EU set to call for break-up of Google


Recommended Posts


The European parliament is reportedly poised to call for a break-up of Google in a drastic escalation of Europe?s long-running antitrust case against the tech giant.

A draft motion seen by the Financial Times, and expected to be agreed next week, calls for the ?unbundling [of] search engines from other commercial services? as a potential solution to Google?s dominance of the search market in Europe.

The European Commission has been investigating concerns that Google has abused its dominant position in search since 2010 and the dispute has become increasingly bitter. In September the EU?s incoming digital commissioner G?nther Oettinger warned that any settlement with Google could ?cement its strength in the market rather than diluting it?.

German, French and Spanish politicians have attacked the company over a variety of issues including revelations from National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden and ?right to be forgotten? legislation that allows people to delete information from search results.

Joaqu?n Almunia, then the EU?s competition commissioner, rejected Google?s third attempt to settle the antitrust case in September after political support for the deal collapsed. He reopened the inquiry after ?very, very negative? comments from complainants.

His successor, Margrethe Vestager, has told the European Parliament she will ?need some time to decide on the next steps? in the case.

Sigmar Gabriel, Germany?s economy minister and vice-chancellor, suggested a break-up of the company in May but suggested regulation was a better move. ?We must give serious thought to the possibility of ?unbundling? the internet market, in a similar way to the electricity and gas networks,? Gabriel wrote in an op-ed published in German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

The case against Google is being backed by rival Microsoft, which faced its own antitrust suits in the 1990s, German publisher Axel Springer and a host of smaller rivals that claim Google is squeezing them out of the market.

?We are afraid of Google,? Mathias D?pfner, chief executive of Axel Springer wrote in an open letter to Eric Schmidt, Google?s executive chairman. ?I must state this very clearly and frankly, because few of my colleagues dare do so publicly.? He pointed out that Google a 91.2% share of the search-engine market in Germany. He called for restrictions on the company and warned Schmidt the company could ?win yourself to death?.

Oettinger has already made suggested remedies for Google?s alleged dominance including mandated changes to search results. A public call for a break-up would be the most far-reaching action proposed to date. But the European parliament lacks the authority to force a break-up of a company and any such proposal would meet stiff opposition from Google and the US.

Google was not immediately available for comment.
 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/21/european-parliament-break-up-of-google

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always wondered what the European Commission has against google.  The constant attacks are only hurting the consumer, it's bloody annoying

The same thing they had against Microsoft - they are NOT based in Europe.

The Russians founded Yandex for the same reason the Chinese founded AliBaba - to provide domestic alternatives to non-domestic services.  (Make no mistake, AliBaba, like Yandex, is a counteroffensive against non-Chinese companies - two of them being Microsoft and Amazon; how long before AliBaba counterattacks Android and/or Google?)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet Microsoft, who controls a good 90+% of the desktop PC market, and who regularly pushes its other services (bing, One Drive, App Store, Outlook, etc), faces no such antitrust actions, despite knowingly abusing its market position on several occasions. Talk about double standards.

 

It doesn't surprise me in the least that Microsoft is pushing for this behind the scenes. If you can't beat them, convince governments and bureaucracies to do it for you? That seems to be the popular stratagem at the moment. And in this case, it's actually working.


I've always wondered what the European Commission has against google.  The constant attacks are only hurting the consumer, it's bloody annoying

This little gem clarifies things:


The case against Google is being backed by rival Microsoft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This little gem clarifies things:

And you chopped off all the other entities that are also backing it.  Besides.. you can't honestly deny that Google has a near stranglehold on anything Internet related.  (Although personally a break-up is a bit heavy handed.. if that even flies.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same thing they had against Microsoft - they are NOT based in Europe.

