dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1724

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem

Premium Member

EU Receives Anti-Trust Complaint of Android

link
quote:
FairSearch argues that Google is using "deceptive conduct" to lockout the competition in the mobile search market. With 70 percent of the smartphone OS market, Google commands 96 percent of the mobile search advertising market. Except, according to FairSearch, the search giant isn't playing fair. FairSearch's complaint says that though Google gives Android to device makers for free, phone makers that want apps like Maps, or YouTube are forced to 'pre-load an entire suite of Google mobile services and to give them prominent default placement on the phone.' FairSearch says this puts other providers at a disadvantage and puts Android in control of consumer data on the majority of today's smartphones.

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium Member
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL

Maxo

Premium Member

Device makers are free to ship Android without Google preinstalled. It's an open source project. You don't need to get anyone's approval to ship it.
iOS is the one that does the real lock-out. If you build an iOS app that Apple doesn't want you to have, they just deny it access to the market. Competition destroyed.
Consumers expect to have the the Google suite of applications preinstalled on their phone.
I wonder if it is true that manufacturers are not allowed to ship android, and advertise it as capital A "Android" without the Google suite preinstalled.
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17

OZO

Premium Member

said by Maxo:

Device makers are free to ship Android without Google preinstalled. It's an open source project. You don't need to get anyone's approval to ship it.

Do you have any example of that?

Meanwhile I think all Android based devices come locked down from their users and require special hacking to get access to the OS (for whatever reason)...

Black Box
join:2002-12-21

Black Box to Maxo

Member

to Maxo
said by Maxo:

Device makers are free to ship Android without Google preinstalled. It's an open source project. You don't need to get anyone's approval to ship it.
iOS is the one that does the real lock-out. If you build an iOS app that Apple doesn't want you to have, they just deny it access to the market. Competition destroyed.
Consumers expect to have the the Google suite of applications preinstalled on their phone.
I wonder if it is true that manufacturers are not allowed to ship android, and advertise it as capital A "Android" without the Google suite preinstalled.

Yes and no. It's more or less like Windows coming with Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer. PC makers can (at least in Europe) put other browsers, but most don't bother. The ECU required Microsoft to provide a Windows version without WMP. When Microsoft "forgot" about the requirement they were slapped with a record fine. The ECU required Microsoft to provide versions of Windows with alternate browsers. When Microsoft "forgot" about the requirement, they were hit with a record fine.

I see this case going the same way, but Google might do the right thing before the fines are levied.

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium Member
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL

Maxo to OZO

Premium Member

to OZO
said by OZO:

Do you have any example of that?

Only the Cyanogenmod roms and the Pandaboard. The Pandaboard doesn't come with anything (or even a disk for that matter), but their website has images you can write to an sdcard for running Android on it.
In fact, if you want to ship Android with the Google Apps you have to specifically get permission from Google. Like most proprietary software, you may not ship it willy-nilly.
So instead of being required to ship Android with GApps, the fact is you have to get special permission to do that.
said by OZO:

Meanwhile I think all Android based devices come locked down from their users and require special hacking to get access to the OS (for whatever reason)...

This is unfortunately very true. I refuse to buy any device that I cannot own. If it cannot be rooted and run custom roms, I won't purchase it, period.
The exception to this locking rule are the Google Nexus devices, which is very very important.
Maxo

Maxo to Black Box

Premium Member

to Black Box
said by Black Box:

Yes and no. It's more or less like Windows coming with Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer. PC makers can (at least in Europe) put other browsers, but most don't bother. The ECU required Microsoft to provide a Windows version without WMP. When Microsoft "forgot" about the requirement

The example is similar, but different in an important way. Hardware manufacturers that ship Android choose to preload it with Google's proprietary apps. This is not a Google decision, but one each manufacturer decides. The decision to do it is obvious, customers want it, but Google isn't requiring it.
In fact, Microsoft could make IE, Word and Exchange for Android, and then turn around and ship their own version of Android that is Microsoft branded. Apple could do the same with their software stack.
Maxo

Maxo to markofmayhem

Premium Member

to markofmayhem
said by »www.osnews.com/story/269 ··· _Android :

This complaint is, of course, complete and utter bogus. First of all, not a single OEM wanting to make an Android device is forced to ship the suite of Google applications. In fact, devices such as the Nook and Kindle series show that it is entirely possible to build successful Android devices without carrying the Android trademark, the Google suite of applications, or even the Play Store. Similarly, many Chinese companies are developing Android-based operating systems that do not ship with Google's suite of devices either.

