For instance, if a marijuana company sliced that it would be shutting it's doors to comply with US federal law, I'd very much want to know about it.
It is like a construction company advertising they have built the house "up to code". Maybe it sounds good to them, to me that sounds like "we've done the absolute minimum required and would have majorly cut corners had it not be for those pesky rules about fire safety and such getting in the way".
That is an unreal level of politicking. You can't see any reason why companies might prefer to pay a fine than obey a law?
If you lived in an HOA, and that HOA mandated that all your lawn ornaments must be bright pink by next week, how eager would you be to comply by next week? If the fine for non-compliance was only $1 per year, would you prefer to pay the fine?
I'm trying to illustrate that companies are made up of human beings, not monsters.
There may be a wide gulf depending on the details, but there doesn't necessarily have to be. They are being punished for antitrust practices proven on a legal basis. Without bringing specifics into it, there's no way to tell wither it's moral or not, the same way you can't assume someone on the sex offender registry committed a morally repugnant crime instead of just peeing in public.[1] Don't confuse legal for moral, and if you think the facts of this case support your point, then use those facts to make that point.
1: http://www.menshealth.com/guy-wisdom/you-might-be-sex-offend...
I'm fine saying Google's actions were immoral.
The only way you could construe my comment as saying Google is a mislabeled sex offender is if you completely ignored the actual point in lieu of keywords you chose to focus on.
My prior comment can be reduced to "if you're going to make a moral argument, use evidence of morality in that argument." That you responded with what appears to be an apoplectic fit doesn't really leave your prior argument any better off.
> I'm fine saying Google's actions were immoral.
Obviously. But why? I'll even help you out a bit. There are two parts of this case that are distinct as I see it, that Google suppressed search results of a new search result service they rolled out, and that their supplying their own data from the knowledge graph for shopping results when other services exist it itself monopolistic and punishable. In the former, I agree that's behavior that should not be tolerated or someone in their market position. Of the latter, I think that's a far overreach of any government. If nobody can compete because Google is just doing that much better because they've built the base of audience and information to handle it better, then Google is outcompeting the others in a good way that's better for the general public.
VW is being fined right now. Does that sound like being excused?
And I do see it differently when a companies transparently refuses to obey a law and accepts a fine vs when a company lies.
So your position is that it's worse to lie about breaking the law than it is to actually break it? I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from.
Besides I'm really just asking about the analogy. I think if someone posted "Show HN: My color-changing, license-plate-detecting, HOA-fine-avoiding lawn ornament" we'd all be in there yucking it up at the genius of it. But when VW does the same thing (by your analogy) we're in threads talking about much more serious topics, like individual moral culpability. My point is that your analogy is flawed, it doesn't hold up.
A good instance is jaywalking: it's a minor offense and police don't really care to enforce it. So people decide to break that law all the time.
A law is a contract. Anyone is free to break the contract if they are willing to accept the consequences.
And if it's not, that is pretty noteworthy.
If you disagree with a community’s decision, you can lobby to have them changed, or you can move elsewhere – but you can’t, just because you disagree, disobey them. Or you’ll have to expect that if you try to disobey their decisions, they’ll respond accordingly.
I’m not suggesting anything a society should do as response to a foreign company arriving there, violating laws, and refusing to obey, but generally this simply ends up bad for the company.
I disagree with IP laws, but I can’t just pirate content and sell remixes either, by hiding behind a shell corporation. Not even if I’m willing to pay the fine (Kim Dotcom, for example, made enough profit that he was able, and willing to pay the license fees, and still would have turned a profit, but this was denied).
Citation needed
> (2) Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen.
> (2) Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.
In Article 9, it also defines:
> (2) Vereinigungen, deren Zwecke oder deren Tätigkeit den Strafgesetzen zuwiderlaufen oder die sich gegen die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung oder gegen den Gedanken der Völkerverständigung richten, sind verboten.
> (2) Associations whose aims or activities contravene the criminal laws, or that are directed against the constitutional order or the concept of international understanding, shall be prohibited.
If you have the commented version, with comments from the creators and several former and current constitutional court judges, I recommend you read the relevant comments. They specifically discusses these part, and argue that the right to own property, start a group (Vereinigung, including Verein, Unternehmen, etc), own something as a group, etc solely exist to serve society.
This right has obligations, such as the obligation that if you do not need your property, but it can be used to serve society, you can lose the right to it (as has happened in Hamburg in Winter 2015/2016, when a company refused to rent a building to the government so they could use it as refugee accomodation, and, as a result, the building was seized from the company, and used as it anyway).
The comments and quoted constitutional court cases also discuss and outline the limitations, and other situations. For example, if property is seized, then the organization has to be given the market value in return.
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
The right of assembly is only given in indoor spaces, which you own, as long as zero aggression happens.
For outdoor assemblies, you'll need approval of the municipal government (and the police can dissolve your assembly, as happened in Hamburg during the G20 protests).
In the same way, as I mentioned, the right to property is frequently limited by nations. In the US, commonly for public projects the state seizes land without repaying the owners, and Germany does similar stuff.
* not in all cases (e.g. Spontandemonstration, where there is no time to file an application)
* the municipal government needs a really good reason to not give approval
* the courts are very sympathetic to virtually any cause should a municipal government decide to forbid a gathering.
> (and the police can dissolve your assembly,
* if there is true danger to the general public. Again, courts are going to slap the police around if they do this just because.
