Google loses challenge against EU antitrust ruling, $2.8B fine

Re:Google loses challenge against EU antitrust ruling, $2.8B... by matheusmoreira on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @11:50AM (#29176898)

A truly fair punishment would require identifying when the unlawful behavior started, calculating all profits derived from it, taking it away and only then fining them.

Making unlawful business decisions shouldn't be a calculated power move for them. It should put them in a worse position than they started. Like a chess game that gets rewound all the way back to the last legal move, but it costs them a rook or queen as well for the trouble they caused.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google loses challenge against EU antitrust ruling, $2.8B... by 93po on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @02:05PM (#29178989)

A truly fair punishment would be people going to jail (or the threat of it), like is the case for virtually any other crime. This shit isn't going to stop unless people refuse to do it because of the risk of jail.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google loses challenge against EU antitrust ruling, $2.8B... by rebuilder on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @03:30PM (#29180277)

Setting aside the whole “fair” issue, I suspect Alphabet could convince a lot of execs to risk going to jail for a lot less than the fine levied here.

Corporations don’t go to jail.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google loses challenge against EU antitrust ruling, $2.8B... by krzyk on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @04:46PM (#29181360)

But if by being an employee of such corporation you would have possibility of going to jail, there would be not that many candidates.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google loses challenge against EU antitrust ruling, $2.8B... by sushid on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @07:22PM (#29182849)

Then there's no incentive to perform lawful behavior.

Assuming < 100% chance of getting caught for an unlawful behavior, you're incentivizing unlawful behavior if the downside is essentially capped at $0.

[ Parent | on HN ]