There are many other examples of success with Android without the Google suite of applications, most prominent of which for us here is probably CyanogenMod. CyanogenMod ROMs ship without the Google suite of applications, and CM users have to flash them separately after flashing CM itself. In spite of this, CM has been a massive success, as are many other ROMs out there that do not ship with Google's Android applications. In fact, Google employees have even helped CyanogenMod in the past.

This is possible because Android has been designed to be modular from the very start. Virtually every component can be replaced by OEMs and users alike. Virtually every major OEM ships their own Android skin, launcher, and applications, and even something like Facebook and HTC can ship a device with a Facebook launcher, and there are even Android-certified devices on which Bing is the default search engine.

In order to receive the Android trademark and be able to ship the Play Store pre-installed, you have to comply with the Android compatibility program by following the Compatibility Definition Document. This document is identical in nature to the Windows Logo Program, and defines the minimum hardware specifications and components your device must carry in order to carry the Android trademark and ship the Play Store pre-installed.

If you want to take it up a notch, and want to ship Google's suite of Android applications, you have to comply with a separate, non-public program. This program is identical to Microsoft Signature, which also requires those wanting to ship devices with the Signature label to install a suite of Microsoft applications.
...
In other words, the complaint is complete and utter bogus, and is based on absolutely nothing. If this is all they can come up with, Nokia and Microsoft are in even bigger trouble on the mobile front than I thought.

Exactly.

FF4m3
@rr.com

FF4m3 to markofmayhem

Anon

to markofmayhem
said by markofmayhem:

FairSearch argues...

Clue #1: see above pic from the site that shows the members and funders of "FairSearch".
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to markofmayhem

Premium Member

to markofmayhem
Nobody forces people to buy Android devices either.

And considering who owns fairsearch I think this case should be tossed out because it is clearly a firm dedicated to fighting Google because the companies in it are competitors.

Also MS complaining about trust issues? MS is practically the reason anti-trust laws have experience in the consumer software industry.
Expand your moderator at work

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ to markofmayhem

Premium Member

to markofmayhem

Re: EU Receives Anti-Trust Complaint of Android

This thread made me smile.

Android antitrust complaint must be bad.
Windows antitrust complaint must be good.

Considering they're having the Windows wake this week, I guess the trolls moved on to the next dominate player. Watch out Apple, you're next!

FF4m3
@rr.com

FF4m3 to markofmayhem

Anon

to markofmayhem
Groklaw offers logic - Another Cynical "Antitrust" Complaint From Microsoft and Its Buddies Against Google by pj:

Here's why the new complaint is ludicrous to me. If you don't with to be in any kind of "partnership" with Google or just don't want to prominently display anything, just don't. Do what Amazon did and opt out and *still use Android* -- as Amazon has with its Kindle, building a business on the code it freely took from Google, and doing whatever it wants with it. There are no consequences to Amazon. None. It uses whatever defaults it likes. It pays Google nothing, not in money, not in displaying its search engine, nothing.

Facebook has done that, wrapping a shell around Android and using it in a way Google probably doesn't much like but which is perfectly allowable. There isn't a company in the world that doesn't try to protect its brand, by some measure of quality control and standards to follow if you wish to align yourself with the company, but the point is, you can avoid all that if you choose not to align yourself with it, take the code, and use it to suit your own purposes, as both Amazon and Facebook have done.

Here's the thing I'd like to highlight: Microsoft and Nokia are both free to use the free Android code and wrap a shell around it and compete that way too. Presto. No antitrust nonsense about not being able to compete with free, as Fairsearch, like the SCO Group before it, claims...

