
The EU's biggest fines on tech companies - AnatMl2
https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/18/technology/eu-biggest-fines-tech/index.html
======
growlist
I find it a bit strange that these issues arouse such strong feelings of
patriotism in some posters - to take the example of Apple, weren't they
keeping billions of dollars offshore to avoid US taxes, and isn't that a
thoroughly unpatriotic act? You could argue US consumers also benefit from
many of these rulings.

Also if I were to indulge in a little whataboutism I would point out that many
accuse the US of far worse in exploiting vulnerable debtor countries through
the World Bank and IMF; the idea of the poor, defencelessness US megacorp at
the mercy of the villanous EU is risible.

------
tristo
Would it be cheaper for those companies to walk away from european market?

~~~
thefounder
most of them make about 40-60% of revenue from Europe so go figure! Playing by
the rules is not really that expensive. The fines they are getting are really
small compared with the profits they are making.

~~~
repolfx
It depends very much on the definition of "walk away".

Europeans use America-only firms all the time and can easily make cross border
payments. There aren't really robust ways to stop US firms selling to the EU
over the internet especially for services, which are excluded from tariffs via
GATT.

Whilst I don't think we'll see established firms "walk away" in the sense of
closing down their EU offices, I think it's extremely likely that the next
generation of startups will simply never choose to open offices in the EU to
begin with. Sort of like how many companies ignore the Chinese market today
because the problems that come with it offset the appeal of a large (much,
much more captive) market.

~~~
ckocagil
There are really robust ways of stopping American countries from selling to EU
citizens. Financial transactions are easily tracked and blocked. So are
websites. If nothing works, then the EU can stop trading and kick American
payment companies out.

~~~
repolfx
There was an implicit assumption in my post that the EU wouldn't go full
totalitarian and establish a new iron curtain.

Yes, if it is willing to go down that route it can seal off people from
America entirely. But the fact that people are even seriously proposing this
is the best argument for Brexit yet.

------
NeedMoreTea
All the highlighted cases seem entirely reasonable uses of regulation to me.

Do we want companies to be free to take payments from Intel to not use AMD, or
run a cartel?

~~~
mkirklions
The microsoft ones? Where they werent allowed to package their media player
with windows?

Isnt itunes/apple significantly worse in the freedom to choose your software?

~~~
coldtea
> _Isnt itunes /apple significantly worse in the freedom to choose your
> software?_

It's not about choosing your software. You can restrict the software in your
platform as much as you want.

Just not when you have a monopoly. MS at the time was at 95%+ of the market.

As long as there's anybody else with a large chunk, you can do whatever you
like restrictions wise. Anybody that don't like it can go there.

Now we have Linux as a viable option as well.

~~~
mywacaday
Not convinced Linux is a viable option. For the average consumer it needs to
come installed by the manufacturer and a quick look at dell.ie shows the
cheapest Ubuntu laptop @ €1168 ($1365)

------
c3534l
Amazing that the EU is able to levy multi-billion dollar fines basically for
attempting to monetize a free operating system, whereas in the US and Britain,
felony conspiracies, price-fixing, and fraud get milquetoast slaps on the
wrist.

~~~
dunpeal
Don't forget the tech cartel that suppressed wages by non-poaching agreements.

Several of the most prominent tech employers in the US illegally colluded for
years to deprive employees of billions of dollars of wages.

It was an open and shut case, with chief executives going on record about this
illegal collusion.

Result? Department of Labor investigates, finds them guilty... and they get a
slap on the wrist for the tune of a few million dollars.

To repeat, this collusion is a crime by US law. It's a violation of Section
One of the Sherman Act.

In the US, the legal balance of power has been tipped for decades in favor of
employers: non-competes, mandatory arbitration agreements (which practically
mean you can't sue your employer no matter how badly they mistreat you), etc.
Both the laws themselves and their enforcement have steadily moved to favor
and empower employers, while employees are deprived of any benefit of the
legal system or their most basic rights (such as to change jobs).

Most of us live in a bubble because we are engineers and work in California,
which is relatively labor-friendly. Just wait until you get into a serious
disagreement with your employer, or seek employment outside of California, say
in New York or Seattle, where both non-competes and forced arbitration are
perfectly enforceable.

~~~
blub
Yeah, but the the most shocking thing is the countless apologists for
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Intel, etc.

These companies were/are breaking the law and hurting societies and people
through their greedy behaviour, and some criticize the EU for rightly
punishing them.

This kind of brainwashed behaviour is very very concerning. The corporations
have succeeded in changing the environment in which people grow up and thereby
manipulated them to protect the corporation like a discardable, yet useful
drone.

------
hartator
These kind of regulations is just another form of protectionism.

Is any make the life of Europeans easier? I don’t think so. It did kill any
risks of having a real EU startup ecosystem despite being the first economy
zone in the world.

~~~
jopsen
All these rulings are applications of laws, they apply equally to all.

This is not protectionism. The EU is all about free and fair trade.

In fact the illegal tax schemes the EU have been fighting is very much a form
of protectionism. One country may NOT give favorable tax incentives inorder to
protect investments coming in.

~~~
throwaway37585
You don’t seem to know what the word “protectionism” means. Tax incentives are
not protectionism.

~~~
jopsen
How is unfair tax incentives different from direct subsidies?

~~~
throwaway37585
1\. Unfair according to whom? You're presenting your opinion as if it were
fact.

2\. To put it bluntly, the fact that you equate tax incentives with direct
subsidies suggests you don't understand economics.
[https://mises.org/library/no-tax-breaks-are-not-
subsidies](https://mises.org/library/no-tax-breaks-are-not-subsidies)

~~~
jopsen
1) Fair point..

In the EU we have laws against using tax incentives to lure companies to
specific countries or cities. Unlike the US where Amazon is currently picking
the location it's next headquarters based on what tax incentives Amazon can
get.

This kind of race to the bottom is not permitted. Yet, certain EU countries
have been finding ways around it to attract/retrain specific business..

At least that's my impression.

------
andromedaworld
> fined a record €2.4 billion ($2.7 billion) for using its search engine to
> steer internet users towards its own shopping platform

The EU is totally bonkers!!! And these fines are largely uncalled for. It's
their site; why shouldn't a business up-sell to their customers? I know plenty
of people who do it all the time. That's part of the point of being in
business. If a user doesn't want to buy from Google, simply don't click the
buy button.

~~~
baud147258
I think it's called abuse of a dominant position, considering that Google has
a quasi-monopoly in search engine in Europe.

~~~
andromedaworld
I don't think there's anything wrong with a monopoly that isn't state
enforced. Their IP, their servers, why shouldn't they enjoy a monopoly?
Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

It is when you involve the state in creating a monopoly that you have
problems. Consumers continue to patronize a business to the point of it being
a monopoly because it serves them well. In a free market environment, this
cannot be a bad thing.

