Google, EU, and $6B
-
harold aptroot wrote:
making such inane analogies does not work at all
Why is it inane? It seems quite reasonable for me. Your original argument was that because Baidu and Yandex aren't popular, somehow the laws applied to Google shouldn't be applied to them. Isn't that the same as saying that the regulations applied to Ford shouldn't be applied to, say, Rolls Royce?
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
-
Cars have to pass certain tests or else they cannot be imported/sold/registered/insured/etc. Competition laws are applied when someone cares enough to take the trouble of doing it.
harold aptroot wrote:
Cars have to pass certain tests or else they cannot be imported/sold/registered/insured/etc.
Correct. All cars. Not just ones from manufacturers who are doing well.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Cars have to pass certain tests or else they cannot be imported/sold/registered/insured/etc.
Correct. All cars. Not just ones from manufacturers who are doing well.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
-
Well, all cars in the EU anyway. But this is exactly the difference, not an argument for why there should be no difference. The difference just exists whether you like it or not.
All cars sold in the EU are subject to the same rules as each other. Shouldn't all search engines used in the EU also be subject to the same rules as each other? That just seems like common sense to me.. :confused:
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
-
All cars sold in the EU are subject to the same rules as each other. Shouldn't all search engines used in the EU also be subject to the same rules as each other? That just seems like common sense to me.. :confused:
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
They are subject to the same rules, but those are not the kind of rules that are applied by default all the time. They're rules that someone has to go out of their way to enforce, organizing committees and so on, and go through months (or years) of planning and researching, and then convince the EC (it's probably them, right?) that the issue matters enough to be worth their time.
-
All cars sold in the EU are subject to the same rules as each other. Shouldn't all search engines used in the EU also be subject to the same rules as each other? That just seems like common sense to me.. :confused:
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
Exactly where does it say they will not be prosecute? start with one and they progress to the others, make sense to start with the biggest, and whilst the others may have a big global footprint their EU is very small, would not be surprised if Netscape is bigger
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
They are subject to the same rules, but those are not the kind of rules that are applied by default all the time. They're rules that someone has to go out of their way to enforce, organizing committees and so on, and go through months (or years) of planning and researching, and then convince the EC (it's probably them, right?) that the issue matters enough to be worth their time.
harold aptroot wrote:
They're rules that someone has to go out of their way to enforce, organizing committees and so on
Okay, fair enough. So now that someone has "gone out of their way", I can expect to see the same rule applied to all search engines, correct? Or is it more of a case (that I personally believe) that the EU targets only successful companies that it thinks it can get money out of?
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
-
Exactly where does it say they will not be prosecute? start with one and they progress to the others, make sense to start with the biggest, and whilst the others may have a big global footprint their EU is very small, would not be surprised if Netscape is bigger
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
Exactly where does it say they will not be prosecute?
I'm saying they won't prosecute. The EU only goes for the easy target. Yandex and Baidu will be left alone, I personally guarantee it ;)
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
They're rules that someone has to go out of their way to enforce, organizing committees and so on
Okay, fair enough. So now that someone has "gone out of their way", I can expect to see the same rule applied to all search engines, correct? Or is it more of a case (that I personally believe) that the EU targets only successful companies that it thinks it can get money out of?
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
Brent Jenkins wrote:
Or is it more of a case (that I personally believe) that the EU targets only successful US companies that it thinks it can get money out of?
FIFY
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
The idea that the EU is 'robbing' money from Google to give/lend to Greece is absurd. The EU/ECB have the resources to bail out Greece, what is lacking is the political will as they have the idea that any money given to Greece is just throwing good money after bad. (An idea that isn't entirely wrong.) I see you brought up BP and how a European company destroyed American life/land/sea/assets and paid peanuts. Union Carbide screwed up Bhopal and killed thousands more than BP and got away paying even less. BP's case pales in comparison to Union Carbide's sins.