They *can* compete with free. Just take the free code and make it look like your brand and make it do what you want it to do. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing that, except pride and stubborness. Nokia was already selling phones based on free code, and it *chose* to use Windows instead and is tanking the company. I have no sympathy, and neither should the EU Commission.

And the EU Commission should not care about propping up dying companies who can't compete in a new world. Seriously. If this argument was about mousetraps, it'd be an antitrust violation to come up with a better mousetrap, because it surely would put the old mousetrap makers out of business, if they didn't adapt.


I decided years ago that Microsoft's business ethics were lower than what I require in a company that I wish to do business with. And this latest attack, with the flimsy "antitrust" cover, shows me that I was absolutely right to make that decision.

Here's what I believe their plot is really about: killing off Linux, Android, anything free and open, and then gouging customers like the goode olde dayes of proprietary monopoly on the desktop. There is nothing new under this sun, just new weapons of choice. And that is exactly what the EU Commission should investigate to see if it is, indeed, the real antitrust plot.


JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by FF4m3 :

Groklaw offers logic -

Here's why the new complaint is ludicrous to me.

If you don't want to...
just don't.

So if you don't want SECURE BOOT
just turn it off in your bios?

Yep. Ludicrous. Exactly.

FF4m3
@rr.com

FF4m3

Anon

said by JohnInSJ:

So if you don't want SECURE BOOT
just turn it off in your bios?

Yep. Ludicrous. Exactly.

Contrary to your opinion, disabling secure boot is a viable option and easy for some of us, maybe not so much for you and others less technically able.

Which is why instructions on how to disable secure boot would be very helpful to those with less knowledge.
FF4m3

FF4m3 to JohnInSJ

Anon

to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:

So if you don't want SECURE BOOT
just turn it off in your bios?

Yep. Ludicrous. Exactly.

BTW, this thread topic has NOTHING to do with secure boot.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ to FF4m3

Premium Member

to FF4m3
said by FF4m3 :

said by JohnInSJ:

So if you don't want SECURE BOOT
just turn it off in your bios?

Yep. Ludicrous. Exactly.

Contrary to your opinion, disabling secure boot is a viable option and easy for some of us, maybe not so much for you and others less technically able.

Which is why instructions on how to disable secure boot would be very helpful to those with less knowledge.

You missed my point. This *lawsuit* is as Ludicrous as the EU Secure Boot lawsuit.

I was just inserting the same words into the deep, thoughtful analysis you clipped.

This thread topic has to do with trolling lawsuits. Like the Secure Boot one.

FF4m3
@rr.com

FF4m3

Anon

said by JohnInSJ:

This thread topic has to do with trolling lawsuits.

Trolling lawsuits? OK then.

Since you brought it up, consider this "trolling issue" assessment from US News & World Report...

Microsoft Makes An Empty Promise on Patents by David Balto - March 29, 2013:

David Balto is a former policy director of the Federal Trade Commission, attorney-adviser to Chairman Robert Pitofsky, and antitrust lawyer at the U.S. Department of Justice. He represents retailers and consumer groups on patent issues. He has been a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and has worked with the International Center on Law and Economics.

Even casual readers of tech media have likely noticed a tremendous spike in attention paid to America's broken patent system. Instead of rewarding innovators, the patent system has been hijacked by trolls (or "patent assertion entities") who prey on small businesses and startups, extorting licensing fees with claims that they are infringing often obscure, old and vaguely-worded patents. As I have written elsewhere, companies targeted by trolls often have no choice but to pay the ransom or be forced into costly and time-consuming litigation.

Microsoft this week released a searchable list of its patents under the banner of promoting "transparency." While additional transparency is generally welcome, commentators have recognized Microsoft's announcement is unlikely to improve the patent landscape. In fact, its true motivation is to promote the idea that simple "transparency" can fix the tech patent problem—a silver bullet that does not exist.

In fact, Microsoft is actively participating in and benefiting from one of the most opaque areas of the patent system: The growing practice of companies transferring their patents to patent assertion entities to attack their competitors. The practice of patent privateering—selling and transferring patents to entities so they can pursue litigation rather than innovation—has been getting increasing attention from competition regulators, including the Federal Trade Commission and Antitrust Division of the Justice Department in a workshop on patent trolls in late 2012. Former FTC Chairman, Jon Leibowitz highlighted the practice of privateering as an "unsavory" and "asymmetric" way of raising rivals' costs.

