for that matter, doesn't have to do.

Oh, and don't pretend that friends do not conduct extraordinary espionage against their "Friends". One of the most notorious spies sitting in a U.S. Prison was spying for...Israel.

I'm hoping that Rand Paul is our next President. He seems to be anxious to have us withdraw from much of the World Stage. I would love to see you Euros find out what that would really mean. Bosnia? That was your backyard, yet you stood by while genocide was being visited on a helpless people. Without American intervention, about a million MUSLIMS would be dead now. You people couldn't or wouldn't do what was necessary. You talk about America's ills, but not about it's infinite amount of good works. More than any other nation in the modern era.

The fact that you fail to do so reveals you for who you are, just another Euro-trash America hater grasping to the notion of Euro greatness when the EU is more politically fragile than ever, and your economies are failing. You don't bear one dime of the burden of our debt, in fact any of your financial institutions that hold U.S. debt are making a killing.

In the mean time, as you should know considering your profession, we are now the worlds largest energy producer. We have more natural gas than the Middle East has oil. We have, as you should also know, significant untapped oil reserves. The reason you pay $10 a gallon for gas is because you are Russia's energy slave because you can't produce what you need. Russia turning off the natural gas pipeline is one of the EU's greatest fears. If we would fully tap our energy supplies we would actually be paying about two bucks a gallon for gas, or less. (This morning where I live I filled up for $2.79/Gal US.)

I wish that just one large American Company would tell the EU to go screw themselves and just quit offering their services in the EU. It would take courage, the financial hit for even Google would be steep, but if the EU is threatening fines equal to 10% of Google's revenues, it might be worth it.

It would be interesting to see what would happen.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By BZDTemp on 12/22/2013 4:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But you don't do that, you don't even bother. The clear message that underlines your posts Michael, and others from Europe, is you support the EU going after Google because you have a strong dislike of America and/or Americans. You aren't even being subtle about it honestly. If Google was a European subsidiary, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And that's frankly sad.


That sort of thinking makes you sound like someone from Fox News. All prejudice and speculation and then damn such a thing as facts.

The EU makes sure companies that do business in the EU follow the rules and that is regardless of where said companies originate - if you'd did just a little to look into what is actually happening you'd find that plenty of companies based within the EU has been made to pay fines and correct their ways. There is no difference being made.

As for Google being punish for thriving then that simply isn't so - they are being made to not abuse their market position and the reason for doing so is to make sure there is as much competition as possible. The thing is that is a company or a group of companies in partnership can control a market that slows down innovation and drives up prices all of which is damaging to all but those in control of the market.

Instead of criticizing that the EU is doing something about monopolies you should be applauding it and wishing for the same to be done all over the globe.

Finally as for the word monopoly and how it works out might I suggest you find the board game of the same name and play a few games with a friend or two. Try for instance a game where you get 20% of the real estate in the game and your friend 80% and then play a few rounds. I think you'll quickly find that for one to have control it doesn't require 100% of everything and in fact you'll find that unless the deices really favor you the 20/80 split will quickly move toward 0/100.


By drevas2528 on 12/24/2013 4:44:23 AM , Rating: 2
Companies like Google don't stifle innovation, they gain monopoly status because they fill the void where there is none.

Let a EU company create a superior search engine that will lure users away from Google.

Oh wait, you can't. So....

The EU isn't seeking a level playing field, they are using their regulatory authority change the game.


By bug77 on 12/22/2013 9:46:16 AM , Rating: 2
I haven't got to the first requirement, I still have a hard time getting around the "not under public ownership" part.
I got the message loud and clear though: you have the ability to choose and pick whatever enforces your point of view. And discard everything else.


By troysavary on 12/23/2013 6:46:54 AM , Rating: 2
How is it a monopoly? Just use another search engine. If you do not like the results Google displays, don't use Google. That's what I do.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By Reclaimer77 on 12/21/2013 9:35:56 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Imho the EU is doing its best it can, and doing it more or less the right way, and think its doing it better then the US, that just lets Google take over the hole online advertising business.


