To the poster, Europe does not exercise outsized antitrust influence in the US. Many of these companies have their tax residency in the EU. There is no need to "deny" anything. If the company gets fined and it refuses to pay the fine, EU seizes the money in one of many bank accounts in Europe.
Europe absolutely exercises significant antitrust influence upon US firms.
In practice, yes, as you point out: US firms must have assets in Europe to compete effectively.
But even if they didn't, Europe could deny access to the European market. So there is no reason to try and minimize surface in Europe. e.g. Apple has to comply with European antitrust rulings about app store access, even if Apple were to just sell their product to third party distributors in Europe and not have any presence in Europe.
Not really, Apple would just get customers the same way they’re sold in any other part of the world that doesn’t officially have iPhones (i.e. Russia), the EU doesn’t have the authority to seize shipments purely based on a violation of the DMA.
Do you have a cite for that? That would be very surprising if so, the intent behind the RTB stuff is that it's anonymized. I really don't think this is correct.
Producers should be required to make disclosures in officially recognized boards/gazettes before substantially changing quality/composition/recipe/materials/function of any good. Make it 3 to 6 months. A consumer should not be screwed for buying an inferior product for the same price because a producer decided to reduce quality to increase margins. It's a form of information asymmetry that leads to inefficiency in markets.
This works even more easily if the product already needs to be registered in some gov't registry. For example books and with the case of substituting good quality paper with worse quality paper (less gsm or such).
You’re missing the point, either intentionally or unintentionally.
No matter how many lines of defense in depth you have, protecting the surface area of a product or service is always going to be harder than attacking it.
Profit as intended means producer surplus. Economic theory predicts producer surplus reaching 0, while consumer surplus getting maximized. That is what competition does. It does tell everything about markets. This does not happen because of IP doctrines, which distorts competition. And advertising, which causes information asymmetries.
DMA, like any other regulation that preceded it, was severely lobbied down. It happened in spite of EU. There is too great of a democratic consensus for it to be completely ignored. Do not get this wrong.
reply