And what were the consequences for Microsoft? A few fines and a browser ballot box, which has since expired. Not quite the same thing as breaking up a company is it? If this goes ahead, it's safe to say Microsoft got off with a mere slap on the wrist in comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what were the consequences for Microsoft? A few fines and a browser ballot box, which has since expired. Not quite the same thing as breaking up a company is it? If this goes ahead, it's safe to say Microsoft got off with a mere slap on the wrist in comparison.

An appropriate response as the whole thing was about the "browser wars" to begin with, and again, let's not pretend Google is a saint when it comes to the same 1995's Microsoft-style tactics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you chopped off all the other entities that are also backing it.  Besides.. you can't honestly deny that Google has a near stranglehold on anything Internet related.  (Although personally a break-up is a bit heavy handed.. if that even flies.)

Microsoft has lots of proxies making complaints on its behalf. Much like how OOXML was railroaded through the ISO process. ICOMP and FairSearch were the main instigators of this antitrust case. All controlled and funded by Microsoft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft has lots of proxies making complaints on its behalf. Much like how OOXML was railroaded through the ISO process. ICOMP and FairSearch were the main instigators of this antitrust case. All controlled and funded by Microsoft.

Good lord you're really trying hard to run interference here aren't you?  If you're such a champion against this sort of nonsense.. why do you perpetually turn a blind eye to entities that are here and now doing this exact same sort of thing? Double-standards indeed.  Besides, don't worry.. if it's as easy as writing a check as some people seem to think I think Google will be fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet Microsoft, who controls a good 90+% of the desktop PC market, and who regularly pushes its other services (bing, One Drive, App Store, Outlook, etc), faces no such antitrust actions, despite knowingly abusing its market position on several occasions. Talk about double standards.

 

It doesn't surprise me in the least that Microsoft is pushing for this behind the scenes. If you can't beat them, convince governments and bureaucracies to do it for you? That seems to be the popular stratagem at the moment. And in this case, it's actually working.

This little gem clarifies things:

Bing, OneDrive, etc. have competition - even on Windows Phone, let alone Windows itself - from Google, among other players.  Further, in NONE of those markets, is Microsoft even the majority player - including Windows.

 

Basically, Microsoft is taking a page from the Google/Mozilla playbook - were you NOT aware that both Google and the Mozilla Foundation stuck the bug in the ear of the EU which resulted on that rather monstrous fine levied against Microsoft out of merely the "browser wars" lawsuits?  Live by the lawsuit....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every company certainly needs competition and Google has definitely been creating artificial barriers to any would-be competitors. Microsoft was guilty of this before but today it seems like there's a lot more choice in the spaces Microsoft competes in. Even in the areas Microsoft is strongest in, they've been very cooperative with competitors lately. Not saying they're perfect, but they are trending toward being more open and fair while Google goes in the opposite direction.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same thing they had against Microsoft - they are NOT based in Europe.

 

As usual, a nonsense post from PGHammer.  The EU's case against Microsoft was the same as the US government's case against Microsoft and this case against Google is no different.  It's about monopoly abuse, plain and simple.

 

And yet Microsoft, who controls a good 90+% of the desktop PC market, and who regularly pushes its other services (bing, One Drive, App Store, Outlook, etc), faces no such antitrust actions, despite knowingly abusing its market position on several occasions. Talk about double standards.

 

It doesn't surprise me in the least that Microsoft is pushing for this behind the scenes. If you can't beat them, convince governments and bureaucracies to do it for you? That seems to be the popular stratagem at the moment. And in this case, it's actually working.

This little gem clarifies things:

 

And Google backed the EU when they took Microsoft on over IE.  What's your point?  Microsoft feel that they're products are suffering because Google is using its dominance in one market to unfairly promote other products.  Just like Google did in the IE case, they're entitled to ask the authorities to take action.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original Financial Times article, just for a bit more information.

 

 

The European parliament is poised to call for a break-up of Google, in one of the most brazen assaults so far on the technology group?s power.

The gambit increases the political pressure on the European Commission, the EU?s executive arm, to take a tougher line on Google, either in its antitrust investigation into the company or through the introduction of laws to curb its reach.