My problem with this thinking is you don't seem to give any credit or allowance for innovation.

There was no online advertising business before Google. They innovated and pioneered a completely unique and different way of doing things in this market. That in turn has benefited untold millions of people as it has allowed them to monetize their online efforts. It's also benefited the end users, all of us, because Google AdSense provides for a World Wide Web that's mostly free of charge.

But it seems all you care about is punishing companies for success and innovation. You accuse Google of wrongdoing and hurting competition, when I see no such harms being done at all.

Google was the first to market and first to do it right, it's only natural they are reaping the rewards today. They took all the risks after all. Now latecomers like Microsoft want to say that's unfair and lobby the EU to punish Google.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By Nephiorim on 12/21/2013 9:45:13 AM , Rating: 2
Monopolists in the EU are allowed to make money, no problem. Google however is accused of abusing its market share in the search engine market to increase market share and/or keep competitors out of the online advertising market, as well as a few other markets. It's abuse of a position of monopoly that's frowned upon/illegal, not actually having a monopoly.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By Reclaimer77 on 12/21/2013 9:51:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Google however is accused of abusing its market share in the search engine market to increase market share


Yes I've heard this before. What I don't hear is HOW. How did they abuse it? No evidence is ever provided.

The EU considers something like including a free browser with an OS "monopolistic abuse". Absurd.


By Just Tom on 12/21/2013 10:13:37 AM , Rating: 2
You might not agree with the how, and honestly I think most of it is BS, but the EU has certainly provided a whole lot of evidence of Google abuse.

The only action I find distasteful, and I am not sure I would sanction them for it, is Google's practice of lowering search results for companies that opt out of having Google use their content.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By bug77 on 12/21/2013 9:55:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There was no online advertising business before Google.


There was. It was about throwing ads on web pages in a seemingly random way (see: http://0.tqn.com/d/websearch/1/0/w/C/altavista.png ).
What Google did was to increase ROI fir advertisers by targeting them and keeping them below a certain annoyance level. You know, coming with new ideas to surpass the competition. Stuff that was considered common sense some decades ago, only these days it seems to be considered dangerous and/or abusive.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/21/2013 10:08:24 AM , Rating: 2
Ugh I must have blocked those horrible times from memory lmao. AltaVista was the WORST!

quote:
You know, coming with new ideas to surpass the competition. Stuff that was considered common sense some decades ago, only these days it seems to be considered dangerous and/or abusive.


QFT.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By troysavary on 12/21/2013 7:56:56 AM , Rating: 1
Was it just implied that I was going too easy on Google? If so, I think that would be a first. I don't care if someone is a monopoly or not, I think a company has the right to include or not include whatever it likes with its products. It was bullshit when MS got in trouble for including a media player and browser with their OS, and it is bullshit for Google to get in trouble with their search rankings. Monopoly or not, companies should all be judged on the same standards. Just because I hate Google for other practices of theirs doesn't mean I cannot be neutral and wish for them to be judged fairly in areas they are not doing wrong.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By michael67 on 12/21/2013 9:19:36 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with what your saying is this, and it has bin illegal for years, its called tying or tied sales, don't know the right name in English for it.

Google had a simple sales model, you to there page type in a search phrase and they give you a answer, as payment you had to look at some advertizing or sponsored links.

SO far no problem because Google gave everyone the same treatment, and even stopped people/company's from getting higher in the page-rank if they artificial try to get a better score.

Ware the problems begin was when Google starting to widen his product range, like with buying or creating competitive services to compete in existing markets, like product, holiday, hotel and flight price comparison services.

And that would still be o.k., ware it not that Google started to promote these services on there search page, and give them preferential treatment over competing products.

