Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses

Google Says India Anti-Trust Ruling Could Cause 'Irreparable Harm' and Reputational Loss to the Company (reuters.com) 53

Google has said an Indian antitrust ruling that found it was guilty of search bias could cause "irreparable" harm and reputational loss to the company, Reuters reported Thursday, citing a legal document. From the report: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) in February fined Google $20 million for abusing its position in online web search and also slammed the company for preventing its partners from using competing search services. After the ruling, Google had said the verdict raised only "narrow concerns," but in its plea challenging the CCI's ruling the search giant signaled the impact could be far greater. The order, the company said, "requires Google to change the way it conducts business in India on a lasting basis and the way it designs its search results page in India," according to a copy of its plea which was seen exclusively by Reuters. The CCI, among other things, had ordered Google to stop imposing restrictions on its direct search agreements with other publishers.

Google Says India Anti-Trust Ruling Could Cause 'Irreparable Harm' and Reputational Loss to the Company

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Make them poo in their own loos.
  • Translation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zmaragdus ( 1686342 ) on Thursday May 17, 2018 @12:08PM (#56627464)
    "Preventing us from doing the things we do now to make money will cause us to make less money." --- Google
    • by Anonymous Coward

      More specific translation:

      "Preventing us from exercising our monopoly and skewing search results to that it benefits our or our partner's business will hurt out Business."

    • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

      Pretty sure it was "Preventing us from fucking consumers, and then lying to them about what we're doing." -- Google

    • "I object!"

      "On what grounds?"

      "It's devastating to my case!"

      "Overruled."

      "Good call!"

      Google's argument sounds a bit like the one here in Liar Liar, (quoted from memory, forgive me if I've missed something).
  • America First.

    Google does from the search engine its own results's generator based in a controlled measure of what things should show their first rows.

    And it does sort their priorities by U.S. interests.

    For instance, when an Internet user wants to search products, Google will show 1st the U.S. products before than the national products.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Google does from the search engine its own results's generator based in a controlled measure of what things should show their first rows.

      Um, what? If you didn't have a stroke while typing that, I think I just had one trying to understand that... :(

      WTF?

    • WTF are you talking about. Which American interests?

      You do realize there are a lot of Americans who are disgusted with Google's manipulation of SE results; or demonetizing YouTube videos of people who don't pass their ideological filter.

      Google is quickly getting to the point that it has no friends anywhere. Their "Do No Evil" slogan will come back to haunt them.
  • Should we fly our flags at half mast
  • But I read that as, "Irreparable Ham", and I was scared for a moment.
  • by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Thursday May 17, 2018 @12:37PM (#56627642)
    Wouldn't google's prior actions, and not the ruling against those actions, be the reason for google to lose its reputation?
    • No. Secret actions, by definition, don't cause reputation damage. Similarly, it's arrests and convictions, not committing criminal acts, that puts you in jail.

      • ...Secret actions, by definition, don't cause reputation damage. Similarly, it's arrests and convictions, not committing criminal acts, that puts you in jail. ...

        I see (and somewhat agree with) what you're saying. But if the acts were not committed in the first place...

      • No, I would disagree with your statement, although it is technically correct.

        When we look for the cause of something, we are looking for an event or action that is the least reasonably expected, and/or one that was by least coerced choice.

        For example, if some sniper shoots a car driver and the car swerves into a deep ravine, we don't say that the crash was caused by the driver slumping over the wheel as s/he died, or by the presence of the ravine, because slumping is what a dead body naturally does, and the

  • by houghi ( 78078 )

    Thatis why they did it. Togibe you less power.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Whenever you setup Android or install Chrome, you should be offered a choice of search engine

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Luckily for google and others, the penalty in India is nominal. Had they done the same in US or Europe, the million would have changed to billion.

  • I notice Google did NOT claim the finding is WRONG!
    if Google is guilty of allowing bias in search, those harmed have a valid civil case for reimbursment, and if that bias is systemic, those harmed have the valid right to order those services terminated until the failure is repaired.
    it's costing someones LARGE money losses in lost opportunity costs.

If graphics hackers are so smart, why can't they get the bugs out of fresh paint?

Working...