Re:Google rejects EU's search abuse complaint
by germanier on Thursday August 27, 2015 @02:59PM
(#10131322)
That's the reason I used "quasi-monopoly" above and laws talk about "dominant market position".
Re:Google rejects EU's search abuse complaint
by kuschku on Thursday August 27, 2015 @07:49PM
(#10132875)
Under EU law, quasi-monopolies are treated the same as monopolies.
That’s how the ISP market in most EU countries is still competitive: The largest ISP has to rent their lines to competitors at normal market price. They can not refuse.
> If they operate a quasi-monopoly those laws are stricter than they would be for you and me.
To have stricter laws, there should be an actual monopoly. Google have no monopoly, only a "mental monopoly", so called mind-share. When people want to search for something, the first word that pops into their head is "Google".
A monopoly is something else, like not being able to buy a product or service except form a particular vendor, even if you want alternatives.
Also, a monopoly uses its power to prevent entry into the market: vendors who want access to the users who would like alternative vendors are hindered from starting up.
You're not paying anything for Google searches, and there are alternatives.
Google connected a farm of machines to the network, which provide a free service and don't prevent anyone from doing the same. How can that be a monopoly?