And don't say its not a problem, as tied sales of a Monopolist cost innovation, look what happened to Netscape, and the 5 years of misery of IE6.

Or what happened to ICQ the most popular chat application when MS started to ad free MSN Messenger, that had not a fraction of the function of ICQ.

And there are many other examples, and just because you can do a Google with out paying dose not mean its free, it just means you pay in a different way, by the advertizing cost that companies charge you as part of the price you pay for a product.

And if Google is left unchecked they basically have the ring to rule them all and charge as much as they can till up to a level that it becomes economical unprofitable to advertize on the net.

And all that extra advertizing cost is coming out of your pocket.


By bug77 on 12/21/2013 9:48:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem with what your saying is this, and it has bin illegal for years, its called tying or tied sales, don't know the right name in English for it.


I think the word you're looking for is "bundling" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_bundling ). And like you say, it has existed long before Google.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By Reclaimer77 on 12/21/2013 9:14:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would say read this: www.fairsearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Draft -Core-FairSearch-Fact-Sheet-051812.pdf And look at the arguments on the same site: www.fairsearch.org/


Are you serious? That is hardly an unbiased source.

Aren't you aware that "Fairsearch" is an activist lobbying agency Microsoft created to lobby Government's like the EU to punish Google for being more used than their own Bing search?

If Bing had Google's marketshare, there would not be a "FairSearch" at all. That is very telling as to how much they're interested in "fairness".

quote:
So what the EU is doing now is try to find a balance between Google's interest, and its competition, that apparently justified complained that Google was not playing fair anymore


Market manipulation at it's worst. Using Google's own services to attempt to force the use of lesser used competitors. It's the IE browser ballot debacle all over again, just as silly.

quote:
its a shame that in the US there is a sentiment that all rule's are bad or businesses


It's a shame you're uninformed enough to believe this. I would wager US companies have just as many rules to follow as the EU's. Maybe more.

quote:
Is it completely fair against Google ofc not, bud who says that life is fair


Agree, but then you also said...

quote:
otherwise any small or new player will never have a chance to flourish like Google it self did.


Hey who says life is fair, right? If you wish to enter the search market today, you have to contend with the fact that Google is the most used most popular one. Sorry that's not fair, but life isn't fair right?


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By michael67 on 12/21/2013 10:25:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Aren't you aware that "Fairsearch" is an activist lobbying agency Microsoft created to lobby Government's like the EU to punish Google for being more used than their own Bing search?

Are you serious?

Being a biased source dose not mean they have no point, and dose Google not have enough money to defend it self.

quote:
Bing had Google's marketshare, there would not be a "FairSearch" at all.

Yeah you right, it properly would have bin called something else, but if Bing had a market share of 89% and it was competing with others, and did the same thing, then there would be a other "FairSearch" page, sponsored by Google or Yahoo.

quote:
Market manipulation at it's worst. Using Google's own services to attempt to force the use of lesser used competitors.

It would not be a problem if Google products ware treated the same as that of the competition.

But they get preferential treatment, or are you going to say that its not the case here?
tweakers.net/ext/f/oyVLWLSQpOSzWEWG3Cs9a0eN/full. jpg

quote:
Market manipulation at it's worst. Using Google's own services to attempt to force the use of lesser used competitors.


That's the problem those other competitors ware not lesser used, at least not till Google started to give preferential treatment/promotion of there own products.

I would say even there new proposal is giving Google a unfair preferential advantage over the competition.
tweakers.net/ext/f/qL2ZpS4R5zI0VMf3C44kNK3f/full. jpg

Or do you cal promoting your own product smack in the middle of the page and call it a sponsored link is not preferential promotion, that is called tied sales, and that illegal for monopolists.

As all the hotels have to pay to get advertized on the Google page, and now they have to pay Google again to be promoted on the Google.com/hotel pages, and as Google is promoting there own product on a service ware they are monopolist they are doing tied sales.

quote:
It's a shame you're uninformed enough to believe this. I would wager US companies have just as many rules to follow as the EU's. Maybe more.

