Hacker News Reader

Comment by amelius | Hacker News Reader

I'm wondering how such a fine actually comes into existence. How does some EU committee get the idea that Google is anti-competitive here? Is this the result of lobbying by competitors? Can we somehow post the EU about instances where companies are being anti-competitive, and get them to take action somehow?

Given the enormous amount of anti-competitive behavior we see every day in the news, I can't help but feel this fine seems a bit arbitrary.

View on HN

You can see the original fact sheet of the investigation here (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4782_en.htm). The reasoning for the investigation is at the bottom. There were two complaints and an independent investigation by the committee.

The fines "reflect the gravity and duration of the infringement. They are calculated under the framework of a set of Guidelines last revised in 2006." (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/procedures_101_en....). There's a link to the guidelines on the page.

I also had a look at how to file an anti-trust complaint but to be honest, most info was over my head and more appropriate for a lawyer - this seems to be a good start: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/contacts/electronic_document...

> Is this the result of lobbying by competitors?

Probably in part yes, but the European Commission is also pretty proactive. E.g. if I remember correctly, they reached out to Mozilla to get their take on how MS was bundling IE with Windows, after Opera originally complained about it. This came out of it: https://www.google.com/search?q=browser+choice+screen&tbm=is...

> but the European Commission is also pretty proactive.

Isn't it a bit late though?

Better late than never, I guess?

The question I meant to answer wasn't about timing but about whether the fine is a result of lobbying.

> Better late than never, I guess?

Not for all the companies and FLOSS projects that have been wiped - or not even started - due to the Google / apple duopoly.

You don't really need lobbying in order to make Google conspicuous. In particular with their creative approaches to accounting.

> Is this the result of lobbying?

In all likelihood there was almost certainly an element of lobbying, in particular complaints about these business practices which eventually coalesced into some kind of more focused activities.

It seems a bit quixotic to blame "competitors". Which competitors exactly? That's the whole premise of abuse of dominant market position.

Well if there was one group I would expect to complain about anti-competitive behaviour, that would probably be competitors.

In a monopoly situation there a not many competitors. It is a monopoly. mono = one

I guess there is also the case where new competitors want to enter the market, but can't because of the monopolist and the barriers it has created.

Google is debatably the leader of the tech market and mobile is the fastest growing segment, so the term "arbitrary" is not warranted - as in, picking market losers and winners by selective enforcement of the law.

Whenever allocating limited enforcement resources, you would expect the most egregious violators to be targeted first, with immediate social benefits and prompting self-compliance for smaller actors.

> How does some EU committee get the idea that Google is anti-competitive here?

I imagine they read the antitrust law and then applied it. I could be wrong, though. Maybe it's because "they hate America for its freedoms."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com