|
I don't think the EU should take on any search engine. If they want, they can introduce a law or industry regulation and enforce it across the board.
They do the same with everything else: banking, manufacturing, agriculture, etc. It's a shakedown, plain and simple. Nothing to do with laws or regulations.
I'll add that I think that the EU has bigger issues to deal with than silly banners on a single website. I'd prefer UK law to be making the decisions for us in the UK to be honest.
And end users won't benefit from yet another silly version of the "the internet uses cookies, do you accept?" type regulation that cost the industry millions for bugger all.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
They are only flowing the US practice of one law for locals and one for those foreign bods
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure Thing!
Like Apple suing Samsung . . . and losing.
Ooops. We'll need another example.
BP destroying our coastline and paying spit-change in fines.
Ooops, again.
Well - I'll think of something.
| "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 |
|
|
|
|
|
BP paid a damn site more than the US companies that actually split the damn oil
oh and I don't remember the US companies paying much for covering half of Africa in oil
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Unless your Google display results are vastly different than mine, the top returned values always have a small yellow box [AD] on the second line (in front of the url).
The item to the right say "Sponsored" right across the top.
Finally, however, even without these, Google's business model is no secret. If they get paid per click-through then they'll damn well do their best to put those links in view.
Does a bar have to warn you that the free salty food is to make you thirsty so you drink more?
| "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 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Does a bar have to warn you that the free salty food is to make you thirsty so you drink more?
Shhh.. you'll give them more great ideas. Personally I'd love us to leave the EU, but I don't think our version of democracy will allow it.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
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 
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
How does the EU distinguish between paid positioning and people gaming the search engine? (Google and Bing have gotten pretty good at detecting that.)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh sure - Greece owes the EU hundreds of billions. Squeezing Google for €6 billion isn't going to make much of a difference in this case. To suggest it would is, well, crass. You sound like you've never been to Europe - you should visit, we don't all live in mud huts out here.
European governments do pull dumb tricks to get cash out of each other - like this one[^]. Pinching money from corporations like Google? No.
|
|
|
|
|
Suggesting the EU wouldn't try to grab money from anyone they can isn't crass, it's historical. In particular, they love to target large US companies.
As for having been to Europe (and other far off lands) - I don't know your age, but it's rather likely I'd been to Europe before you. More than once.
SpoonLord wrote: Pinching money from corporations like Google? No.
They certainly didn't pull back from pinching money from Microsoft because they included their own software (e.g., Media Player) with Windows. They fined them big bucks and made them make a version without it. Why? Allegedly because European customers were too laid back to bother getting an alternative audio engine (free or otherwise) because they were given one for free. Windows was the dominant browser - another reason to single them out - but FREE alternatives were and available. Who's fault, then, is the problem?
Same thing, according to another poster, is Google's problem: Europeans don't bother looking for an alternative so Google must be punished.
| "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 |
|
|
|
|
|
I live in Switzerland, which - contrary to some US companies' belief (but that is a rant for another time) - is not part of the EU. Consider me neutral on that matter.
I've read many (not all) of the comments, and all I can get away from this is that none of you really understand what this is all about. I don't say I do, but at least I've tried, and from the little I know it's obvious none of the points made about the EU in this thread are valid, or at the very least founded on something tangible. Just to make one point: 6B$ wouldn't make or break Greece. 600B$ wouldn't either, it would buy them at most a few years time.
But back to topic.
The main issue with Google is not that they're trying to get paid, or maximizing their income. It's not even that they don't clearly state how the search results they present to the users are lopsided in favor of certain clients. The main issue is that Google Search is the de facto standard search engine in Europe, and as a result, uninformed users will turn to them rather than looking at and evaluating alternatives. This puts Google in a quasi-monopolist position where they can dictate how search results are presented to users in general.
This opposes the idea of an open market, where the user can pick a different product, because many users are not aware or technically competent enough to pick a better suited service.