A draft motion seen by the Financial Times says that ?unbundling [of] search engines from other commercial services? should be considered as a potential solution to Google?s dominance. It has the backing of the parliament?s two main political blocs, the European People?s Party and the Socialists.

A vote to effectively single out a big US company for censure is extremely rare in the European parliament and is in part a reflection of how Germany?s politicians have turned against Google this year.

German centre-right and centre-left politicians are the dominant force in the legislature and German corporate champions, from media groups to telecoms, are among the most vocal of Google?s critics.

Since his nomination to be the EU?s digital commissioner, Germany?s G?nther Oettinger has suggested hitting Google with a levy for displaying copyright-protected material; has raised the idea of forcing its search results to be neutral; and voiced concerns about its provision of software for cars.

Google has become a lightning rod for European concerns over Silicon Valley, with consumers, regulators and politicians assailing the company over issues ranging from its commercial dominance to its privacy policy. It has reluctantly accepted the European Court of Justice?s ruling on the right to be forgotten, which requires it to consider requests not to index certain links about people?s past.

The European parliament has no formal power to split up companies, but has increasing influence on the commission, which initiates all EU legislation. The commission has been investigating concerns over Google?s dominance of online search for five years, with critics arguing that the company?s rankings favour its own services, hitting its rivals? profits.

?Unbundling cannot be excluded,? said Andreas Schwab, a German MEP who is one of the motion?s backers.

Margrethe Vestager, the incoming European competition commissioner, has indicated that she will listen to Google and various complainants before deciding on how to move forward with the antitrust inquiry into the company.

Ramon Tremosa, a Spanish MEP who is sponsoring the motion, said it was necessary to consider unbundling as a long-term solution, because the commission could not ?ask the secret of [Google?s] algorithm?.

Google declined to comment. However, executives at the company are understood to be furious at the political nature of the motion and only became aware of the document in the past couple of days, after an MEP contacted Google for advice on its meaning.

One technology industry source with knowledge of the motion also called it a ?politically-motivated campaign to do something that is a regulatory matter?. He added: ?These guys are calling for the break-up of Google. That is not in proportion to the degree of concern articulated by the commission during its investigation.?

The draft resolution?s final text will be agreed early next week, ahead of a vote, which is expected on Thursday.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how I feel about that happening.  On one hand, I understand how it makes sense.  The company that is indexing the web shouldn't have any conflicting interests that would change the search results.  On the other hand, there is competition and it's not like other companies don't do the same thing - to offer services such as Google Now and Cortana, you need to combine information from different sources.  In the end though, I don't see this coming to pass because it would destroy Google's business model (advertising).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, a nonsense post from PGHammer.  The EU's case against Microsoft was the same as the US government's case against Microsoft and this case against Google is no different.  It's about monopoly abuse, plain and simple.

 

 

And Google backed the EU when they took Microsoft on over IE.  What's your point?  Microsoft feel that they're products are suffering because Google is using its dominance in one market to unfairly promote other products.  Just like Google did in the IE case, they're entitled to ask the authorities to take action.

And why was my comment non-sensical?  Europe (in general, and pre-EU) tends to favor domestic providers over foreign ones (for any services) - in no way did I say that EITHER action was anti-US, but more pro-Europe.

The US case against Microsoft - that was, plain and simply, a financial and policy power-play (that was also at the same time as the case against AT&T).  I did, in fact, rather openly whack the US Justice Department's case against Microsoft (for the same reason I whacked the case against AT&T) - both more about regulatory failures (and covering that up) as opposed to actual wrongdoing by either company.

