Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #GoogleHearing
Most recents (8)
My wrap on final session of #GoogleHearing.
Google went hard on benefits Android has created, creating platform that spurred competition. It said it has right to promote Android & not rest on its laurels.
EC said: G “gave itself the laurel wreath before race had started”/1
Google went hard on benefits Android has created, creating platform that spurred competition. It said it has right to promote Android & not rest on its laurels.
EC said: G “gave itself the laurel wreath before race had started”/1
Google said EC had failed to prove preinstallation was anticompetitive because other apps/services could be downloaded easily & accessed through browsers.
EC said G execs knew full well their success rested in “not making its services optional.” /2
EC said G execs knew full well their success rested in “not making its services optional.” /2
Consumers argue that there is a “status quo bias” where users stick with the stuff that comes on the phone.
Google argued previously that there was nothing on behavioural economics in the @EU_Commission #antitrust decision & doubting their value here /3
Google argued previously that there was nothing on behavioural economics in the @EU_Commission #antitrust decision & doubting their value here /3
#GoogleHearing winds up today. Closing arguments from @Google and @EU_Commission
This will be a set-piece affair & judge already indicated last night he’s done with questioning. So, it’ll be more like:
This will be a set-piece affair & judge already indicated last night he’s done with questioning. So, it’ll be more like:
Lawyers use this session to a) hit their strongest arguments again, b) address some lingering doubts by the judges to try to change their minds, c) make sweeping statements about the importance of X or Y for the future of the law/business. /2
Danish blue cheese came up repeatedly over 4 days as an analogy for market share, due to the Danish judge leading the questions. Expect some tortured references to that. /3
Last volley from #GoogleHearing today & it was important.
EU judges wanted to know: if we side with Google on one slice of their case does it destroy the whole @EU_Commission #antitrust decision?
Essentially, court is exploring the prospects of a partial @Google win /thread
EU judges wanted to know: if we side with Google on one slice of their case does it destroy the whole @EU_Commission #antitrust decision?
Essentially, court is exploring the prospects of a partial @Google win /thread
This was all couched as "hypothetical" by judge Frimodt Nielsen (& I've seen other hearings where this happens) but it shows court is working out consequences of accepting at least parts of @Google appeal.
Why is this a tricky legal?
Well, funny you asked. Let me tell you. /1
Why is this a tricky legal?
Well, funny you asked. Let me tell you. /1
Imagine the EC decision is a Greek temple with four pillars.
@EU_Commission says each of the four pillars is an infringement of EU law & the temple overall is a big single overarching infringement. So, there are two strands to its case: the 4 pillars & the temple itself. /2
@EU_Commission says each of the four pillars is an infringement of EU law & the temple overall is a big single overarching infringement. So, there are two strands to its case: the 4 pillars & the temple itself. /2
Break for lunch in #GoogleHearing at ECJ. Here's what happened this morning:
- Google argued that EC introduced new elements into its investigation (an AEC test) & because it did this in a letter instead of a charge-sheet, Google couldn't have a private hearing on it /1
- Google argued that EC introduced new elements into its investigation (an AEC test) & because it did this in a letter instead of a charge-sheet, Google couldn't have a private hearing on it /1
- if G had had a hearing, it could have better defended itself against accusations of dodgy revenue-sharing agreements w/ phonemakers
- so, the procedural failure should mean court annuls this part of decision
EC aint buying this:
- says Google opted against hearing after SO /2
- so, the procedural failure should mean court annuls this part of decision
EC aint buying this:
- says Google opted against hearing after SO /2
- the Letters of Facts just "refined" the "provisional" AEC test set out in SO, in light of Google's own defense
- and AEC test is only "one element" of the revenue-share case.
Interesting interaction with Judge Marcoulli who asked about relevance of UPS ruling (C-265/17 P) /3
- and AEC test is only "one element" of the revenue-share case.
Interesting interaction with Judge Marcoulli who asked about relevance of UPS ruling (C-265/17 P) /3
Day4 of #GoogleHearing is upon us: they'll discuss procedural irregularities & the mega 4.34bn fine.