That said, realistically, many users will never be able to conciously choose the right search engine for themselves, therefore the only feasible solution is for the market leader to offer an unbiased service as a default. They may offer 'improved' and biased services in any way they like, as long as they are not used as the default. They could even introduce a new virtual currency (g-points?) as micropayments for users that use the biased search engine rather than the unbiased default. Those payments could then be used in return for other services and and advanced features elsewhere. Just to make a suggestion. Other companies have introduced micro-payment currencies with great sccess, I wonder why Google hasn't tried this yet?
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Your first premise, about being Swiss and thus neutral, is a premise I reject. Historically, as well as in the current context, this is a de factomyth.
Stefan_Lang wrote: The main issue is that Google Search is the de facto standard search engine in Europe, and as a result, uninformed users will turn to them rather than looking at and evaluating alternatives.
If, as you claim, the laziness of users to get up and find an alternative this is the reason, it's far more nauseating than I had envisioned. In the US, although Google is the main search engine, it has competition.
So - are US surfers, as a whole, more intelligent than Europeans? I leave that answer to you, as you've have implied that. (I'd only touch on that in a humorous thread). How hard is it to type "Bing" into a browser? Maybe even a Euro-search-engine. There are such things, aren't there?
OK - so per your analysis, Europeans are flocking to Google. Thus, Google should be punished for people liking their FREE service. That's so F'd up I don't know where to start. Perhaps with this: if this is truly the reasoning behind the legal action it proves (in my opinion, yet again) that when the EU and it's de facto affiliates cannot compete they attack and destroy.
Hence, now enhanced by your enlightenment as to the whys and wherefores, my original premise is reinforced: Google should leave the EU, block EU users, and call it good riddance. If they decide they want it back (as apparently they're clueless in terms of solving the problem, themselves) then the EU should be charged that 6B Euros/Year for access - as a reminder.
Finally, I must thank you. For, whether your view as to the reasoning behind this is correct or not, it shows $oak-the-Yank$ a mind-set that is undeniable.
| "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 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Your first premise, about being Swiss and thus neutral, is a premise I reject.
I did not state that the Swiss are and have been neutral at all times. I was only making a point that where I live, whatever the EU does has little or no effect. Today, more than for many decades, Switzerland is at odds with the EU. I won't bother with you about the details, just accept that whatever comes of the Google case, Switzerland will not be affected either way! Unless of course, Google changes their busines model, for the better or worse of the entire world.
W∴ Balboos wrote: If, as you claim, the laziness of users to get up and find an alternative
Laziness is certainly part of the reason, but that is not what the EU objects against: everyone has the right to be lazy after all 
The main issue is that a large portion of the smartphone and tablet userbase has almost no computer knowledge at all: these people know how to open whatever browser is installed on their device per default, and search for a topic that interests them with the search engine that is installed by default. Many are not even aware there are alternatives: they haven't been using these devices before, they are not used to machines offering alternate programs in the first place: have you ever downloaded the "toast-it" app to your toaster? no? Why might that be?
W∴ Balboos wrote: OK - so per your analysis, Europeans are flocking to Google
Not my analysis, according to the analyisis of the EU agency Google is used by 90% of the user base. Can't say how exactly they measured, but even if they're off by a considerable amount, it's save to say Goggle is in the lead by a solid margin.
W∴ Balboos wrote: FREE service
I object to that. Google takes your data and sells it, either directly or indirectly through targeted ads. That doesn't automatically deduct money from your pocket, but it does lead to some people buying stuff that otherwise they wouldn't have bought, or in some cases, wouldn't have needed in the first place. That is not my understanding of free!
That said, I don't complain about that practice in principle: I know perfectly well about this mechanism and can deal with it. And I'm fine with it because I am well aware that this pays for a service that otherwise I would have to pay for in some other way.
Also whether or not Google Search is free doesn't matter at all in the Google case. What does matter is that companies paying Google to manipulate their results lead to people buying products of that company, although otherwise they would have chosen a different product if presented with a fair comparison, or no product at all. That is a distortion of the free market that is illegal by EU laws, and those laws apply to all companies doing business within the borders of the EU. Or at least this is the conclusion the EU agency arrived at.