 

The Google case in the EU (like the EU case against Microsoft) is ALSO more about regulatory failures failing to produce the desired results (specifically, a success for European providers of services, as opposed to non-European ones) and attempts to cover that up.  I have also repeatedly attacked both Europe AND the US for being rather poor regulators - even in heavily-regulated marketplaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why was my comment non-sensical?  Europe (in general, and pre-EU) tends to favor domestic providers over foreign ones (for any services) - in no way did I say that EITHER action was anti-US, but more pro-Europe.

The US case against Microsoft - that was, plain and simply, a financial and policy power-play (that was also at the same time as the case against AT&T).  I did, in fact, rather openly whack the US Justice Department's case against Microsoft (for the same reason I whacked the case against AT&T) - both more about regulatory failures (and covering that up) as opposed to actual wrongdoing by either company.

This has nothing to do with the EU favouring domestic businesses, as countless European businesses have been fined for anti-competitive business practices. The EU avoids fines wherever possible, like in the Apple ebooks case and the Microsoft browser case (Microsoft was fined for failing to comply with the court order). The EU simply takes a tough stance when it comes to competition law. If anything it highlights the United States' failure to properly regulate business and it will be interesting to see how the US handles the proposed Comcast-Time Warner merger, which would be dangerous if allowed to go ahead.

 

Personally I think this move is sensible. As much as I like using Google products there is a clear conflict of interest by having Google control the dominant search engine and creating other products that it favours in search results. It's unrealistic for Google to be required to reveal its search algorithms, meaning the obvious solution is to force a break-up. It remains to be seen whether the EU will actually push for this or whether it will settle for a less radical approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how I feel about that happening.  On one hand, I understand how it makes sense.  The company that is indexing the web shouldn't have any conflicting interests that would change the search results.  On the other hand, there is competition and it's not like other companies don't do the same thing - to offer services such as Google Now and Cortana, you need to combine information from different sources.  In the end though, I don't see this coming to pass because it would destroy Google's business model (advertising).

 

There's no reason why a post-split Google couldn't continue to combine search results in other products such as Google Now just as Siri uses Bing and Wolphram Alpha.  That's not the problem that the EU are investigating.  They're concerned with the way that Google ranks their own products over competitors products in search results, taking advantage of their search monopoly to promote their other products.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the European parliament lacks the authority to force a break-up of a company

 

 

Any point to this if the above quote is true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the problem that the EU are investigating.  They're concerned with the way that Google ranks their own products over competitors products in search results, taking advantage of their search monopoly to promote their other products.

Russian & Chinese who have their own search engine are not filing similar complain against google to what EU complained about.

Perhaps instead of bitching EU should create their own search engine.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-201410-201410-map

 

Please take look at this Chrome Browsers is taking over the world.

 

http://gs.statcounter.com/#search_engine-ww-monthly-201410-201410-map

 

Google search engine are taking over the world expect China.

 

 

It's called the Free Market, where the better product wins and sometimes natural monopolies happen, and no that's not a bad thing in any way, not Google's fault Bing and Yahoo are not as good. 

Even funnier your charts show how government interference changes the outcomes in a non good way 

 

All Google needs to do is publicly say they are considering rolling back some of their services in the EU, and watch how all this nonsense disappears, the EU is run by political ######, like all governments, when the right pressures are made the outcome will change, in this case the people of the EU will not stand for this nonsense 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russian & Chinese who have their own search engine are not filing similar complain against google to what EU complained about.

Perhaps instead of bitching EU should create their own search engine.

This isn't about the EU favouring a European search engine - it's about addressing anti-competitive business practices. The EU gets a lot of flack for fining Microsoft and yet most regulators have done so. The only difference is that the EU fine wasn't so trivial that Microsoft could simply shrug it off.

 

The EU takes anti-competitive business practices much more seriously than any regulator and rightly so. Businesses exist to serve consumers and if they engage in anti-consumer practices then they should be held to account. It does not benefit consumers for Google to favour its products and services over that of the competition, as that is inherently unfair given Google's dominant market position. We have seen the dangers that come from corporations becoming too large and influential, especially in the financial sector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.