Microsoft over the years has grown very close to the patent assertion entity community. It has strong ties with Intellectual Ventures, Rockstar and MOSAID, three of the world's largest patent trolls. When patents are transferred to trolls, identifying the ultimate "owner" of a patent is likely to be complicated and will frequently fail to reveal the information that might be of most interest to the market or enforcers.

For example, Microsoft was involved in the transfer of more than 2,000 wireless patents from Nokia to MOSAID in 2011. Notably, Microsoft's transparency proposal won't list these patents, since Microsoft doesn't technically "control" MOSAID, and never owned the Nokia patents that it helped transfer.

Yet Microsoft and Nokia still maintain the ability to reclaim control over the patents they transferred to MOSAID if MOSAID fails to satisfy their revenue targets.

Similarly, Rockstar Consortium, Inc —formed by Microsoft, Apple, Ericsson and others—is now one of the largest trolls in the world, with more than 4,000 patents acquired from Nortel.

Microsoft's gesture does not say whether the company will disclose patents in which it has revenue interests (such as those held by MOSAID). Will it announce the details of the patent trolls to which it has already transferred patents? Will it commit to refraining from such transfers in the future? Will it require its "partners" in patent acquisitions and transfers to abide by obligations to license on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms?

One of the best ways to prevent patent abuse by trolls is to refrain from arming them with patents. We need to stop patent privateering in its tracks, and that's going to need more than hollow promises.


JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by FF4m3 :

said by JohnInSJ:

This thread topic has to do with trolling lawsuits.

Trolling lawsuits? OK then.

Yes. If you are against trolling lawsuits, you should be against all of them. Even those against Microsoft. Otherwise your "side" is no better than the "other side".

FF4m3
@rr.com

FF4m3

Anon

IMO the objective is to best serve the constructive needs of the public.

With the exception of a few, the vast majority of readers here are intelligent and perceptive enough to see past the vitriol, confabulation and dishonesty to comprehend the actual facts.

JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

JohnInSJ

Premium Member

said by FF4m3 :

IMO the objective is to best serve the constructive needs of the public.

With the exception of a few, the vast majority of readers here are intelligent and perceptive enough to see past the vitriol, confabulation and dishonesty to comprehend the actual facts.

Of the legal filings? Doubtful. The vast majority of readers here are blindly following the mantra of "Microsoft Evil, Linux Good" regardless of any facts.

Which is sad, since Microsoft is just an aging nearly irrelevant software company, and Linux is just another *nix. Neither is worthy of the special attention.

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium Member
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL

Maxo

Premium Member

said by JohnInSJ:

said by FF4m3 :

IMO the objective is to best serve the constructive needs of the public.

With the exception of a few, the vast majority of readers here are intelligent and perceptive enough to see past the vitriol, confabulation and dishonesty to comprehend the actual facts.

Of the legal filings? Doubtful. The vast majority of readers here are blindly following the mantra of "Microsoft Evil, Linux Good" regardless of any facts.

Which is sad, since Microsoft is just an aging nearly irrelevant software company, and Linux is just another *nix. Neither is worthy of the special attention.

Most of us here have been paying attention for long enough to know that Microsoft has been on the offensive against Linux and other open source competitors. They are not on the offensive by trying to create competing products, or manning up to the realities of today's technologies. They are on the offensive by using a broken patent system, their strong store of patents, their power and influence in the industry, and their deep pockets. With these tools they are fighting the realization of the dream many here have been working to bring to a reality with open source software.
Microsoft isn't just a player in a dirty game, they started this game. They drug Linux, and Google in to it, and to say that when Google fights back in the game they didn't want to play in the first place, that they are the same evil as Microsoft is to ignore the whole story.
Google is no knight in shining armor, but when they fight back it is not because they too wish to be patent trolls and use dirty tricks to stave off competition so they can continue to stagnate. They are doing it as a defensive measure against Microsoft to get them to stop the madness. Whether or not that's a good idea, or the right way to fight back is arguable, and I'd agree with anyone that said it isn't. However, it is disingenuous to pretend that it is the same thing that Microsoft is doing.