I am not even going to touch that one, lets just agree to disagree on this one.

quote:
Hey who says life is fair, right? If you wish to enter the search market today, you have to contend with the fact that Google is the most used most popular one. Sorry that's not fair, but life isn't fair right?

That's the hole point you are missing, as the EU has no problem how Google uses to make profits of advertizing, it has a problem that it's using his near monopolistic dominance in the search field to promote its own products/

As the EU is more consumer protective then the US, and many consumer protective actions by the EU are not understand in the US, and i would sheer these actions on also if Google ware a European company.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By Reclaimer77 on 12/21/2013 11:58:10 AM , Rating: 2
Why shouldn't Google promote it's own products on it's OWN website and ad business? Are you serious? That's a completely invalid complaint.

"Consumer protections", what a bunch of nonsense. Just another EU cash grab by accusing an American company of some made-up arbitrary wrongdoing.

This has nothing to do with the consumer being harmed and everything to do with Microsoft paying off officials to "investigate" Google.

quote:
As all the hotels have to pay to get advertized on the Google page, and now they have to pay Google again to be promoted on the Google.com/hotel pages


They don't "have" to do anything. They are choosing to, because Google gives them the best ROI.

You're just another Google hater trying to make commonplace practices seem evil or coercive somehow.


By michael67 on 12/21/2013 12:51:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why shouldn't Google promote it's own products on it's OWN website and ad business? Are you serious? That's a completely invalid complaint.

Yes, as long as your not a monopolist there is no problem with it, but as Google is seen as a monopolist in search and the advertizing market, they cant promote there own products over that of the competition during searches.

To make it simple for you that you maybe understand it then!

If like Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp owning 90% of the TV stations/channels, and then would start-up/buy a beer brewery and would in every commercial block show a ad for it in the best commercial time slot, between the most appropriate programs ware it has the most impact, and would do it also with other type of products it developed or brands it got.

That is what Google is doing and the EU wont have it, and i agree with them on that.

quote:
They don't "have" to do anything. They are choosing to, because Google gives them the best ROI.

Yeah your right because they are the only game in town, as Google pushes all others out of the market.

quote:
You're just another Google hater trying to make commonplace practices seem evil or coercive somehow.

WTF, just because i think there should be more control over what Google is allowed to do, dose not mean i hate the company, I actually like most Google products, i just think they are a bid out of control, or better said they are looking up the borders of antitrust law, something i would do my self if i owned Google.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By Solandri on 12/21/2013 12:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why shouldn't Google promote it's own products on it's OWN website and ad business? Are you serious? That's a completely invalid complaint.

The EU's thinking is a bit different than the U.S. in this regard. The EU believes you shouldn't be allowed to leverage your monopoly (or near-monopoly) in one market into a superior position in a different market. That was the reason behind the whole IE thing. Microsoft leveraged its monopoly in the OS market to gain dominance in the browser market.

I think most of their (and michael67's) gripes against Google are BS. But this one I think has merit. While Google should be allowed to advertise their own products on Google Search, they should be doing so on a level playing field. Unfortunately economics (charging the same rate for top placement as they charge their customers) can't level the playing field because Google Search could charge Google+ a gazillion dollars to advertise, and it wouldn't change their bottom line because it's using the right hand to pay the left hand. So you need something beyond economics to discourage abusing that capability. Something like EU regulators saying "hey, don't do that."

The only other charge I see having merit are the exclusivity deals. IMHO exclusive deals should be illegal. Always. If you feel you need to buy up all access to something, that's a pretty clear self-indictment that you think your product is unable to compete on its own merits. And hence automatically by definition anti-competitive behavior.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By bug77 on 12/21/2013 3:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The EU's thinking is a bit different than the U.S. in this regard. The EU believes you shouldn't be allowed to leverage your monopoly (or near-monopoly) in one market into a superior position in a different market. That was the reason behind the whole IE thing.


