[_el1s7]

> PriceRunner is considered to have suffered damage as a result of Google having illegally favoured its price comparison service for many years

Why would Google NOT favor it's own service at it's own product? How is that illegal?

[malfist]

When you're a permitted monopoly you have the behave differently, including being fair to competitors.

1.5B is preferable to being broken up (not that Sweden could enforce that)

[rkachowski]

Because this kind of behavior was rampant in the past - where one company owned everything and could leverage it's size and influence to crush competition across distinct market spaces. It prevented other companies from operating in the same space, which led to stagnation, outrageous human exploitation, inequality, and ultimately the great depression.

It is now illegal as laws have been introduced with the aim to prevent this from happening again. The effectiveness of these laws, with regards to how well they fit the current era, is a different matter.

[pdpi]

The thing that is illegal is leveraging a monopoly position in one market to give yourself an advantage in another market.

So Google is allowed to favour their own price comparison in, say, Hangouts, but not in Search.

[bevekspldnw]

Why would Swedish courts NOT favor their own national economic interests? How is that illegal?

[carlosjobim]

Well if the Swedish courts stomp on Google in the name of national interest, maybe the US will stomp on Sweden in the name of national interest. Now consider where Klarna gets the most of their money from.

[piva00]

So no country can ever take action and enforce their local laws because the USA can retaliate?

Why have local laws in that case? Better we all just adopt American laws to not have to fear the Americans getting pissy when they diverge...

[carlosjobim]

I replied to a comment arguing that courts should pass judgements according to what is in the national economic interest. That would mean courts following other guidelines than the law.

Protectionism works both ways - as it should. So if Sweden disadvantages American companies in the name of protecting domestic companies like Klarna, then it's completely expected that the US will do the same thing against Swedish companies to protect their domestic companies.

[esme388]

I know you you're being sarcastic but a lot of people probably think that's perfectly ok and is the way everything should be...

[embedding-shape]

> Now consider where Klarna gets the most of their money from.

Considering Klarna essentially boils down to a lending service for people who want to buy stuff they aren't able to afford in the moment, I don't think this is the dunk you think it is.

[carlosjobim]

Companies like Klarna are a plague, no disagreement in that.

[vitally3643]

The US literally just lost the war in Iran. I don't think they're actually capable of "stomping" on anyone.

[bevekspldnw]

Don’t tease the paper tiger, it might be forced to fold again.

[drstewart]

Now imagine how bad European militaries are.

All of Europe can't even push back a broken husk of Russia.

[bevekspldnw]

Don’t count out the Poles, they will fight tooth and nail to the last man, woman, and child. They will die standing before they kneel to a Russian.

Of course if the Russians make it to the German border AfD will welcome them with open arms and the rest of the German public will be too busy debating if raising the debt limit to dig their own graves is acceptable if it means limiting pensions, and if so, what are acceptable working hours for grave diggers, pension plans for grave diggers, and whom should negotiate on behalf of the grave diggers.

[victorbjorklund]

Let’s wait until USA tacos and offers to pay reperations. How many billions of dollars was it USA was going to secure for Iran in exchange for peace?

[vrganj]

It is illegal to use your monopoly in one area to unfairly distort the market in another. This is one of the core concepts of antitrust law.

[UqWBcuFx6NV4r]

Have you been sleeping under a rock for 30+ years, don’t know what antitrust is, and still feel confident enough to shout about it in a comment?

The law isn’t just “what you happen to intuitively think is right”, especially in a jurisdiction where you clearly do not reside.

[dboreham]

The Big Lebowski school of law.

[Hikikomori]

something something monopoly. Even US has laws about this, currently not enforced though.

[al_borland]

Sure, but if I’m understanding this (maybe I’m not), a company could make a service competitive to an Alphabet product, then sue them for not using it?

For instance, if a company started up an ad business, are they going to sue and win, because Google uses their own ad service in Search instead of this new competitor?

That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

[JAlexoid]

You're not understanding this.

A company can create a new search engine and Google Search isn't obligated to even mention it.

The issue is when achieving market dominance and new service is integrated into the dominant product.

You clearly haven't been around long enough to have caught a lot of discussions on this topic over a decade ago.

[brainwad]

But is searching for products a new product line, or just a natural extension of searching for webpages (many of which are about products)? Where do you draw the line between merely improving the monopoly product and abusing the monopoly?

[Hikikomori]

Showing your own product like google maps or shopping at the top of each relevant search result is likely over the line, maybe its ok if its down in the results, still high not always number 1.

But for example if they're behind a user choice like a click after your search is done, ie click shopping or maps because you want to use googles products in this case, then its likely not over the line. If its still over the line would they be required to unbundle products by for example using different domains? Would that also apply to things like facebook marketplace then?

[brainwad]

I don't really think of showing rich shopping results as preferring "Google's product". It's just showing links to merchants in a fancier UI. It's fundamentally still search, linking out to 3rd party websites.

FWIW, even what you think should be allowed is banned in Europe. On Google Search in the EU there is no "Shopping" or "Maps" tab.

[bevekspldnw]

No, you are the one not understanding this.

Google literally is a convicted monopolist in the Search antitrust case. The judge just didn’t impose any remedy or penalty.

Many of the arguments around that case had to do with bundling Search, nothing to do with other products. It was Search.

This is why the Firefox CEO gave Google the testimony they paid for, and retired shortly thereafter. It was quid pro quo.

Firefox was paid for years to include Search so one day they’d show up to court and say “we include Google because they are the best, not because they pay us”. The judge didn’t actually buy it, but that was the deal - we pay you millions, one day you show up and read a script.

The confusing part to the lay person is Google got away with it despite the prosecutions case holding.

Imagine if a person robbed a bank and was convicted. The judge then said, ok you robbed the bank, the prosecution proved it, I rule in their favor.

However, when it comes to the punishment, I’m just going to let it slide, you can go home now.

Also, keep the money you stole, and if you happen to walk by another bank…say Associated Investments (AI), just go ahead and rob that one!

[victorbjorklund]

Why would Microsoft NOT favor its own products? How is that illegal?

[namdnay]

"Why would Microsoft NOT favor it's own browser in it's own OS? How is that illegal?"

[spunker540]

Last I checked they still do exactly that. Not sure why that case is used as an example when literally every OS bundles a preferred browser

[IsTom]

Have you checked in EU?

[YetAnotherNick]

Checked what in EU? Do Microsoft not bundle their own browser in Windows in EU?

[IsTom]

I haven't used windows in a long time, but on Android there's a dialog to pick browser and search engine on setup. So I'd assume that they're also bound by DMA in the same way.

[usrnm]

No

[YetAnotherNick]

Source? The only news I can find about is EU users can uninstall it.

[pohuing]

They do. Good luck getting Firefox otherwise, so I don't mind it.

Similarly, they bundle Bing as the Web search in the start menu.

[drstewart]

Does IKEA sell it's competitors products too or does Sweden not care about monopolies for them suddenly?

[IsTom]

What is illegal is using your monopoly in one area to further your other enterprises.

[drstewart]

Oh like having a grocery store and restaurant in your furniture store?

[iLoveOncall]

You may not like it but I agree it shouldn't be illegal. If competitors aren't happy they can make their own OS.

At this point can you make a custom task manager and sue Microsoft to propose users to install your task manager on first boot? What about background image providers, why doesn't Microsoft propose to install background images from them at first boot?

It's an absolutely ridiculous idea.

They should not block alternatives, but having to promote them is complete nonsense.