EUS
Kill cancer
Premium Member
join:2002-09-10
canada

EUS to JohnInSJ

Premium Member

to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:

Of the legal filings? Doubtful. The vast majority of readers here are blindly following the mantra of "Microsoft Evil, Linux Good" regardless of any facts.

Rubbish.

FF4m3
@rr.com

FF4m3 to FF4m3

Anon

to FF4m3
A few more details about patent trolling -

As Congress and Enforcers Contemplate Patent Trolls, Don't Forget about Privateering - by David Balto 04/12/2013:

Patent trolls' business model is to acquire patents not to pursue innovation, but instead as a tool of litigation. They sue innovative companies or end users such as retailers using the high cost of litigation to extort settlements. Rather than providing incentives to innovate, trolls simply drive up costs and, ultimately prices, for consumers. The costs of patent trolls exceed $29 billion annually and those costs are just increasing as trolls exploit flaws in our patent and litigation system.

A key part of their focus has been on another harmful--and growing--patent troll-related business practice: patent privateering. Privateering is the practice by which established operating companies arm trolls with patents and deploy them to engage in expensive, incessant litigation against competitors. This Trojan horse approach allows companies to accrue the benefits of the egregious troll conduct without incurring any of the risks. And more often than not it is used as a competitive weapon to try to raise costs and dampen competition from rival operating companies.

Why do operating companies do this? Easy. First, they make money by collecting royalties. Second, they are able to plague competitors with costly litigation. This litigation may raise the costs of rival products, reduce competition and dampen innovation. Third, using trolls prevents a countersuit or antitrust counterclaim, both of which would be a virtual certainty if the operating entity itself asserted the patents. Indeed, the threat of counter-litigation often leads firms to enter into efficient cross licensing arrangements. Finally, to the extent that the patents assigned by the operating company are subject to fair and reasonable licensing terms or no royalty-stacking pledges, the use of a troll provides an opportunity to ignore and avoid these commitments.

A recent Bloomberg article cited some of the most prominent examples of privateering, including MOSAID, a well known patent troll, which in 2011 acquired 2,000 patents jointly controlled by Microsoft and Nokia. MOSAID called this acquisition "a transformative event" and predicted that the acquisition "will drive revenue growth, profits, and shareholder value over the next decade." Microsoft declared that it was looking to "unlock the considerable value" of these patents. In the documents submitted to the Canadian Securities Administrators, the contract between MOSAID and Microsoft/Nokia calls for MOSAID to reach "minimum royalty milestones" and Microsoft/Nokia's right to collect a "shortfall payment."

...the ultimate intent of entities that feed privateers is clear: to spur litigation to impose costs, monetize patent assets and raise costs for their competitors. Like the conduct of patent trolls, it has turned the patent system on its head, making patents a tool of litigation instead of innovation. Privateering harms competition and consumers, and deserves continued attention from regulators.


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem

Premium Member

Well that is offtopic... Way to derail the thread anonymous poster. It amazes me how the EU going after Google's wallet because they need revenue from anywhere they can get it turns into a Microsoft patent post... not even close to the topic here. Ignorance on full display.

The crux of the EU complaint is that Google is the leader in market share of advertising revenue. I'm not sure the EU will stop their money collection on companies until everything has a choice select screen upon user's first use for every device sold. But this is them protecting their public, proven time and time again outside of software as well. With Google's 90+% advertising revenue market share, they are targets.
Expand your moderator at work
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to markofmayhem

Premium Member

to markofmayhem

Re: EU Receives Anti-Trust Complaint of Android

I only bring up MS simply out of the humor of it, They point fingers and swear when the Anti-Trust squad targets them and then turn around and use it full force by sponsoring a lobby group when they can use it against competition. Reminds me a bit of patent law, Fight the system when its against you and manipulate it when it can work for you.

Onto the topic at hand though...

The EU is certainly after money.

