Re:The European Commission versus Android
by kodablah on Thursday July 19, 2018 @03:55PM
(#17569703)
> I think the law is there to protect competitors, and that's it.
I disagree. I think it's there (or should be there) to protect society/consumers, and that's it. I am saying that by excluding all other consumer effects and pretending that it's there to protect competitors potentially at the harm of society is invalid. Sometimes they align, sometimes they don't.
> I'm not trying to equate killing with monopoly abuse, but I find it odd that the principle that if you break the law, you face the consequences results in so much questioning.
Because the law is vague and subjective. It's not like we have algorithms or robots determining guilt. The thing that is odd is confusing questioning of the law with questioning of the idea of breaking laws. And I agree they probably did abuse their position, but that doesn't relate specifically to the comment you're responding to which is more about whether abuse is all that should be taken into consideration.
Re:The European Commission versus Android
by s73v3r_ on Thursday July 19, 2018 @07:56PM
(#17571399)
Here's the problem, though: If you say, "Consumers don't seem to be harmed by this action," you don't know what the alternative could have been. Consumers could have been much better off with additional competition.
I disagree. I think it's there (or should be there) to protect society/consumers, and that's it. I am saying that by excluding all other consumer effects and pretending that it's there to protect competitors potentially at the harm of society is invalid. Sometimes they align, sometimes they don't.
> I'm not trying to equate killing with monopoly abuse, but I find it odd that the principle that if you break the law, you face the consequences results in so much questioning.
Because the law is vague and subjective. It's not like we have algorithms or robots determining guilt. The thing that is odd is confusing questioning of the law with questioning of the idea of breaking laws. And I agree they probably did abuse their position, but that doesn't relate specifically to the comment you're responding to which is more about whether abuse is all that should be taken into consideration.