Comment by IanCal | Hacker News Reader

Comment by IanCal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Speculating that this did seriously play out and you "fuck with the regulators, they punish you", is that really the accepted cultural take in Europe?

Yes? Regulators are there to stop companies abusing their powers.

> A regulator may try asserting more power than they possess and the courts offer a system to at least challenge it and have these excesses checked.

Legally challenging a regulator within the system is not "fucking with the regulators". We're already talking about an appeal, and there may be another level of appeals to this. It's not a regulator running wild.

> I suppose the point of my comical take was the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. Trump went aggressive on the EU and threatened to sanction the fuck out of the union if they hit the tech firms or Boeing with fines.

It feels weird that you think an appropriate response to a company fined for breaking the rules and being anti-competitive is political threats and sanctions.

> scientific progress around the world are put at threat by the squabbling in Brussels

I'm not really sure that google forcibly stopping manufacturers from making phones with non-google-approved android installed is key scientific progress.

It is ABSOLUTELY a regulator and a court system running wild. That's the whole point here.

The commission narrowly defines a mobile OS market and excludes Apple through a selective description of these markets. Read the other comments in this thread for why that is an absolutely dishonest way of defining markets for the purpose of investigating or finding abuse of monopoly power.

Individuals on the committee have openly gone on record calling US tech companies "Evil" and vowing to exact punishment on them far before any investigation had begun. This is the definition of persecution.

An appropriate response to a reasonable government agency enforcement would be met with nothing but applause and diplomacy in international circles. When you look at the history of US tech companies being asked to pay unimaginable sums through very suspect changes in law and court rulings that seem to never challenge the core legal issues that are set on legally suspect ground, there is absolutely a diplomatic objection to be filed. In the interest of protecting the interests of any sovereign nation, that nation may choose to use all options available to it to stop the miscarriage of justice.

The United States and Europe maintain friendly relations through a series of agreements rooted in trust and a shared sense of purpose. When you have idiots and childlike behavior such as this that narrowly carves out a legally suspect standard to target and persecute an important US industry while turning a blind eye to Chinese companies , well . . . that's going to need a lot of re thinking.

As far as scientific advancement goes, you're hopefully smart enough to realize the contributions of all the intelligent work done not just at Google, but in the private sector at large. If not, well, your bias may prevent you from acting rational in this discussion and i wish you well.

> It is ABSOLUTELY a regulator and a court system running wild. That's the whole point here.

Well that's stepped up significantly, the regulator and the legal system running wild.

The courts offer a way of checking if the fine should really have been issued, and it should. In response to this you suggest unchecked sanctions applied to completely different industries.

> The commission narrowly defines a mobile OS market and excludes Apple through a selective description of these markets.

Seems extremely simple to me that these things are distinct based on the restrictions we're talking about. Google may have been able to tie everything together if only they made and manufactured their own phones. I'm not even sure that including apple would help much since Android has an 80% market share.

> Individuals on the committee

The regulator and the court involved in the appeal?

> As far as scientific advancement goes, you're hopefully smart enough to realize the contributions of all the intelligent work done not just at Google, but in the private sector at large

And anti-competitive practices hurt the private sector. Competition has been fundamental to the dramatic progress made, and I don't think that google trying to stop people building phones with different OS's on them is beneficial.

Compete on merits, rather than "might makes right", in my opinion.

Google was, for example, controlling what versions of android manufacturers could put on their devices if they wanted any devices they made to have the Play Store. That does not to me seem like a good thing.

Are you illiterate or just incapable of entertaining the idea that you might be wrong?

From my original comment : “ the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. ” in other words, speaking about the European entities including the commission, unelected bureaucrats running agencies as well as the history of successive CJEU rulings usurping the authority of the legislative branch to deem international agreements invalid for exceedingly silly reasons when said legislature undertook successive acts guaranteeing the flow of data between the EU and the US.

If you’re not well informed about the situation in the EU and are winging your argument based on our exchange alone with no appetite or curiosity to educate yourself, it’s pathetic and you can fuck right off.

>Google was, for example, controlling what versions of android manufacturers could put on their devices if they wanted any devices they made to have the Play Store. That does not to me seem like a good thing.

Have you worked in the phone industry? Set foot in a single physical phone store that’s not an Apple Store for more than a tourist visit? Do you know the kind of bait and switch that’s out there for these exact agreements to be formalized into legal documents?

The history of abuse, scams, deliberate overzealous marketing leading to shitty consumer experiences through fragmentation is what those documents address. You know this as well as anyone out there.

You can’t just run a phone company that sells the new A1.5573 Play store model(limited stock, ie 100s only manufactured during a lifetime) while selling the A1.5573e non play store model and confuse your customers by having all your marketing showing the play store phone with the play store apps with the device ID in fine print at the bottom of a 40x40 billboard.

Read the fucking conclusions of the court at least before making stupid statements like “competition on merits, hurr durr”. The court found the commission in violation of preserving the defence the right to be heard by denying them access to evidence and repeatedly so. They actually upheld googles appeal on this count and found the revenue share agreements that underlie the play store install issue to be non abusive.

Again. Fucking read. God gave you the fucking sense to do so and you’re not cattle.

I can only hope that having this outburst made you feel better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com