Interesting thing is that Google only has this market share because the people allowed it, If somebody else came along and made a better search engine that would slowly replace Google. Now yes Android does dominate the mobile market and as such that makes Google dominate the search and ad market on mobile devices. Also remember another reason Google is targeted by the EU is they are not based there. The EU does like to target American tech firms in general.

FF4m3
@rr.com

FF4m3

Anon

Is Google abusing its power? - 15 Apr 2013 by Alistair Fairweather:

European regulators have a reputation for being harder on big businesses than their American counterparts, particularly those founded outside of Europe's borders.

Europe's antitrust regulators are currently considering a complaint filed by FairSearch on the April 9. Unlike the case considered by the FTC, this complaint focuses on Google's practices in the burgeoning mobile search market. FairSearch alleges that Google is using its popular Android operating system to unfairly promote its own services.

Android is certainly influential in the mobile market, powering around 70% of all smart phones currently being sold.

But it is far from clear whether Google is really engaging in the kinds of blatantly anti-competitive practices that Microsoft once used. Danny Sullivan, an independent industry analyst, has poked multiple holes in FairSearch's claims, pointing out several blatant misrepresentations and untruths in its complaint. His main argument is that Google does not force Android licensees to use its search engine, despite what FairSearch claims.

Like Sullivan I believe that Microsoft's presence in the FairSearch coalition robs it of its credibility and legitimacy. Aside from the breath-taking hypocrisy of one of the world's worst monopolists whining about anti-competitive behaviour, Microsoft has far too much invested in its own search business to be at all objective on the subject. Antitrust cases are about stopping monopolies from abusing their power – they are not about undercutting your direct competitor because your own product is second rate.

It is also worth remembering the original point of antitrust legislation: to shield consumers and businesses from being harmed by the actions of monopolies who controlled access to vital commodities like oil, steel and grain.

You could argue that consumer attention – Google's stock in trade – is the oil of the 21st century. But Google does not own or control the supply of this attention like you would own a mine or an oil well. It earns that attention the old fashioned way: by being better than its competitors.

Regardless of what the regulators do or do not decide, the market has a way of sorting things out on its own. By the time Microsoft had finished getting mauled in the courts over Internet Explorer, its share in the web browser market was already in terminal decline.

Consumers are not the helpless sheep that regulators so often assume they are. As a market matures, so does the general public's understanding of that market. Spending another decade and untold millions of tax dollars (or euros) chasing after Google is probably not worth the trouble.

If, like Microsoft, Google becomes a complacent bully, more interested in maintaining the status quo than innovating, then the market will simply move to their newer, hungrier competitor.

FF4m3

FF4m3 to Maxo

Anon

to Maxo
said by Maxo:

They [Google] are doing it as a defensive measure against Microsoft to get them to stop the madness. Whether or not that's a good idea, or the right way to fight back is arguable, and I'd agree with anyone that said it isn't. However, it is disingenuous to pretend that it is the same thing that Microsoft is doing.

Agreed.

BTW, Google has issued the following public policy announcement:

Taking a stand on open source and patents - March 28, 2013 by Duane Valz, Senior Patent Counsel:

At Google we believe that open systems win. Open-source software has been at the root of many innovations in cloud computing, the mobile web, and the Internet generally. And while open platforms have faced growing patent attacks, requiring companies to defensively acquire ever more patents, we remain committed to an open Internet—one that protects real innovation and continues to deliver great products and services.

Today, we’re taking another step towards that goal by announcing the Open Patent Non-Assertion (OPN) Pledge: we pledge not to sue any user, distributor or developer of open-source software on specified patents, unless first attacked.

We hope the OPN Pledge will serve as a model for the industry, and we’re encouraging other patent holders to adopt the pledge or a similar initiative.

We hope the OPN Pledge will provide a model for companies looking to put their own patents into the service of open-source software, which continues to enable amazing innovation.


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem to Kearnstd

Premium Member

to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:

I only bring up MS simply out of the humor of it... The EU is certainly after money.

Exactly. Google "screwed up" by gobbling 90+ percent share of the advertising market in Europe. That is illegal there and a few billion of Cyprus debt will be paid by Google now. I wonder how this will pan out, though, will you have to answer a "choice" screen on every webpage from competing advertising companies as to which ads you will be presented with? Each app at download, or each app every time you open it? I was disappointed that cartoonists haven't had a field day with this one.