This has been repeated several times already, but the situations are very, very different. Microsoft tied IE so close to Windows, to this they they can't pull it out of the Windows kernel. So if you wanted to use another browser, you still couldn't remove IE. Thus, no no-tech person could see why using something different made any sense. Yet with Google, they may push their maps all they want, I can still use other maps if I don't like it.


By Cheesew1z69 on 12/26/2013 10:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So if you wanted to use another browser, you still couldn't remove IE. Thus, no no-tech person could see why using something different made any sense.
And this is a problem how exactly? You have the choice to use another browser, who cares if you can't remove IE, it doesn't stop the use of another browser.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By troysavary on 12/23/2013 6:45:31 AM , Rating: 2
While I hardly think this is a valid complaint by the EU, as there is no "search monopoly", I find it laughable that you blame all of Google's woes on big bad Microsoft. The EU has fined MS far more than they have Google. Only in your deranged little "Microsoft is evil" world would the EU be doing Microsoft's bidding. If MS had that much influence with EU officials, why didn't they just make the browser ballot box issue go away?


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By Reclaimer77 on 12/23/2013 9:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
Troy your ignorance knows no bounds. I shouldn't have to explain this crap to you, it's so basic...

"The essential reason for FairSearch’s existence is to convince both the public and powerful regulators like the European Commission and the US Federal Trade Commission of Google’s guilt."

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/12/4216026/who-is-f...

Microsoft created a lobbying organization to convince Government's to hurt Google. It doesn't get more clear cut than this.

I didn't say this made MS "evil", I didn't say this made MS the ruler of the EU. But the facts are the facts, deal with it.

Stop being a dummy.


By michael67 on 12/23/2013 9:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
Trying to convince the EU with bias pages like FairSearch dose not make them wrong, or that they don't have a point.

Google is big enough to lobby there point of view, or do you real think the EU would listen to MS if they ware only crying wolf.

Some of the points FairSearch points to are real valid, some are less, and some are at best hopeful.

The commission is negotiating with Google, trying to find a solution that will work for both, that means they are not deaf to the arguments of Google aider.

Your opinion is that the Commission is just plain anti American, if that ware true, Google could easily fight the dissension at the WTO.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By troysavary on 12/23/2013 6:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
You have said in another post you will never forgive MS for not defending Google against Apple. You think the patent fight Nokia has with HTC is Microsoft's fault, when MS doesn't have any control over what is left of Nokia. MS has access to Nokia's patents from the deal they made, but it is not exclusive. They have no power to sue anyone using Nokia's patents. So yes, you have been pulling the "MS is evil" card. And as usual, when called on it, you use personal attacks.

You apparently did not even read the article you linked. MS did not found FairSearch. Kayak, Expedia, and TripAdvisor did. MS did not join until later.

Besides, Google was the first to whine to the government in the search war. They reported MS to the DoJ in 2007 because MS had search built in to Vista. But it isn't wrong when Google does it apparently.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By Reclaimer77 on 12/23/2013 11:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have said in another post you will never forgive MS for not defending Google against Apple.


Sigh...you can't even get THAT right!

I don't want Microsoft to "defend" Google, moron. I dislike how they grouped with Apple instead of fighting them and competing on the open market. Instead they teamed up with Apple to patent troll Android OEM's.

quote:
So yes, you have been pulling the "MS is evil" card.


No, I've never once called Microsoft evil. Nice try. I don't believe they are, and nothing you can say will change that.

quote:
Besides, Google was the first to whine to the government in the search war. They reported MS to the DoJ in 2007 because MS had search built in to Vista.


Smells like FUD. Link?

Not that your example is comparable to this topic, at all.