W∴ Balboos wrote: when the EU and it's de facto affiliates cannot compete they attack and destroy
Admittedly, the main reason behind the investigation was likely motivated by the suspicion that Googles practices undermine the competitiveness of european companies by unfair, and potentially illegal means. Of course, if european companies paid Google, they wouldn't be at a perceived disadvantage, but this begs the question whether the practice as such is legal: the EU agencies can hardly advise the EU companies to follow US Companies' leads, if doing so would break EU law. The only legal alternative is to make Google adhere to EU law, or else punish it as appropriate for braking the law.
I understand this may lead to a weird situation where Google does adhere to US but not EU law. But that doesn't mean the EU is at fault! (and, as a consequence, a lack of understanding of what the hell the EU is up to. Again.) The EU agencies just do their jobs: protecting the laws - you would expect no less from your own government.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
To a great extent your tome proves my point.
As for paid promotion of products being illegal: does that mean radio and television throughout the EU are commercial free? What's the difference, except that those receiving the revenue from the advertising are EU members? Does every commercial have a disclaimer that it is only trying to get you to buy their product but competitors exist and you should consider theirs, too?
Stefan_Lang wrote: Also whether or not Google Search is free doesn't matter at all in the Google case.
"In the case of Google" ? ? ? ? No one is making anyone use any search engine. You may be better directing your wrath to the SmartPhone companies who put on a browser at all. They are, after all, accessories to steering users toward Google. "In the case of Google" says so much about attitudes.
No matter how you slice it, it's a pretense (or implication) that EU residents are incapable of making decisions that satisfy the EU's interests as they would like (i.e., everything for them). The citizens would appear to be so helpless that they need to be protected from themselves - but at the expense, via huge fines, of American companies.
Hence my original proposal: they close all the Google facilities, fire all the employees, pull all of their financial interests out, and block the EU from using Google.
Asides:
Although not a member of the EU, Switzerland's interests (for both political and trade reasons) will doubtless fall very near those of its neighbors.
The toaster analogy, by the way, is neither parallel nor relevant.
| "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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Also whether or not Google Search is free doesn't matter at all in the Google case. What does matter is that companies paying Google to manipulate their results lead to people buying products of that company, although otherwise they would have chosen a different product if presented with a fair comparison, or no product at all. That is a distortion of the free market that is illegal by EU laws, and those laws apply to all companies doing business within the borders of the EU. Or at least this is the conclusion the EU agency arrived at.
The only distortion there is of the truth! Does the EU also consider that TV advertising is a distortion of the free market because the bigger companies can afford glossier campaigns with big stars endorsing their products? Will they be fining TV companies accordingly? Perhaps they're going after the Yellow Pages next where display ads shove ordinary listings out of the way? Or perhaps they'll be after The Daily Telegraph whose editorial policy was recently revealed to be completely subject to the amount of advertising HSBC did?
Distortion of the free market? Bollocks! There's nothing free (in either sense) about the free market! Money talks and always has. Wise buyers have not suddenly become saps because Google has sponsored results. Nor have foolish buyers become any more deceived. Twas ever thus! The assault on Google for doing what everybody else has been doing for decades, if not centuries, is transparently a money grab. The only wrong that Google has done the EU is being successful at a time when what was already an essentially unsustainable trade protection racket proved insufficient to meet the spiralling costs and battle the economic disasters.
It remains the case that Google costs me literally nothing while the EU sticks its hand in my pocket every day to support its persecution of the aforesaid. Google coerces nobody while its accuser does the exact opposite. It really shouldn't be hard to decide which one is the evildoer!
|
|
|
|
|
Great - but you really should have appended that reply to the poster to whom I replied!!
(Hint: you can copy/paste your stuff into a reply to them and delete this).