FF4m3
@rr.com

FF4m3

Anon

said by markofmayhem:

Google "screwed up" by gobbling 90+ percent share of the advertising market in Europe. That is illegal there...

Completely incorrect.

It's about the EU's very strict privacy laws (much stricter in protecting consumers' personal data than in the US) and how the EU perceives Google to be violation of them.

Is 2013 the Year Europe Cracks Down on Google's Privacy Violations? - 04/16/2012:

Europe data regulators have apparently had it with Google.

After years of Google stonewalling governments on the so-called wi-spy scandal around Google snooping on individual data in homes using Street View vehicles and then, last year, changing its privacy policies without getting consent from its users, a taskforce of six European government data agencies announced this week that they were going to launch new enforcement actions against Google over violations of European privacy law. And European legislators may tighten the continent's privacy laws specifically to deal with Google.

As France's National Commission for Computing and Civil Liberties wrote in an e-mailed statement, Google has defied European regulators in implementing privacy policies violating privacy laws and, when questioned on those actions, provided "often incomplete" information. France is joined by Great Britain, Spain, Germany, Italy and Holland in this stepped up enforcement.

The final straw for European regulators was the decision by Google that when a user used any service of Google's, information about that user would be available to advertisers on any other Google service for targeting ads. So if you watch a YouTube video on your phone, the ads you see would use your Google search habits, emails sent in your Gmail account and your location tracked by Google Maps to decide which ad you see. Google refused to allow users the right to keep data from different services from being combined into an integrated profile for those advertisers, despite the change in policy requiring consent by users under European law, according to the data protection agencies.

The stonewalling of regulators by Google on exactly how that new integrated profiling of users on behalf of advertisers would work finally pushed European regulators to take legal action after hoping over the last year to negotiate a voluntary deal with the company. But then the data protection agencies are used to stonewalling by Google after the Street View wi-fi evesdropping -- which Google initially denied was happening, then denied any personal data was collected, and then refused to share what data had actually been collected by Google. This is a similar experience to the U.S., where the Federal Trade Commission had a similar experience with lack of cooperation by Google over the wi-spy issue, eventually fining Google for "willfully obstructing" the FTC's investigation. That itself followed a far more substantial half a billion dollar fine (yes, that's b for billion) by federal prosecutors for assisting illegal pharmacies to market ads on Google, even after promising to stop the practice for years.

The question is what those data regulators can do to force Google to change its illegal actions? The level of fines available to European data regulators is notoriously low -- Google is facing official fines probably on the order of tens of thousands of dollars, or minutes of profit lost for the behemoth. However, European privacy advocate Simon Davies argues that there are "unexplored areas" of EU data protection laws allowing regulators to intervene in the operations of a company violating privacy laws. Those regulators could even "shut down Google services" if the company doesn't change its policies.

And if the regulators decide they lack the necessary enforcement tools, the EU Justice Commission Viviane Reding said this week that the European Parliament and member states "will strengthen Europe's enforcement tools in the course of this year" as necessary to stop Google's violations of privacy law.

With new laws in place in Europe to toughen enforcement, Google may have to substantially change its operations to give consumers more control over what personal data Google can use in targeting ads and how it combines data across its various services.

The question is whether we are likely to see similar action by regulators here in the United States. While the Federal Trade Commission gave Google a pass on antitrust concerns back in January, Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch in a partial dissent [pdf] from the decision criticized Google for seeming to use "half-truths" in gaining consumer consent for "gathering of information about the characteristics of a consumer" for the benefit of its advertising clients. While privacy law in the U.S. is substantively weak, federal regulators and state attorneys general have quite strong enforcement tools in taking on deceptive practices aimed at consumers.

Even more powerful would be various state attorneys general coordinating investigations with European data protection counterparts to challenge Google and other privacy-destroying social media companies to clean up their acts and strengthen protection of user privacy rights.

At least in Europe, 2013 looks to be the year for action. Hopefully, U.S. regulators follow Europe's lead.