[kuisch]

As stated in the press release, the fine has been calculated on the basis of the value of Google's revenue from its comparison shopping service in the 13 EEA countries concerned, taking into account the "duration and gravity" of the infringement. What the commission is asking is simply equal treatment between rival comparison shopping services and its own.

[briandear]

When I visit rivalshoppingservice.com then I would expect to see that rival shopping service. When I visit google, I would expect to see google.

Are the rivals going to be required to show google results now or is this really not about choice but about crippling google or is it about extracting an easy multi-billion dollar payday?

When I go to the SNCF (French rail) website, are they showing me flight and bus options or only their train results?

Nobody is forcing anyone to visit google. It’s a website. Perhaps if the EU really cared, they’d ask themselves why Europe hasn’t produced a credible Google rival.

That settlement money ought to go directly to funding EU startups. Instead it will likely make its way into CAP agricultural subsidies. The Common Agricultural Policy is about 35% of the entire EU budget despite supporting an industry that that is just 1.6% of EU GDP. It’s clear that the EU prioritizes some industries over others and then they wring their hands when American tech becomes ubiquitous.

[gpderetta]

Except that Google is not a shopping service. Using a dominant position in one market to acquire one in a different market is not allowed.

[jolic]

> When I go to the SNCF (French rail) website, are they showing me flight and bus options or only their train results?

Yes, apparently they do show bus results. Both from their own bus company and at least one seemingly unrelated one. I know it is similar in Sweden with SJ, which shows trains and buses from other companies.

> Nobody is forcing anyone to visit google. It’s a website. Perhaps if the EU really cared, they’d ask themselves why Europe hasn’t produced a credible Google rival.

Isn't that essentially what they are doing? It might be to late to compete on web search. That doesn't mean Google should have an unfair advantage in other search like price comparison.

> That settlement money ought to go directly to funding EU startups.

Most EU startups will be happy if they just have a chance to compete "pound for pound". US companies have been enjoying single digit VAT and corporate income tax for years. Which is both the result of EU laws and the US leaving their own "loopholes" open to make their companies more competitive.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-checkthebox-insigh...

[ubernostrum]

Google has a dominant position in search. Google also has lots of other businesses offering different products and services. Maybe those other businesses really are the very best in their respective markets, maybe they aren't. In a proper market, we would find out which is best from seeing them compete against other companies' products/services, and the need to out-compete other companies would drive quality up and prices down.

What actually happened was that Google removed the need to compete with anyone, by always listing its own other businesses up-front in search results. Since Google has the dominant position in the search market, this guarantees a steady stream of customers to the other businesses, even if they're not as good as other companies' products/services, and means they don't face competitive pressure. Without competitive pressure, quality doesn't get driven up and prices don't get driven down.

Since we want competitive markets to drive quality up and prices down, we have laws which don't allow a company that dominates one type of product/service to use that as a way to achieve dominance in other products/services by avoiding the need to compete.