The only reason to bother with the re-post/delete is that I'm in agreement and you're trying to convince me when it's the other guy that this is addressing. (I'm actually the one who started this thread).
| "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 |
|
|
|
|
|
I've pointed this out in other parts of this thread, but for your info:
we're talking of Googles monopolist Search service here, not of some random advertisement. Monopolist laws are quite different to others, and that is what the EU is referring to: that Google is using their monopolist position to shift the general perception towards paying clients.
Monopolist laws are there for a reason. Even the US courts occasionally refer to them and break up companies. Why do you think the EU isn't entitled to do the same?
Whether the EU is right to apply these laws on Google is not for me to answer. However, when you consider the typical compensations asked for at US courts, I feel those 6B$ are a rather modest amount. If the EU can pull this off, Google can be happy the US government didn't think to sue them first 
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
The reason for anti-monopoly laws is quite simple. When there is no competition the price of your products can be set at any damn figure you like. But Google's price has always been zero and it's monopoly (which is in any case a complete illusion) is not of its own doing. It has made no moves to subsume the many other search engines that exist - it simply is the best according to the most.
So in fact the EU is not using monopoly law at all. They're know only too well that it's a non-starter. What they have done instead is twisted the law around on itself. In effect it is attempting to punish Google for failing to meet the criteria which would (rightly) make it subject to that punishment. It is the testing of witches all over again. Float and you're a witch, sink and you're not but unfortunately you're dead. Heads I win, tails you lose.
The resulting trumped up charge, 'shifting perception', is utterly ridiculous and makes an absolute nonsense of EU law. It's a charge which any lynch mob would be proud of. Completely unprovable, completely unfair, and completely contrary to both the spirit and letter of the actual law. Whatever way you dress it up (monopoly law, my arse!) it is persecution pure and simple. It has nothing to do with commercial law and everything to do with control. It is just one of many attempts to wrest the Internet from its users for whom the EU continues to demonstrate complete contempt painting us all as mindless Google groupies with stars in our eyes who never get past the first page of results and believe everything we're told. That anyone can be anything other than outraged by this is simply beyond my ken!
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: To a great extent your tome proves my point.
Not at all. See below.
W∴ Balboos wrote: As for paid promotion of products being illegal
Again:
This is not about ads or ad-paid services at all! This is about manipulating a presumably neutral service. The Eu makes the point that Google, as a quasi-monopolist is obliged to keep that service neutral, i. e. not influenced in favor of certain companies. The EUs point, not mine. I won't bother reading up on EU law to find out about that. Anyway, the EU states that Google is breaking (monopolist?) laws. Google states it doesn't. That is what this case is about, not ads.
W∴ Balboos wrote: No one is making anyone use any search engine.
I've already pointed that one out: it isn't about anyone making people use Google, it is that Google is de facto in the position of a monopolist for the Search services in europe.
W∴ Balboos wrote: "In the case of Google" says so much about attitudes.
Maybe I haven't expressed myself well, but (a) this is not about my attitude at all, and (b) 'Google case' was just a reference to the legal case the EU made.
W∴ Balboos wrote: it's a pretense (or implication) that EU residents are incapable of making decisions
A fact. And not about EU residents, but residents all over the world, at least those without the required technical knowledge. And there are many of these!
Don't make the mistake to project your own depth of understanding on every person out there! I've talked to people over the web, even met some in games, who don't know the difference between logging off and switching off your computer! They may be online, but they get that far only because someone helped them get there - that doesn't mean they understand anything about it.
W∴ Balboos wrote: Switzerland's interests ...
Over the past years, there was a development leading to Switzerland potentially breaking up the Bilateral Agreements[^] with the EU. It hasn't quite happened yet, but I haven't noticed anyone stopping the process either. So don't tell me they're all brothers and sisters!
