[summer_steven]

> It is kinda surreal that a company obeying the law is headline news.

That is an unreal level of politicking. You can't see any reason why companies might prefer to pay a fine than obey a law?

If you lived in an HOA, and that HOA mandated that all your lawn ornaments must be bright pink by next week, how eager would you be to comply by next week? If the fine for non-compliance was only $1 per year, would you prefer to pay the fine?

I'm trying to illustrate that companies are made up of human beings, not monsters.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

I think there's a wide gulf of moral culpability between pink signs worth a buck and antitrust infringements worth billions. Would you excuse the individuals at VW since really their sign wasn't pink, it was just rigged so that it would appear that way when certain individuals in the HOA drove by? Reducing the problem in the way you've done changes it. It's not really the same issue.

[kbenson]

> I think there's a wide gulf of moral culpability between pink signs worth a buck and antitrust infringements worth billions.

There may be a wide gulf depending on the details, but there doesn't necessarily have to be. They are being punished for antitrust practices proven on a legal basis. Without bringing specifics into it, there's no way to tell wither it's moral or not, the same way you can't assume someone on the sex offender registry committed a morally repugnant crime instead of just peeing in public.[1] Don't confuse legal for moral, and if you think the facts of this case support your point, then use those facts to make that point.

1: http://www.menshealth.com/guy-wisdom/you-might-be-sex-offend...

[frgtpsswrdlame]

What? What is with all the twisted analogies in this thread? First google is a victim of an HOA and now it's a mislabeled sex offender? Let me think, what else are HN's favorite topics of anger... I know next Google will be a young worker who can't afford a house because of NIMBYism and zoning laws!

I'm fine saying Google's actions were immoral.

[kbenson]

> now it's a mislabeled sex offender?

The only way you could construe my comment as saying Google is a mislabeled sex offender is if you completely ignored the actual point in lieu of keywords you chose to focus on.

My prior comment can be reduced to "if you're going to make a moral argument, use evidence of morality in that argument." That you responded with what appears to be an apoplectic fit doesn't really leave your prior argument any better off.

> I'm fine saying Google's actions were immoral.

Obviously. But why? I'll even help you out a bit. There are two parts of this case that are distinct as I see it, that Google suppressed search results of a new search result service they rolled out, and that their supplying their own data from the knowledge graph for shopping results when other services exist it itself monopolistic and punishable. In the former, I agree that's behavior that should not be tolerated or someone in their market position. Of the latter, I think that's a far overreach of any government. If nobody can compete because Google is just doing that much better because they've built the base of audience and information to handle it better, then Google is outcompeting the others in a good way that's better for the general public.

[summer_steven]

> Would you excuse the individuals at VW

VW is being fined right now. Does that sound like being excused?

And I do see it differently when a companies transparently refuses to obey a law and accepts a fine vs when a company lies.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>I do see it differently when a companies transparently refuses to obey a law and accepts a fine vs when a company lies

So your position is that it's worse to lie about breaking the law than it is to actually break it? I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from.

Besides I'm really just asking about the analogy. I think if someone posted "Show HN: My color-changing, license-plate-detecting, HOA-fine-avoiding lawn ornament" we'd all be in there yucking it up at the genius of it. But when VW does the same thing (by your analogy) we're in threads talking about much more serious topics, like individual moral culpability. My point is that your analogy is flawed, it doesn't hold up.

[summer_steven]

You CAN break the law if you are okay accepting the punishment.

A good instance is jaywalking: it's a minor offense and police don't really care to enforce it. So people decide to break that law all the time.

A law is a contract. Anyone is free to break the contract if they are willing to accept the consequences.

[tannhaeuser]

Antitrust (or other civil laws) aren't about morale, they're about countering a natural tendency to form monopolies, so that the efforts to maintain market conditions (laws, currencies, etc.) with the taxpayer's money don't benefit just a single party.

[geofft]

Sure, and that's the sort of level of respect we expect towards HOAs. The EU, one would hope, is significantly more respected than an HOA who wants bright pink lawn ornaments.

And if it's not, that is pretty noteworthy.

[kuschku]

The right to start, and own, a company, exists only so that they can provide a benefit for all of society (as specified in the German constitution and the EU treaties). According to the same documents, if a company decides to intentionally violate democratically created laws, or decided to hurt society, their right to exist as company can be eliminated, and their property can be seized.

