5 ms·

Lol. They have probably defined how to money is to be sent to them. Even if they had not it's probably better to stfu and comply. More your try to fuck with the

by illuminati1911 4y ago

Lol. They have probably defined how to money is to be sent to them. Even if they had not it's probably better to stfu and comply. More your try to fuck with the regulators, more they will punish you.

DisjointedHunt 4y ago
If you really took that comment seriously, you have bigger problems to worry about. Speculating that this did seriously play out and you "fuck with the regulators, they punish you", is that really the accepted cultural take in Europe? I mean, sure, there is a common sense level of decency in dealing with regulators and not making them madder than need be, but take a look at the United States. A regulator may try asserting more power than they possess and the courts offer a system to at least challenge it and have these excesses checked. I suppose the point of my comical take was the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. Trump went aggressive on the EU and threatened to sanction the fuck out of the union if they hit the tech firms or Boeing with fines. There's always a bigger fish in the pond. The regulators themselves can play this game given Europes historical economic position, but when tech companies deemed important to US national security and honestly scientific progress around the world are put at threat by the squabbling in Brussels, you can bet a stern response from the US will be taken seriously.
- IanCal 4y ago
  > Speculating that this did seriously play out and you "fuck with the regulators, they punish you", is that really the accepted cultural take in Europe? Yes? Regulators are there to stop companies abusing their powers. > A regulator may try asserting more power than they possess and the courts offer a system to at least challenge it and have these excesses checked. Legally challenging a regulator within the system is not "fucking with the regulators". We're already talking about an appeal, and there may be another level of appeals to this. It's not a regulator running wild. > I suppose the point of my comical take was the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. Trump went aggressive on the EU and threatened to sanction the fuck out of the union if they hit the tech firms or Boeing with fines. It feels weird that you think an appropriate response to a company fined for breaking the rules and being anti-competitive is political threats and sanctions. > scientific progress around the world are put at threat by the squabbling in Brussels I'm not really sure that google forcibly stopping manufacturers from making phones with non-google-approved android installed is key scientific progress.
  - DisjointedHunt 4y ago
    It is ABSOLUTELY a regulator and a court system running wild. That's the whole point here. The commission narrowly defines a mobile OS market and excludes Apple through a selective description of these markets. Read the other comments in this thread for why that is an absolutely dishonest way of defining markets for the purpose of investigating or finding abuse of monopoly power. Individuals on the committee have openly gone on record calling US tech companies "Evil" and vowing to exact punishment on them far before any investigation had begun. This is the definition of persecution. An appropriate response to a reasonable government agency enforcement would be met with nothing but applause and diplomacy in international circles. When you look at the history of US tech companies being asked to pay unimaginable sums through very suspect changes in law and court rulings that seem to never challenge the core legal issues that are set on legally suspect ground, there is absolutely a diplomatic objection to be filed. In the interest of protecting the interests of any sovereign nation, that nation may choose to use all options available to it to stop the miscarriage of justice. The United States and Europe maintain friendly relations through a series of agreements rooted in trust and a shared sense of purpose. When you have idiots and childlike behavior such as this that narrowly carves out a legally suspect standard to target and persecute an important US industry while turning a blind eye to Chinese companies , well . . . that's going to need a lot of re thinking. As far as scientific advancement goes, you're hopefully smart enough to realize the contributions of all the intelligent work done not just at Google, but in the private sector at large. If not, well, your bias may prevent you from acting rational in this discussion and i wish you well.
    - IanCal 4y ago
      > It is ABSOLUTELY a regulator and a court system running wild. That's the whole point here. Well that's stepped up significantly, the regulator and the legal system running wild. The courts offer a way of checking if the fine should really have been issued, and it should. In response to this you suggest unchecked sanctions applied to completely different industries. > The commission narrowly defines a mobile OS market and excludes Apple through a selective description of these markets. Seems extremely simple to me that these things are distinct based on the restrictions we're talking about. Google may have been able to tie everything together if only they made and manufactured their own phones. I'm not even sure that including apple would help much since Android has an 80% market share. > Individuals on the committee The regulator and the court involved in the appeal? > As far as scientific advancement goes, you're hopefully smart enough to realize the contributions of all the intelligent work done not just at Google, but in the private sector at large And anti-competitive practices hurt the private sector. Competition has been fundamental to the dramatic progress made, and I don't think that google trying to stop people building phones with different OS's on them is beneficial. Compete on merits, rather than "might makes right", in my opinion. Google was, for example, controlling what versions of android manufacturers could put on their devices if they wanted any devices they made to have the Play Store. That does not to me seem like a good thing.

