Capitalism implies economic agents that follow fair rules. What this ruling shows is that EU haven't forgot what capitalism is all about.

Hmm. The rules are a tad arbitrary. This would be entirely allowed if less people used Google search relative to its competitors.

Note, it's not illegal per se. It's not illegal because of a de jure monopoly. It's not even illegal because of the number of users they have. It's illegal because Bing, Yahoo et al are not as relatively successful.

It was the same with browsers. Microsoft were hit for bundling. Apple haven't been though they've done identically the same thing. Why? Because enough people bought Android phones in the EU.

I do find it dubious that, effectively, the primary criteria for illegality is not what the defendant did but what some other actors didn't do. Seems wrong to me.

The primary criteria is the damage it causes to society, there is absolutely nothing arbitrary about it. It just so happens that if you are not a (quasi-)monopoly, you just cannot cause the kind of damage a monopoly can, no matter how hard you try, and if you don't cause any damage, you won't be fined.

I think the GP is complaining about how the rules are structured so that you can never win.

And it's true - they are. By design.

Are you honestly implying that google, a multi billion dollar corporation hasn't 'won'?

Winning would be if they were allowed to use their dominant market position to full, unrestricted extent.

which is something you do not want for the general wellbeing of your population or the continuation of your state.

Also, Many people here seem to forget that we do not, in fact, live in a completely laissez-faire capitalistic society for good reason. Especially compared to the US, the countries in the EU do not view unfetered capitalism as a 'good and just' thing.

The game has rules that keeps it broadly beneficial.

You win by being the natural favorite of users' free choice of exchange, not by eradicating the ability of others to compete. We need more penalties like this for those usurping the concept of the market.

It's more like a game where others should have the chance to win at one point, just like you did.

Winning means end of the game. Hence the game doesn't allow anyone to win - because what the society needs is not the players to win, but for the game to go on and players to play.

I don't equal winning with having a monopoly or no competitors but rather just being profitable so you can live a OK life.

In that case, if you win, others can still win as well.

Unless you manage to carve out a monopoly position, capitalism is pretty much a race to the bottom.

Europeans could always use one of the other (European?) search engines if so they wished. http://searchengineland.com/alternatives-to-google-in-europe...

That's not really an argument. "Google could always not operate in the EU if so they wished"

Or Google could follow the rules of the countries in which they operate.

Please quote the rule that Google broke. In all 28 EU countries.

It's in the headline.

Antitrust: Commission fines Google €2.42 billion for abusing dominance as search engine by giving illegal advantage to own comparison shopping service

Antitrust rules. The EU decided they broke them. Whether you think they did or didn't is irrelevant.

And they do. I can't see how google makes that impossible for competitors, also as there are many other big player's around. And it is allways hard to get big from being small.

This is more about politics and EU bragging itself, for doing something "fair", for the people.

Captialism is a carrot-on-a-stick engine for generating prosperity. The carrot is the wealth and glory of winning. You outcompete all other players, you're the only game in town, you get to set the rules.

Except the carrot is only dangling on the stick and as a donkey, you're not allowed to ever get it - because the moment you do, you stop moving forward. Hence it's imperative to a) convince people they can win, and b) ensure they don't. Because it's not the players that are socially useful, but the game itself.

No, it's a game that when you "win" everyone else is forced to drop out, so they have to kick over the board and start again.

This is literally what the board game "Monopoly" is about. Like that, only you can't quit the game and are dependent on it for survival.

Capitalism is a never-ending competition. It's not supposed to have winners.

A 'winner' would mean the end of it.

Unrestricted capitalism will just converge to one single corporation.

Somewhat related: I'm finding that the prevailing wisdom about conglomerates being a failed experiment is being put to the test and found wanting by Amazon, which has (over the course of the new century) transformed itself into an aggregate of concerns with no obvious interrelation.

there's one obvious and it's logistics. amazon is all about optimizing the supply chain from the factory to the consumer door (or back yard in case of drone delivery. only half joking here :))

Exactly. I think the most goods will be provided by 5-10 mega corporations in the next 10 to 20 years.