Cheers, विक्रम "We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread :doh:
Speaking of Bhopal and "Carbide's Sin", I hold the government of India 100% responsible for the tragedy. What? Why? Union Carbide was made to build the plant away from population centers - which it did. Then the squatters moved in to the area. Now poor people moving into near proximity of industry (and thus potential income) is not unique to India. However - the government doing nothing to stop the populating of an area in the vicinity of the plant and its known potential dangers, is totally their responsibility. Union Carbide isn't the government and cannot relocate its citizens. As for the EU having the resource to handle the Greek (&other) economic disasters - that's not a relevant response. They simply want someone else to pay. The Germans, it seems, are a bit tired of it. Who'd gonna' pony up the cash? It sort of reminds me of all of these countries with their armies and egos wondering when the US will go help out some war-torn area or another. They have their own poeple, equipment, and money - let them go and do the deed. They'd rather, of course, have Uncle Sap do it - in case something goes wrong. Also, war is expensive. Much scapegoating because they're too damn cheap and lazy (or clever?) to get up off their abundant backsides to do the unpleasant little tasks, themselves.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Brent Jenkins wrote:
Or is it more of a case (that I personally believe) that the EU targets only successful US companies that it thinks it can get money out of?
FIFY
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
Or is it more of a case (that I personally believe) that the EU targets only successful US and UK companies that it thinks it can get money out of?
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
Exactly where does it say they will not be prosecute?
I'm saying they won't prosecute. The EU only goes for the easy target. Yandex and Baidu will be left alone, I personally guarantee it ;)
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
just exactly how many users use them within the EU? is it actually in double figures?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
just exactly how many users use them within the EU? is it actually in double figures?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Why does the number of users matter? The law either applies to all or it applies to nobody. If you're selectively applying a law, then it isn't a law, it's corruption.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
They're rules that someone has to go out of their way to enforce, organizing committees and so on
Okay, fair enough. So now that someone has "gone out of their way", I can expect to see the same rule applied to all search engines, correct? Or is it more of a case (that I personally believe) that the EU targets only successful companies that it thinks it can get money out of?
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
Then someone would have to go out of their way again, for each of the search engines.. unlikely. Obviously they're only going to target successful companies, that also makes sense from the perspective of maximum impact for the effort. Or they're doing it for the money, I haven't really decided yet.
-
W∴ Balboos wrote:
I'd make an example of them:
I agree that an example needs to be made. The greedy @rsehole yanks who cause the global financial problems that screw up national economies every few years should be lined up against a wall and shot. That way, the next two or three times they do it (probably within the next 15-20 years), enough of them should be culled that they'll be unlikely to be able to do it again.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
It's the politicians, bank directors, Bilderbergs, Illuminati etc. worldwide that are causing these problems.
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
It's the politicians, bank directors, Bilderbergs, Illuminati etc. worldwide that are causing these problems.
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
I live just down the road from the bilderberg hotel. My phone can't get a signal when I walk past it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I live just down the road from the bilderberg hotel. My phone can't get a signal when I walk past it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Well duh, only the lizardmen that secretly rule the earth get that signal ;)
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
Well duh, only the lizardmen that secretly rule the earth get that signal ;)
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Do you know that I've actually shaken that idiot's hand? It was back in the days when he was a snooker commentator for Auntie. What's interesting, though, is that everyone, including the snooker players, thought he was a bleeping looney, even them. He's just a marketing moron that wasn't even clever enough to keep a job in marketing.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Do you know that I've actually shaken that idiot's hand? It was back in the days when he was a snooker commentator for Auntie. What's interesting, though, is that everyone, including the snooker players, thought he was a bleeping looney, even them. He's just a marketing moron that wasn't even clever enough to keep a job in marketing.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
that idiot
Mark_Wallace wrote:
he was a bleeping looney
Mark_Wallace wrote:
a marketing moron
Mark_Wallace wrote:
wasn't even clever enough to keep a job in marketing
Does that apply to all of them?[^]
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
that idiot
Mark_Wallace wrote:
he was a bleeping looney
Mark_Wallace wrote:
a marketing moron
Mark_Wallace wrote:
wasn't even clever enough to keep a job in marketing
Does that apply to all of them?[^]
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