Lol. They have probably defined how to money is to be sent to them. Even if they had not it's probably better to stfu and comply. More your try to fuck with the regulators, more they will punish you.

DisjointedHunt 4y ago

If you really took that comment seriously, you have bigger problems to worry about. Speculating that this did seriously play out and you "fuck with the regulators, they punish you", is that really the accepted cultural take in Europe? I mean, sure, there is a common sense level of decency in dealing with regulators and not making them madder than need be, but take a look at the United States. A regulator may try asserting more power than they possess and the courts offer a system to at least challenge it and have these excesses checked. I suppose the point of my comical take was the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. Trump went aggressive on the EU and threatened to sanction the fuck out of the union if they hit the tech firms or Boeing with fines. There's always a bigger fish in the pond. The regulators themselves can play this game given Europes historical economic position, but when tech companies deemed important to US national security and honestly scientific progress around the world are put at threat by the squabbling in Brussels, you can bet a stern response from the US will be taken seriously.

IanCal 4y ago
> Speculating that this did seriously play out and you "fuck with the regulators, they punish you", is that really the accepted cultural take in Europe? Yes? Regulators are there to stop companies abusing their powers. > A regulator may try asserting more power than they possess and the courts offer a system to at least challenge it and have these excesses checked. Legally challenging a regulator within the system is not "fucking with the regulators". We're already talking about an appeal, and there may be another level of appeals to this. It's not a regulator running wild. > I suppose the point of my comical take was the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. Trump went aggressive on the EU and threatened to sanction the fuck out of the union if they hit the tech firms or Boeing with fines. It feels weird that you think an appropriate response to a company fined for breaking the rules and being anti-competitive is political threats and sanctions. > scientific progress around the world are put at threat by the squabbling in Brussels I'm not really sure that google forcibly stopping manufacturers from making phones with non-google-approved android installed is key scientific progress.
- DisjointedHunt 4y ago
  It is ABSOLUTELY a regulator and a court system running wild. That's the whole point here. The commission narrowly defines a mobile OS market and excludes Apple through a selective description of these markets. Read the other comments in this thread for why that is an absolutely dishonest way of defining markets for the purpose of investigating or finding abuse of monopoly power. Individuals on the committee have openly gone on record calling US tech companies "Evil" and vowing to exact punishment on them far before any investigation had begun. This is the definition of persecution. An appropriate response to a reasonable government agency enforcement would be met with nothing but applause and diplomacy in international circles. When you look at the history of US tech companies being asked to pay unimaginable sums through very suspect changes in law and court rulings that seem to never challenge the core legal issues that are set on legally suspect ground, there is absolutely a diplomatic objection to be filed. In the interest of protecting the interests of any sovereign nation, that nation may choose to use all options available to it to stop the miscarriage of justice. The United States and Europe maintain friendly relations through a series of agreements rooted in trust and a shared sense of purpose. When you have idiots and childlike behavior such as this that narrowly carves out a legally suspect standard to target and persecute an important US industry while turning a blind eye to Chinese companies , well . . . that's going to need a lot of re thinking. As far as scientific advancement goes, you're hopefully smart enough to realize the contributions of all the intelligent work done not just at Google, but in the private sector at large. If not, well, your bias may prevent you from acting rational in this discussion and i wish you well.
  - IanCal 4y ago
    > It is ABSOLUTELY a regulator and a court system running wild. That's the whole point here. Well that's stepped up significantly, the regulator and the legal system running wild. The courts offer a way of checking if the fine should really have been issued, and it should. In response to this you suggest unchecked sanctions applied to completely different industries. > The commission narrowly defines a mobile OS market and excludes Apple through a selective description of these markets. Seems extremely simple to me that these things are distinct based on the restrictions we're talking about. Google may have been able to tie everything together if only they made and manufactured their own phones. I'm not even sure that including apple would help much since Android has an 80% market share. > Individuals on the committee The regulator and the court involved in the appeal? > As far as scientific advancement goes, you're hopefully smart enough to realize the contributions of all the intelligent work done not just at Google, but in the private sector at large And anti-competitive practices hurt the private sector. Competition has been fundamental to the dramatic progress made, and I don't think that google trying to stop people building phones with different OS's on them is beneficial. Compete on merits, rather than "might makes right", in my opinion. Google was, for example, controlling what versions of android manufacturers could put on their devices if they wanted any devices they made to have the Play Store. That does not to me seem like a good thing.