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By troysavary on 12/26/2013 9:13:34 AM , Rating: 1
As usual, you completely avoid addressing the part where you are proven wrong. What about your statement that MS founded FairSearch when they didn't? Of course, you never debate facts, just strawmen. Sure, you might never have used the word "evil", but you do hate MS and attack them every chance you get, all seemingly because they compete with Google. Instead of dodging the issue, admit you were either wrong, or completely making shit up, when you accused MS of being the founder of FairSearch and creating it merely to pick on poor Google. FairSearch was founded by companies who claim Google was stealing their content. Now, let the courts decide, ok?


RE: I have mixed feelings about the charges
By Reclaimer77 on 12/26/2013 10:28:59 AM , Rating: 2
I was wrong, yup. FairSearch wasn't founded by Microsoft. But Microsoft is now their biggest player and clearly it's leader. Before Microsoft joined nobody even heard of FairSearch, they were benevolent. Now they bully.

quote:
but you do hate MS and attack them every chance you get


Wrong again. I defend them against the EU, for example. And I never accuse them of being "evil" like the Google haters. I use Windows every day, willingly, I could live without it.

You suffer from confirmation bias. You formed the premise in your mind that I'm a Google employee or shill, so every post I make you twist into making that a reality.

quote:
all seemingly because they compete with Google.


Yup there you go, confirming your bias. It can't be because I hate patent trolling and the kinds of tactics Microsoft is using. It must be because I don't want my precious Google to have competition!

Dude I bash Apple for doing this kind of crap all the time. What kind of person would I be if I didn't hold Microsoft to the same standard?

quote:
Now, let the courts decide, ok?


No! The "courts" are part of the problem. Aren't you getting that yet?

Let's let the PEOPLE and the MARKETS decide, ok?


By troysavary on 12/26/2013 8:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
When the law is being broken, then it is up to the courts to decide. Otherwise, I agree, let the market decide.


By Keeir on 12/21/2013 6:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
So I looked through the list of allegations and have the following points.

#1. Google "can" manipulate search/paid search results. - Intesting but need some kind of proof they are actually manipulating with intention. Emails, communication, letters, etc. This is probably a big difference between the EU and US. The EU seems to feel once a company is large enough and not controled by a state, it has to go out of its way to demonstrate it is not doing something illegal, while in the US its not enough for the possiblities, or suggestions, but actual proof must be found that a company is knowingly using its positions in an illegal fashion.

#2. Deceptive Display. - I am rarely if ever deceived by Google's use of its own services. For example, the use of "Places" example is clearly labeled, seperated from standard search results, and is a better answer to the search question than typical search engine results. For instance, the search query: "restaurant recommendations near washington dc" did not result in a single google service.

#3. Content Scraping. - Clearly this is an issue. Google needs to at least site, if not site and link. However, this is an issue regardless of its place in the market.

#4. Aquiring Companies. - Confused... shouldn't a healthy company looks around to explore other market niches, products, and ideas that might be valuable when brought into the fold. Unless Google has proven history of buying companies, laying off 95%+ of the workers, closing up shop and leaving completely, this statement is off-base.

What's really funny, is that the two main technology companies that the EU has taken on, essentially give products away for free and continue to give products away for free. Which means that any real compeditor, will also have to give away a product for free. Which is single biggest barrier to entry into the markets now. Not the actions of the companies that the EU is focusing on. If I had a pay a penny to make a Google Search and could search on Bing for Free, I would always use Bing and never Google.


By inighthawki on 12/21/2013 8:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
Market share does not make a company a monopoly.


EU search engines.
By drycrust3 on 12/21/2013 1:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
More specifically, Google arranges search results in a way that benefits itself and not competitors.

The problem here is Google is the number one search engine in the world by a huge margin, where would you expect their own name to be if you put "search engine" into Google? Number 1? Of course, except when I last did it, when this debate cropped up a year or two ago they were number 3. Today, here in New Zealand, they are now number 4, and if I use "search engines", which was the Google suggestion, then they don't even appear on the first page. To me this looks like they are rigging the results so they can appease the regulators somewhere in the world.
The real problem here is that Google are an excellent search engine, they are better than the rest. In fact, why is it the best search engines come out of America? Not sure, maybe the EU should look into that instead.