If you disagree with a community’s decision, you can lobby to have them changed, or you can move elsewhere – but you can’t, just because you disagree, disobey them. Or you’ll have to expect that if you try to disobey their decisions, they’ll respond accordingly.

I’m not suggesting anything a society should do as response to a foreign company arriving there, violating laws, and refusing to obey, but generally this simply ends up bad for the company.

I disagree with IP laws, but I can’t just pirate content and sell remixes either, by hiding behind a shell corporation. Not even if I’m willing to pay the fine (Kim Dotcom, for example, made enough profit that he was able, and willing to pay the license fees, and still would have turned a profit, but this was denied).

[tannhaeuser]

> The right to start, and own, a company, exists only so that they can provide a benefit for all of society (as specified in the German constitution and the EU treaties).

Citation needed

[kuschku]

The German basic law (article 14) defines:

> (2) Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen.

> (2) Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.

In Article 9, it also defines:

> (2) Vereinigungen, deren Zwecke oder deren Tätigkeit den Strafgesetzen zuwiderlaufen oder die sich gegen die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung oder gegen den Gedanken der Völkerverständigung richten, sind verboten.

> (2) Associations whose aims or activities contravene the criminal laws, or that are directed against the constitutional order or the concept of international understanding, shall be prohibited.

If you have the commented version, with comments from the creators and several former and current constitutional court judges, I recommend you read the relevant comments. They specifically discusses these part, and argue that the right to own property, start a group (Vereinigung, including Verein, Unternehmen, etc), own something as a group, etc solely exist to serve society.

This right has obligations, such as the obligation that if you do not need your property, but it can be used to serve society, you can lose the right to it (as has happened in Hamburg in Winter 2015/2016, when a company refused to rent a building to the government so they could use it as refugee accomodation, and, as a result, the building was seized from the company, and used as it anyway).

The comments and quoted constitutional court cases also discuss and outline the limitations, and other situations. For example, if property is seized, then the organization has to be given the market value in return.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

[tannhaeuser]

But Art. 14 (2) literally states that "property [...] should also serve the public good", rather than "solely". This isn't just a nuance or gradual difference; it touches the matter of the principal basis of the law. Similarly, the right of assembly is a basic right with no conditions at all, and postulated in and granted in reference to the Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen from 1789, which found its way to Germany via napoleonic laws. Property is also a basic right granted therein.

[kuschku]

Actually, Germany limits both of these rights, heavily.

The right of assembly is only given in indoor spaces, which you own, as long as zero aggression happens.

For outdoor assemblies, you'll need approval of the municipal government (and the police can dissolve your assembly, as happened in Hamburg during the G20 protests).

In the same way, as I mentioned, the right to property is frequently limited by nations. In the US, commonly for public projects the state seizes land without repaying the owners, and Germany does similar stuff.

[DocTomoe]

> you'll need approval of the municipal government

* not in all cases (e.g. Spontandemonstration, where there is no time to file an application)

* the municipal government needs a really good reason to not give approval

* the courts are very sympathetic to virtually any cause should a municipal government decide to forbid a gathering.

> (and the police can dissolve your assembly,

* if there is true danger to the general public. Again, courts are going to slap the police around if they do this just because.

I know how easy it is to use a blanket statement as a base for another blanket statement which is equally one-sided, but please try to build arguments in a less ... attackable way.

[germanier]

> For outdoor assemblies, you'll need approval of the municipal government (and the police can dissolve your assembly, as happened in Hamburg during the G20 protests).

For outdoor assemblies you need to inform a designated authority (which is not the same as an approval) and comply with certain restrictions.

[DocTomoe]

The part about Article 9 is pretty much irrelevant for antitrust considerations, because that's not criminal law.

[tannhaeuser]

Hey downvoters, show me the place where these documents say something to the effect that the right to start and own a company exists only so that they can provide a benefit for all of society or even that an EU member state, not to speak of an EU institution, can grant or revoke such rights.

[1]: https://www.bundestag.de/grundgesetz The text of the German consitution law

[2]: https://europa.eu/european-union/law/treaties_en The text of the EU treaties