On procedure:
- Google says EC should have sent it formal charges (and not a so-called Letter of Facts), since this would have triggered a right to a closed-doors hearing. /1
On procedure:
- Google says EC should have sent it formal charges (and not a so-called Letter of Facts), since this would have triggered a right to a closed-doors hearing. /1
- Not doing so deprived it of the right to be heard
- Google also says EC didn't record minutes of interviews with other companies sufficiently. Again, this means its defence rights were harmed.
- EC says: the LoF had no new charges, so it didn't need to be an SO. /2
- Google also says EC didn't record minutes of interviews with other companies sufficiently. Again, this means its defence rights were harmed.
- EC says: the LoF had no new charges, so it didn't need to be an SO. /2
- And also Google gave up right to a hearing when it didn't have one after getting the first SO.
- as to interviews: EC says it doesn't have to record every last utterance of an informal chat as an "interview."
On the fine:
- Google says it's the biggest ever in history /3
- as to interviews: EC says it doesn't have to record every last utterance of an informal chat as an "interview."
On the fine:
- Google says it's the biggest ever in history /3
Day 3 of #GoogleHearing has wrapped up.
P.M was devoted to the anti-fragmentation rules which Google says ensured "compatibility" on #Android platform & developers loved it.
EC said: nope, they stopped companies like Amazon developing new devices/platforms (such as Fire) /1
P.M was devoted to the anti-fragmentation rules which Google says ensured "compatibility" on #Android platform & developers loved it.
EC said: nope, they stopped companies like Amazon developing new devices/platforms (such as Fire) /1
It was a colourful afternoon, including some swearing, some niggle over naming executives & the judge drawn a "cartoon" of "Androidville."
Google says "forked" versions of Android don't offer competition to Google's products. EC says: you're trying to stop rivals emerging. /2
Google says "forked" versions of Android don't offer competition to Google's products. EC says: you're trying to stop rivals emerging. /2
Google says: we are steward of entire Android ecosystem & so we need compatibility rules that go broadly.
EC says: your executives knew full well they were blocking rival products and platforms emerging.
More on this tomorrow a.m. & then on to discussion of procedure/fine /3
EC says: your executives knew full well they were blocking rival products and platforms emerging.
More on this tomorrow a.m. & then on to discussion of procedure/fine /3
Danish judge Frimodt Nielsen running the #GoogleHearing is hugely self-effacing. Makes lots of apologetic "sorry, if I've got this wrong" & "please forgive me" comments.
On Day 3 of the case, @Google & @EU_Commission not really buying this.
Judge has clearly got 3 brains. /1
On Day 3 of the case, @Google & @EU_Commission not really buying this.
Judge has clearly got 3 brains. /1
They continue to show him deference (naturally, what else?), but such well-practiced lawyers are acutely aware of not getting ambushed by a question that's "so apparently simple" on the face of it.
Whispered consensus is that judge is doing a v good job & 'gets it'/ends
Whispered consensus is that judge is doing a v good job & 'gets it'/ends
For all the super-nerds out there, another judge Juraj Schwarcz spoke up just now. He's important because he is handling the Intel case which is all about the AEC test. He asked EC if there were different kinds of test & what theoretical differences were. /3
Day 2 is over at #GoogleHearing in EU court.
Final little flurry of questioning went to the issue of Google's search engine being "superior" to rivals, and that was why users liked it. Not because of any #antitrust restriction on Android...as the argument goes.
Thread/1
Final little flurry of questioning went to the issue of Google's search engine being "superior" to rivals, and that was why users liked it. Not because of any #antitrust restriction on Android...as the argument goes.
Thread/1
Google said the @EU_Commission had failed to do a consumer survey & had relied on Play Store ratings, which were "remarkably superficial." EC pointed to internal @Google emails that showed company didn't want to make its tech "optional." German publishers said no rivals could../2
...emerge because they couldn't get on the platform, and therefore couldn't get the data needed to compete.
Judge also seemed interested in position of Chrome browser in the Google ecosystem, implying it was there simply to channel traffic to the search engine. /3
Judge also seemed interested in position of Chrome browser in the Google ecosystem, implying it was there simply to channel traffic to the search engine. /3
