Re: Where's the Line?
"In short no. It's the European Commission, which is one of the institutions of the EU, not the EU as a whole that does this."
Fair point. That is why the US isnt bombing targets in the middle east, only the US military.
"It's also about the only governmental EU institution that is supposed to act in the best interest of Europe as a whole"
If ever we want an argument to leave.
"You'll note that neither the EC or Google argue this point, it is accepted by both sides that Google holds a dominant market position in search"
But dominance is not a problem. It is not a monopoly nor illegal nor wrong. It is also not a problem selling your own stuff and not selling your competitors stuff. However there is now a new crime of combining the two and with no way to avoid it be given a record fine.
"It doesn't matter what the product is, the using of your market dominant position for anti-competitive purposes is"
True except it isnt anticompetitive. Google may be the largest but there are many alternatives in a very open market. When Tesco was market leader should it be given record fines for not selling lidl stuff? Hell no.
"then they have to ensure their actions are not abusing the position"
This would be interesting to prove as they can plug their own stuff or be popular but not both it seems. They are not stopping the competition and can easily be replaced or not used. As someone has already commented this basically means Google cannot add new features as it is bound to infringe someone elses market.
"Google doesn't stop providing any of it's services, it doesn't get a monopoly taken away from it, it just stops promoting/demoting search results for shopping comparison sites"
And here is the problem. You said monopoly which is easily if mistakenly interpreted from market dominance except Google doesnt have a monopoly. It is the most popular but if it falls out of favour can be usurped by any of many others.
"It agrees that it done bad, pays a fine, and stops doing it"
Good for Google they dont seem to be going that way, "We respectfully disagree with the conclusions announced today. We will review the Commission’s decision in detail as we consider an appeal, and we look forward to continuing to make our case.”
I spotted Tims article to this after my first comment-