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
Final exchange focused on the legal framing of the case. Nerds, pay attention.
Google sees the case as "foreclosure" & says EC doesn't prove that. @LamadridAlfonso listed ECJ caselaw to establish the F test & EC fails that test. Just 1 mention of the F word in the decision /4
Google sees the case as "foreclosure" & says EC doesn't prove that. @LamadridAlfonso listed ECJ caselaw to establish the F test & EC fails that test. Just 1 mention of the F word in the decision /4
EC says: nonsense. The test is 'capability to restrict competition'. That's plastered all over the decision. Android contracts were "capable" of reducing rivals' chance to compete: ergo, @Google broke the law. Sorry, mate. /5
This debate entailed a long march back thru @Microsoft judgment from 2007. And then some flirting with Generics (UK), Intel and so on. You, like me, have probably heard enough about these for a lifetime.
Tmrw, it's back to the coalface: this time revenue-share agreements. /6
Tmrw, it's back to the coalface: this time revenue-share agreements. /6
This will likely go back into the belly of the Intel judgment & comparisons with "as efficient competitors." It's possibly the most difficult thing on the planet to tweet about given character limitations. So don't expect much from me. /7
I mean, just look at this:
"as efficient competitor test" + "revenue-sharing agreements" = 58 characters.
What do you expect?
Over and out. /ends [self-suspends twitter account]
"as efficient competitor test" + "revenue-sharing agreements" = 58 characters.
What do you expect?
Over and out. /ends [self-suspends twitter account]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
