Item — HN Reader

The reason you do not understand is simple: there is no logic here. Google is not a monopoly. The parallels drawn here (by EU and by people on HN respectively) are:

1. Microsoft. This is wrong since while it was mostly impossible back then to buy a PC without windows, it is quite possible today to not use google. In fact not using google is easier than using google (you can skip typing google.com into the address bar)

2. Comcast. This is wrong since in many markets comcast is the only internet provider. No markets exist where bing and yahoo are inaccessible.

Really this is just EU punishing google for getting too big. Unfortunately for EU, even their own ridiculous (IMHO) protectionist laws do not have anything about a company being to successful for their liking. I imagine this will be a huge money and time waste for the EU, but in the end they have no real case. Google owns google.com and may display whatever it wants there. Until someone forces EU citizens to use google, or until bing and yahoo die, they are not a monopoly, even as per EU's ridiculous (IMHO) definition.

Google does not owe foo.com or bar.org or baz.info any place in their results page, unless is so chooses. And foo, bar, and baz are only there at google's mercy. Just like EU cannot force _YOU_ to include content _I_ want on _YOUR_ page, no matter how successful and how non-european you are and how unsuccessful and how european I am, it has no real power to force google to index foo, bar, and baz, or place any content of theirs (snippets of text and links to their pages) on google's property that is google.com/...

3 comments

> The reason you do not understand is simple: there is no logic here. Google is not a monopoly.

Whether Google is a monopoly in the sense relevant in (US) antitrust law is, well, not so easily dismissed. What is relevant isn't the absence of any competition, its market power -- which is usually defined in terms of pricing power (essentially, having some range within which changes in the price at which the firm offers its product in some market will not result in a shift from the firm to competitors.)

And, in any case, EU antitrust law has a less restricted domain than US antitrust law and, AFAIK, while monopoly/market/pricing power is still relevant, is more likely to be violated even before a firm has established market power.

> The parallels drawn here (by EU and by people on HN respectively) are

The EU isn't, AFAICT, "drawing parallels", its directly objecting to specific Google behavior on its own merit, not because it is parallel to Microsoft, Comcast, etc.

> Really this is just EU punishing google for getting too big.

This inflammatory complaint could use some justification.

> Unfortunately for EU, even their own ridiculous (IMHO) protectionist laws do not have anything about a company being to successful for their liking.

What in particular is "protectionist" about the provisions of the law being applied here? AFAICT, the laws at issue are Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [0][1], which don't seem particularly protectionist.

> I imagine this will be a huge money and time waste for the EU, but in the end they have no real case.

Have you seen the actual Statement of Objections? If not, what is the basis of the conclusion about whether or not they have a real case?

> Google owns google.com and may display whatever it wants there.

Not if they have dominant power in a market and displaying what they want there constitutes an abuse of that position.

> Until someone forces EU citizens to use google, or until bing and yahoo die, they are not a monopoly, even as per EU's ridiculous (IMHO) definition.

Being a monopoly is not required for a violation of either the EU rules on anticompetitive agreements or the EU rules on abuse of a dominant position.

[0] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:120...

[1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:120...

> it has no real power to force google to index foo, bar, and baz, or place any content of theirs (snippets of text and links to their pages) on google's property that is google.com

That would be possible only if you can reify the notion of freedom from the personal level to that of a company. A large, multinational company has a much greater impact on society and thus needs to be more tightly regulated.

"Needs"? Why?

Their only power is to make it extremely expensive for google not to operate within their rules.