I know how easy it is to use a blanket statement as a base for another blanket statement which is equally one-sided, but please try to build arguments in a less ... attackable way.
Have you looked at even one of the cases in Hamburg with G20?
Spontandemonstrationen that were immediately dissolved with teargas.
No approval for demonstrations without reason, or even situations where courts said the demonstration is legal, and the police dissolved them anyway.
Yeah, I doubt there will be any repercussions, de Maiziere will jail some more left-wing journalists, Merkel will become chancellor again, and in Hamburg instead of the Mayor maybe some low-level police officer will resign.
Although every police officer involved in this said that the ridiculous orders came from high up.
Have a look at Stuttgart. They lost a high-ranking police officer and the MP was not reelected.
For outdoor assemblies you need to inform a designated authority (which is not the same as an approval) and comply with certain restrictions.
[1]: https://www.bundestag.de/grundgesetz The text of the German consitution law
[2]: https://europa.eu/european-union/law/treaties_en The text of the EU treaties
I'm not sure where to look for the precise definition of "fiduciary".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary fiduciary: A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties (person or group of persons).
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=744 fiduciary: 1) n. from the Latin fiducia, meaning "trust," a person (or a business like a bank or stock brokerage) who has the power and obligation to act for another (often called the beneficiary) under circumstances which require total trust, good faith and honesty. 2) adj. defining a situation or relationship in which a person is acting as a fiduciary for another.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=745 fiduciary relationship: n. where one person places complete confidence in another in regard to a particular transaction or one's general affairs or business.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=599 duty of care: n. a requirement that a person act toward others and the public with the watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would use.
So the business judgment rule isn't where any normal person would want to start on this topic, but I think it's wikipedia article probably is the best in terms of defining a few things and then linking you to more resources.
EDIT: after reading the conservapedia entry on Wesley I found this comment a lot funnier. Unfortunately I couldn't be Mouch, it was said of him that "What I like most about you, Mouch, is that you do not talk too much" and I don't think anyone has ever accused me of that. (:
"That's a nice company improving lives everywhere on the world you have there. It would be so regrettable if something ... happened to it."
Also, what is wrong with a company which improves lives to also improve it's bottom line? I prefer that to an openly hostile company who destroys life that improves it's bottom line.
Nothing as long as it obeys the laws of the countries in which it operates.
You're suggesting however that the EU laws are unjust because Google and perhaps others opted to not follow them. Can't say I agree at all.
By that same logic the laws and regulations governing the financial services industry were unjust because banks the world over opted not to follow them, resulting in the financial crash of 2007/2008.
Even just laws aren't followed by individuals or organisations that realise they can make a lot money by not following it, so I'm not sure the point you are trying to make holds any weight.
Sometimes breaking a law and paying the pathetic fine afterwards is just the cost of doing business, which is why I usually argue for genuinely punitive damages and prison time (like in the case of the banks for example).
And all that ex post facto, too. Laws that only applies to one player are by definition unjust.
And I and the EU both disagree with that notion. Monopolists all use the same defence.
> And all that ex post facto, too. Laws that only applies to one player are by definition unjust.
And these laws apply to every company that might reach the same position so again, I'm not sure what point you are making.
Total cash: $48 billion.
Industry: technology.
It's pretty obvious that the EU is only doing this because Google is a US company.
I am quite sure that google considered simply pulling entirely out of Europe. It wouldn't affect them as much as you think - it's the internet, you can run a website from anywhere.
And it's not like the EU would prevent their citizens from buying ads from Google, so their revenues would not be affected all that much. Their EU sales force could be through a third party (so that Google would not have any assets in the EU).
All that Google would lose is EU employees.
The bare fact this this plan I am outlining is even worth considering rather than bow to the EU demands tells you a lot.
It's pretty obvious that Americans are complaining because Google is a US company and they want it to succeed even at the cost of unethical or illegal behaviour as determined by foreign jurisdictions, and that they deem their own laws to be exceptional and superior to those of all other nations.
See? I can make totally unsubstantiated claims too.
The point being all your comment does is serve to distract from the actual issues in question by turning the issue into a tribal us-versus-them conflict. It's tedious and unproductive.
I'd wager if the US's own regulatory agencies were doing their jobs then each of the 'big four/five' tech companies would have faced penalties in the past on various issues.
They haven't because of that thing you mentioned, protectionism.
Some people need to drink less the libertarian kool-aid, Google is still recovering from missing out China and will do anything do anything eventually to satisfy EU
Your comment lacks anything with relationship with real life.
If it is obvious, it will be easy to explain the reasons for it
> I am quite sure that google considered simply pulling entirely out of Europe. It wouldn't affect them as much as you think - it's the internet, you can run a website from anywhere.
I'm quite sure that Google is glad to not have people like you as CEO.
> And it's not like the EU would prevent their citizens from buying ads from Google
Tell me how a company like Google, or Apple or Microsoft can do business with the EU without being there. And please, no't give nonsensical reasons like internet is everywhere, that just shows that you don't know much about economy.
Note that they appear to have responded on the final day allowed. Throughout this process, Google has repeatedly asked for extensions to review the claims or come up with a response for all of these cases. It seems like, knowing the result, Google has attempted to draw out this process as long as legally possible. The PR damage from keeping this case ongoing presumably pales in comparison to the profit from their unlawful conduct.