W∴ Balboos wrote: The toaster analogy
My point was that for many people devices with browsers are similar to microwaves and toasters: just some electrical device that does something if you press the right button! These same people will not understand the flexibility of their device: they do not understand the concept of "downloading an app", even if some well-meaning nephew does it for them, explaining it step by step. Neither will they understand their ability, let alone the reason, to choose different software for the same task, be it browsing, search, or whatever. They will be content with the knowledge of what buttons to press to perform their intended task. None of them will ever ask anyone how to change the search engine. Why should they? So noone will ever show them how to do it. Even if it's just one click away, the option may just as well not exist.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Over and Over the point is Made:
The EU expects Google to do people's thinking for them. It's up to Google (and every other person who interacts with anyone else, really) to anticipate every possible stupid thing that can be done by stupid people. If they miss any - sue them.
Don't forget to sue the dairies because they do not label milk with "If you leave this out for a week in warm weather you shouldn't drink it because it will taste nasty and make you sick". As for my TV ads analogy: it's true - and what if no one tells the Euro-Crowd that they can change the channels on their set? Then that station has a monopoly by this inane logic - and therefore should be sued if they express anything whatsoever that has options.
Or, for toilet tissue:
WARNING! DO NOT REUSE OR ATTEMPT TO CLEAN . . .
ESPECIALLY IF SOLD IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.
(Probably should be placed on each sheet, printed both sides).
| "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 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: The EU expects Google to do people's thinking for them.
You keep on arguing statements I never made. Whatever the reasons, Google Search is used by the majority of people in Europe, that makes it a monopolist service, and it made EU apply monopolist laws. There's no request for Google to do people's thinking, the EU just asks them to adhere to the law. That's all there is to it.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan_Lang wrote: That's all there is to it.
Not At All
The fact the Users prefer there service WHEN OTHERS ARE AVAILABLE doesn't make them a monopolistic service.
Over and over you seem to accept that European Law says if your good at what you do you will make you suffer for it.
It all comes to a single point, my original point: don't even wait for the trial to start. If the EU files suit and starts the monkey trial witch-trial hearing: empty the bank accounts, close the business entities, and tell the EU to stuff their greed up their A$$es. That is, after all, my basic assertion when I started the thread.
| "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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: The Eu makes the point that Google, as a quasi-monopolist is obliged to keep that service neutral, i. e. not influenced in favor of certain companies.
But this is a complete fiction. They are not obliged to do any such thing. This is a legal fantasy dreamed up by an envious, avaricious bureaucracy that actually has no right whatsoever to determine a private company's policies unless it is fraudulent or price fixing. Google has made no attempt to hide the fact that some results are 'sponsored' though obviously they are guilty of fixing prices ... at zero! We have not been deceived. We understand that costs must be met and take this into account when deciding whether to use Google, as we do Bing, and all the other search engines that have ever existed.
There simply is no precedent for this absurd charge. If I go to the Tourist Information Board here in the UK I know that they will only be recommending accommodation at places that have paid to be included in their 'approved list' and unlike search results there will be no alternative at all. So why hasn't this evil practice been stamped on by the EU? Because it's not a billion dollar company ripe for plundering. It's as simple as that!
|
|
|
|
|
We are discussing definitions now. I may have used incorrect terms. Looking up on monopolies, there are several terms that are related to the situation: a "de facto Monopoly" would one created naturally, but it implies a 100% market share, therefore it's only theoretically possible. I have wrongly used that term for what is apparently called a Natural Monopoly[^] - that is the situation Google is in, regarding Search, in Europe. At least according to the EU.
You might also want to consider the legal definition of a monopoly[^] which is obviously based on the "Natural Monopoly", not the "de facto Monopoly".
As for no precedent, you are mistaken. Microsoft was already forced to pay in similar cases, and in one case it was forced to provide a netral way for users to pick an alternate browser on installation or first start of Windows, in the EU. This is not an EU thing either, check out the United States Antitrust law[^] - this link provides a number of cases where US legislation led to splitting of companies and prohibitive penalties. You might specialy be interested in the case "United States vs. Alcoa" (see Monopolization[^])
a monopoly can be deemed to exist depending on the size of the market. It was generally irrelevant how the monopoly was achieved since the fact of being dominant on the market was negative for competition.
So, this is neither fantasy nor absurd. Ok, you are free to dispute the latter, but we are talking about laws that do exist and have been applied for decades.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