RE: EU search engines.
By BZDTemp on 12/21/2013 1:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to be forgetting that Google is much more than a search engine. It's not about what pops in at #1 when someone uses Google to search for a search engine there is so much more going on.


RE: EU search engines.
By drycrust3 on 12/22/2013 10:17:30 AM , Rating: 2
Is there? Like what? Email? Lots of companies do email! Maps? Yes, Google do one of the best mapping services around, but that is their choice, they chose to do a good mapping service. Other companies involved could do one as good if they wanted to invest the money. A news compilation service? Well, that can't be hard to reproduce.
What else do Google do? Self driving cars? Cloud services?
All this proves is Google want to try out new things. Other companies can and probably are doing the same things as them. Maybe Google is better at marketing itself, but that is their choice.
As I said, Google is the number 1 search engine in the world, and for their name to not appear as the top result when you type in "search engine" means they have rigged the results, and that is what the EU should be excited about, not that Google's own name is placed as the fourth search engine mentioned, as it currently is.
I think the EU is confused. Where are the operating systems, the search engines, the office suites? Sure, we have some Linux distributions and ARM, but is that it? The EU should be encouraging their own software development and the like, not knocking those that work hard to be the best.


RE: EU search engines.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/21/2013 6:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In fact, why is it the best search engines come out of America? Not sure, maybe the EU should look into that instead.


Good point. In fact where are the European tech giants in general? They're all either based out of Asia or America mostly.

This is what happens when you have massive over-regulated markets and a lack of incentives for individual achievement. In Europe you can't take two steps without tripping over some regulation, law, or rule. Why even bother?


RE: EU search engines.
By ven1ger on 12/23/2013 2:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
US is probably the leader in the computer tech industry now, but that doesn't mean that Europe doesn't have its own tech giants.

One of the most notable I was able to think of before going to Google, is Nokia a Finland company.

Via Google:
http://tech.eu/features/186/ignorance-is-remiss/

Some other notable names Skype, Spotify, AVG Technologies, F-Secure and others but don't recognize the names.

I don't know why European tech companies aren't as global as some of the US tech companies. But European tech companies are abundant but not as large or widespread as US tech companies, but then again, it is usually the US tech companies that are buying up all the smaller competition, using patent laws to squash competition, etc...


work at home..
By MaryMOsteen on 12/23/2013 11:13:28 AM , Rating: 1
i get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I've been doing,...... www.jobs7.biz




RE: work at home..
By drycrust3 on 12/24/2013 2:03:53 AM , Rating: 2
Well Mary, I hope you remembered to tell your local tax office, we wouldn't want you to overlook you legal obligations.


don
By VLowdethe67 on 12/22/2013 5:54:14 AM , Rating: 2
i dont




By Captain Awesome on 12/25/2013 11:16:27 AM , Rating: 2
Let's be honest, the EU won't be happy with anything Google does because all the EU wants is 10% of Google's revenue in taxes.




Its called efficacy
By evo slevven on 12/27/2013 2:42:30 AM , Rating: 1
I use Google because its useful. They have proven useful over time. If there is another search engine that does provide use for me I use them. THe only other one I encountered is DuckDuckGo.com because they give me useful searches on tech.

Otherwise saying customers need choices and selection when other providers may not provide the same level of service is also a way of saying "we want other people to use our shittier service because it benefits us somehow".

Its not about law, legal rights or a moral authority, it comes down to just that one notion: do other search providers achieve the same level of satisfaction and service? If yes then take Google to court, if not then saying they are being monopolists may not be accurate and may in fact be people expressing their choice and freedom and simply using a superior service.




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki