Trump Slams EU Over $5 Billion Fine on Google (reuters.com) 502
U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday criticized the European Union and said the bloc was taking advantage of the United States, pointing to the record $5 billion fine European antitrust regulators imposed on Google. From a report: European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker is scheduled to meet with Trump at the White House next Wednesday to discuss trade and other issues. "I told you so! The European Union just slapped a Five Billion Dollar fine on one of our great companies, Google. They truly have taken advantage of the U.S., but not for long!" Trump said in a post on Twitter .
TRUMP! (Score:3, Funny)
Trump posted something on Twitter? Well that's worth an entire post.
Can't we just link it to twitter? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, enough posts about trump making asinine comments, it stopped being funny in 2016. I am outside US, I am sick of comment section filled with right vs left.
Hows the job market where you live? Those of us not outside the US may have to consider alternatives. And not solely because of Trump these days.
Re:Can't we just link it to twitter? (Score:4, Insightful)
No it is becoming tiring. Not one fucking article is free of someone from either side mentioning Trump. Every single day the biggest headline is what Trump said or did. Reddit is the worst because the entire site is dedicated to removing him from office. I looked at voat.co but its mostly tin foil hat conspiracy theorists who are stuck in the 1970s.
Greatest Irish company (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah Google are such patriots they moved their whole operations to Ireland to avoid contributing anything to the USA, combined with their little Luxembourg sandwiches meaning Trumps secretary probably contributes more, hence your infrastructure is crumbling around you while certain individuals make out like the bandits they are
LOL MAGA
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me you wouldn't do the same thing to save shitloads of money?
Re:Greatest Irish company (Score:5, Informative)
Looking at last Quarter's statement:
https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/2... [abc.xyz]
Alphabet paid ~$1.1B in taxes in Q1 (quarter of the year). It amounts to roughly ~11%. So while a fairly low rate, it's complete hyperbole to say they don't contribute *anything* to the Federal budget.
That doesn't take into account the payroll taxes, Medicare taxes and income taxes of their employees. Realistically, corporate taxes don't make sense. Tax the investors -- they can't move overseas.
Insane... (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU has to regulate their markets in a way that suits their needs. There's no universal principle which dictates how to regulate a capitalist economy. There's no "one size fits all" solution.
Most US Presidents can hardly manage their own economy. I hardly think they are qualified (or have sufficient information) to make a call for a foreign economy.
If Google was found in violation in the EU- it's their call. Google can negotiate.
Trump, might be considered to be defending one of our companies. Though the action is only impressive if the observer is totally clueless.
Re:Insane... (Score:5, Interesting)
I love to break it to you but he does speak on behalf of all Americans. He is the leader of the nation and the top diplomat. He is your president. :)
If those frustrated people wanted to "piss off liberals" judging your post (and past posts) then it seems like mission accomplished.
thrown at me for daring to speak against
Actually, speaking from experience, any pro-Trump comment is modded to oblivion with a lot of toxic responses. No one is afraid to speak out against Trump. Literally no one. More people are afraid to speak in defense of anything Conservative. Especially, if you are surrounded by left wingers. Just look at Hollywood and Universities. As a recent example, see Mark Duplass and the Tweet he made saying Ben Shapiro's intentions are good and the subsequent backlash of left wingers. How dare he!
Daring to speak against Trump? lol. Sure thing buddy.
Google Went too far, the remedy will be worse (Score:5, Insightful)
The real smoking gun for Google is that they forbid phone makers from releasing *any* android phone that is not on their Google Play platform. If a company wanted any Google Play supported phone, they *all* had to be Google Play phones. That's a big no no and obvious abuse of Monopoly power.
However.... just like the time Microsoft was forced to stop dictating what software is pre-installed on PC's, government regulation here is just going to make things worse for consumers. For all it's faults and obscene privacy invasion, Google is a relatively benign overlord. If they loose the ability to dictate how phones are pre-configured, the end result will not be a utopia of phone carefully pre-configured to protect end-user privacy. It will be phone makers selling out and pre-configuring phones with malicious advertisement hijacking search engines, and app repositories stuffed with even more malware than Google's Play store.
Re: (Score:2)
Problably wont happen but I keep thinking it would be interesting if the response to one of these fines would just the be company being fined geofencing all of their devices/services and seeing what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Google does sell some premium handsets with their own branding now. And there's a couple third parties (OnePlus?) that sell a pretty clean stock Android. (Obviously you could still unlock any other handset and deal with custom roms and all the issues there in to get a clean install). I wish someone would go after the carriers for all the privacy invading and battery eating bloatware that they load down phones with.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm.... no the remedy is just right (Score:2)
However.... just like the time Microsoft was forced to stop dictating what software is pre-installed on PC's, government regulation here is just going to make things worse for consumers. For all it's faults and obscene privacy invasion, Google is a relatively benign overlord. If they loose the ability to dictate how phones are pre-configured, the end result will not be a utopia of phone carefully pre-configured to protect end-user privacy. It will be phone makers selling out and pre-configuring phones with malicious advertisement hijacking search engines, and app repositories stuffed with even more malware than Google's Play store.
Well, for one thing this is only an issue for Google in the EU and in that neck of the woods there will not be a bonanza of “pre-configuring phones with malicious advertisement hijacking search engines, and app repositories stuffed with even more malware than Google's Play store. Anybody selling phone a like that in the EU will be having a rather serious discussion with the EU comission about some very large fines. But, fret not, Google will be free to continue its anti-competitive practices outside o
Taken advantage? WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey idiot, do you understand that Google are the ones who are taking advantage of everybody on the fucking planet, including your own stupid ass?
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet America... (Score:2)
Textbook monopoly abuse (Score:4, Insightful)
I love Google, but what they did was textbook abuse of a monopoly. They established a monopoly, and then used that monopoly to force their other products onto consumers and companies. That's just a textbook version of abusing your monopoly power. Then they also made the mistake of not just doing that, but forcing major corporations with massive lobbying power like Samsung to ship their products. EU regulates competition tightly, and enforces this against EU companies just as fiercefully as against US companies. Google could have seen this one coming from miles. They probably just thought this type of fine and ruling was a fair price to pay for it.
isnt google a us company (Score:2)
I don't get it (Score:2)
How is what Google did considered monopolistic practices? First of all, Google does not have a monopoly on mobile phones. Apple is doing just fine in that arena and if you don't like the conditions that Google imposes then go get an iPhone. This is not like the Microsoft case where, at the time, well over 90% of all personal computers were running Windows and there was no viable alternative.
I thought the whole idea of having a "store" to download apps was to help protect users from getting malware on their
Re:He's your president (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you, Mr. Putin, we already know what you think.
Re:He's your president (Score:5, Funny)
I bet you have never held an original thought in your life. Waiting for someone to tell you into what to think?
Thank you, Mr. Trump, we already know what you think.
That's ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Obama and the Dems were wrong about Russia in 2012 and since then we've seen Russia shoot down MH-17, attack Ukraine, take over Crimea, threaten Europe and attempt to assassinate people in Britain just for starters.
Why is Russia suddenly considered trustworthy now?
And Obama didn't do enough to combat Russia back in 2016.
Why does that justify ignoring it now?
And why is Trump trying to scare people into thinking nuclear war is the only alternative to playing into Putin's hands?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Awesome, I'm all for paying for Android if I get an option NOT to install Google Play Services and other crapware.
Re:I don't agree with Trump about much... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody in the EU is saying that Google charging for Android is a bad thing. They are saying that illegal trade practices like forcing certain services and applications upon vendors of smartphones, is a bad thing.
If Google must charge for Android in order not to do that, then charge for Android.
One of our great companies (Score:2, Insightful)
"One of our great companies"
Yep, one that played a key role in turning us into a surveillance society, where your children and especially grand children will grow up knowing nothing but mass surveillance and think "privacy" only applies to other individuals (not corporations) -- as they were taught by their masters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only think that seems unreasonable about it to me is the bit about "if you make any phones with the Play store and Google shit, all your phones have to include it". Assuming that Fire phones don't corrupt Android, they why should Samsung or Motorola not be allowed to do the same.
Of course, Fire phones may well corrupt Android if their replacements for Google services don't work with all apps. At that point, Android is no longer a single platform for developers - and selling your fork as Android would
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you mean the same stuff where apple is even worse and i dont see them getting picked on.
First, that's whataboutism. But I'll let it pass because it's got a bit of a point here but there's also a fine distinction. So, starting out, you aren't wrong to an extent. You've got a pretty good point and it's worth talking about.
Direct and indirect. Google is indirect, so changes they make affect them indirectly. Apple is direct so changes they make directly affect them. Now that doesn't invalidate the bundling issue you bring up, b-u-t, we don't have a really clear legal guidance on that... YET.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It actually does lead to performance issues though. The SD card is orders of magnitude slower. And -- especially Samsung's software -- uses a lot of paging due to its high memory usage.
Not to mention apps loaded from the SD load really slow (noticeably).
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Absolutely! Android sucks because of GOogle. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd be surprised if the Android operating system has exceeded the 8GB capacity limits, though it may be close. I suspect that the 32GB SD card the GP has is largely empty and unused. Methinks there is more to the story,...
Re: Absolutely! Android sucks because of GOogle. (Score:4, Informative)
In this day and age, 8GB *is* nothing for a phone. That barely holds the OS. I have a 16GB Android tablet and the damn thing only had 6GB free after the OS and the non-removable apps when it came out of the package. These days for an Android device 32GB is what I would consider bare minimum if you intend to use it for anything other than phone calls and texts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I don't agree with Trump about much... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah. That really saved Microsoft from being fined.
Oh Wait... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:I don't agree with Trump about much... (Score:5, Informative)
Google can still give one version with crap apps away for free and a license for a crap-free version. I'd gladly pay extra for more choice. The problem is that Google tried to force the shit version on everyone.
Re: I don't agree with Trump about much... (Score:2)
The EU's interests in maintaining a free market and diverse ecosystem aside, I don't think a case can be made that Google forced anything on anyone. Google Android phones are popular for many reasons, and avoiding paying more for an OS is a free-market concept, which means market competition pushed for the Google Android OS we have currently.
Interesting thing to note is that this co
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Google can still give one version with crap apps away for free and a license for a crap-free version. I'd gladly pay extra for more choice. The problem is that Google tried to force the shit version on everyone.
Phone manufacturers are not forced to use Android.
Phone customers are not forced to buy a phone that uses the Android OS.
If customers don't like Android, the apps, or the phone company customisations they should buy something else
Re: (Score:3)
They *do* give a version away for free, as in beer and libre, and it comes with all the choice you want - it's called AOSP. Fully open-source, comes with zero Google spyware, has a suite of basic apps you can ignore or replace, you can take your pick of app stores (e.g F-Droid) or just sideload. And it happily runs the vast majority of Android apps - everything that doesn't specifically require a Google service. Best of all, there is a thriving community creating many dozens of variants that can be easily i
Change banks (Score:2)
Its exactly the same as what happened when people starting bitching about various bank charges. So now the banks dropped the charges and instead a lot of them charge you a flat fee just to have an account.
Funny my bank doesn't charge me anything except for reasonable rates on insurance and 9% apr on my credit card.
They said if I overdraft my bank account they will charge me 6 dollars unless I call them a day in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly don't understand what Open Source is, or the point of it. Read
Its exactly the same as what happened when people starting bitching about various bank charges. So now the banks dropped the charges and instead a lot of them charge you a flat fee just to have an account. Nice going people, thanks for that.
Hey dummy, QUIT USING BANKS!
Re: (Score:2)
"You clearly don't understand what Open Source is, or the point of it. Read"
You seem to be confusing charging for the source code with charging for a build that includes closed source code. Perhaps you should learn to read yourself.
"Hey dummy, QUIT USING BANKS! Use a credit union. That's your own fault."
We don't all live in our parents basement or in the 3rd world. Some of us require the various facilities of a proper bank to do business.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us require the various facilities of a proper bank to do business.
A credit union can do a lot of what a "proper bank" does. One of the main difference is that instead of being insured under the FDIC they are insured by the NCUA.
From what I understand, (at least through the Credit Union I use) is that as a member you have an equal share of ownership in the Credit Union. Which is why to qualify there are more restrictions. Mine, as an example, requires you to be employed by or retired from a member firm or employer or a blood relative to current member.
Another difference is
Re: (Score:2)
We run millions of dollars each month through our credit unions. Banks are for suckers.
Re: (Score:3)
It's been said many times that the USA concentrates on price when litigating anti-trust cases—did prices go up because of monopoly pressure? If yes, then that constitutes damage to the consumer, and that warrants some sort of penalty or correction.
By contrast, the EU focuses on competition. Does it look like a dominant player is using their power to quash competitors and thereby harm the consumer on the much longer term by denying them access to services or products that might be better?
I think it's c
Re: (Score:3)
To put it simply: If you don't like the laws in a particular market, there's nothing that forces you to do business in said market
Whacked for exact same reason Microsoft was (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: I don't agree with Trump about much... (Score:3)
That's funny. I don't think I've ever paid a fee at any of several credit unions. There might be a minimum deposit, but it's refundable if you leave.
Re: (Score:3)
> Credit unions are required to charge an opening fee of some sort.
That's not a *fee*. That's buying shares in the Union. When you close your account you have to sell the shares and you get money back for it. In my case when I joined a credit union I paid I think it was around $20 to purchase those shares. Through the last 20+ years with dividends and the share price rise, splits, new issues, etc, my credit union shares are now worth just over $300. Makes me wish I could have bought more as an inves
Re: (Score:2)
A new president? Or a new precedent? Because the USA already has a precedent in this exact situation -- Microsoft and IE.
Google probably makes a few more than $5b from the EU markets. But unless there is more to this than a fine, then DJT is right... it's just a money grab. The ruling as it stands doesn't flat out require them to change their business practices, just levies fines for non-compliance. And at a paltry 5% of their daily take in the EU. So they can continue this practice indefinitely and just p
Re:not for long (Score:5, Interesting)
>So they can continue this practice indefinitely and just pay the tax if they want.
That's pretty much standard for corporations, regardless. Fines are pretty much the only punishments applicable to corporations, short of dissolving their charter or banning them from doing business.
So, corporation breaks law, corporation gets fined, corporation pays fine and continues breaking the law because paying the fine is more profitable than obeying the law - that's how it's been done the world over for decades - Microsoft was notorious for that. The EU seems to have taken the lead however in establishing future fines as well, so that the company doesn't have to be re-sued for continuing to break the law, they just automatically get continuing fines so long as they're not in compliance, which increases their cost and decreases costs on the legal system.
I would like to see it go a step further myself. Say a 10% increase for every month they continue to break the law. Make sure their bean counters can see the oncoming storm of exponential growth looming in the future, so that they have serious incentive to set things right, rather than just regarding it as an overhead cost of doing business.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In the reporting I've read there is no mention of the fines increasing as time goes on-- only that they will be subject to a 5% revenue fine. The appeal of the current case could take years... by the time this is all settled, Google may well have found a way around Android, and starting this whole fight all over again.
If the EU wanted more than money (which it desperately can use), it could use many other legal mechanisms to resolve the issue. But why would they want to actually resolve the issue when they
Re:not for long (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't though - they're no more a US company that any other international corporation. They have offices and data centers all over the world, and the always popular Irish tax-dodging offices to hide their profits.
If they don't want to comply with EU law, they're quite welcome to simply not do business in the EU - geoblocking is quite simple, and the EU can block them as well. But that would means giving up all the profit from selling ads targeting Europeans.
Re:not for long (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: not for long (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not for long (Score:5, Insightful)
Only problem with this "brilliant" plan is that the European leadership knows exactly what the purpose behind the sanctions is and in the case of Junker and Macron have even publicly stated that they can see this and won't come to the negotiating table while the sanctions are still in place.
As for why he's using sanctions in particular is that it's about the trade deficit he's obsessed with he knows that sanctions against countries and blocks that the U.S has a trade deficit with will be more effective than any return sanctions they may impose on him instead. This is the only part of it that makes any kind of sense, but it's kind of negated by the fact that the targets can retaliate trough alternative means like refusing to recognize U.S physical or intellectual property rights, which then swings the balance in their favor.
Re: (Score:2)
he knows that sanctions against countries and blocks that the U.S has a trade deficit with will be more effective than any return sanctions they may impose on him instead
Maybe not. When a US company moves jobs out of an area the local politicians seem to get a lot more blame than in Europe. We have seen this at work already with the tariffs on Harley Davidson bikes and how pissed off people are about those jobs going overseas.
Also, the EU is more politically diverse than the US. Lots of national governments, no big federal administration or powerful politicians to blame.
In other words the EU can probably hurt Trump far more than he can hurt the EU, but attacking his base an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did anybody ever tell you that you're a fucking moron?
Re:not for long (Score:5, Insightful)
This $5B is simple a "protection racket", just like the mob.
No. Google (much as I admire their products) broke the EU law. Maybe you could read up on the complaint, it's pretty clear. (The EU - unlike the US - has a history of not being a complete pushover to corporate interests.)
I'd agree that nothing the EU can do will "attack the base" of Trump. By definition his base believe what he says, so I don't think anything is going to change that.
FWIW, I believe that the Google fine is NOT politically motivated, so maybe I'm irrational too.
Re: (Score:3)
"I'd agree that nothing the EU can do will "attack the base" of Trump. By definition his base believe what he says, so I don't think anything is going to change that."
We don't necessarily believe what he says, we just don't give a shit about the trivialities. The stuff he says that aren't right are trivial - the size of his crowds on inauguration day, for instance. If that's wrong, does anybody bleed? Does anyone lose money? Nope, its just an inaccurate statement. What he says that counts is accurat
Re:not for long (Score:5, Insightful)
And he will continue to attempt and fail to bring jobs back from outside the country
Fixed that for you.
Not putting America first (Score:4, Insightful)
... because International trade is not a zero sum game, trade barriers harm American interests. Then I don't expect his base to understand that, but they will understand the mass unemployment that is coming their way as a result of his and your ignorance of Economics 101.
While the targets, such as the EU, Japan, the rest world with trade more with each other.
EU signs its biggest free trade deal with Japan [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
I think they will realize that he isn't putting America first when their jobs get shipped overseas because of retaliatory tariffs, or even his own tariffs on the components that go into their products.
Re: (Score:3)
What you don't seem to realize that those losing good manufacturing jobs _are_ getting different jobs, but the "different" jobs pay a fraction of what they were making. That is the scenario when good-paying manufacturing jobs leave the country, and those that were doing those jobs get puke retail jobs at minimum wage, or slightly above it. Trump is trying to put a stop to that. Some retail jobs may go away, but manufacturing jobs will replace them. That is a good thing. We need manufacturing jobs.
Re:not for long (Score:5, Insightful)
You are giving el Presidente Tweetie too much credit. In his mind, the R voters don't like free trade agreements (they haven't yet lost jobs by losing those) and he can understand one number...at a time. The Big Number he's capable of understanding is the trade deficit number, but only as a number. He gets nothing else about trade because he has a mercantilism view of trade. He also knows that he can use that number in tweets and those go well with big stupid numbers and Fox...well they would seeing as they are essentially a mouth-organ for sound bites that his base likes.
Couple that with his distorted view to bargaining between nations which he figures should be just like bargaining for investment dollars. He bargained by promoting a dream that made the foolish banks and others bet money on him. His 4-6 bankruptcies showed how foolish that is. However, governments do not work like that, at least mature European governments and some Asian governments. They see trade as being something much more complicated, which it is.
When Trump doesn't get people or governments to give what he wants, he acts like the 15 year he is. He resorts to threats. It's worked for him before when he was holding other peoples money and they wanted to withdraw it. He threatens them with a loss. He doesn't really have a loss to threaten anyone with here except his trade deficit number. But since he never understood what that number represented beyond just a number, he ascribes to it all sorts of magical properties which translates in his mind of governments giving him what he wants.
Re: (Score:3)
However, governments do not work like that,
See what Trump said when he was told a country is not a golf course.
At one point, Mr. Trump even compared his renovation of Trump Turnberry to how he is hoping to overhaul the United States. When a reporter pointed out — correctly — that a country is hardly a golf course, Mr. Trump replied: “No it’s not, but you’ll be amazed how similar it is. It’s a place that has to be fixed.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0... [nytimes.com]
God help us if he fixes the US like he "fixed" Turnberry, which has been losing money ever since he bought it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:not for long (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it does not. This is what we've been mostly doing over the last 30 years when our workers' wages have stagnated for the last 30 years. This way of doing things has seen the near-collapse of our manufacturing base, with widespread underemployment and unemployment and Trump is putting a stop to it.
Nicely done getting all worked up about the first half of a sentence while ignoring the critical second half! The near-collapse of our manufacturing base is because it's cheaper to make things in other countries. Correct. But you ignored the second half of that very sentence which said,
...and spend the resources we'd have normally spent making it on something we can do more efficiently.
That's the missing part. We haven't done that. What "we've" done is pocket the money we saved and failed to reinvest it back into another product or service. You know, those things created by people doing a thing we call a job.
Just because the US has failed on this doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
Isolationist trade policies make just about everything cost more while everyone else willing to trade globally gets cheaper goods and services, and a higher quality of life. The issue isn't in the global market. It's in the the social and political systems that deny the full benefit of the global market from a subset of the population.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Europe can win in an economic battle, but there will be a cost to it. You can slowly change your relationship over time, that way if EU wants to stop playing nice the harm will be minimal. say a 5% hit. Vs now which can be a 60% hit.
Re: (Score:2)
Failed states by what metric?
Apply the same metric to the states in the US and report back.
Re: (Score:2)
CA, NY and TX have some kind of influence or power. The other 47 or so are pretty much failed states.
Re: (Score:2)
the world is going to find ways to uncouple its dependence on the US, as it is becoming considered too irrational and unpredictable
This is probably true but are the alternatives really better? Maybe in the short run.
I think the Europeans have an incredible situation at the expense of the US. I don't think the current situation is as favorable to the US as it should be for mutual reciprocity. Any long term relationship must be beneficial for both parties. While it maybe beneficial to US interests to ensure EU stability at some point the costs do not out weigh the benefits. The geopolitics have changed and the US EU relationship must be
Re: (Score:2)
The EU is getting mightily close with China these days. And trade with China would prove -- especially over the next decade or 2 -- way more lucrative.
A wholistic Asian-European-African alliance would be interesting. Russia acting as the military arm to provide security. China as the production and financial engine (supplanting the US). EU as the research, educational and cultural engine (supplanting the US). Africa as the raw materials and labor engine (China's already investing there to turn it into such)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Means the world is going to find ways to uncouple its dependence on the US, as it is becoming considered too irrational and unpredictable.
The recent debacle where Trump badmouths our European allies and praises Putin, then I saw on CSPAN this 1958 film "Why NATO" thinking how much has changed in 60 years https://www.c-span.org/video/?... [c-span.org] particularly attitudes back then when a visiting Republican president was there since previous visit as the Supreme Allied Commander of WWII.
I'm thinking Putin has effectively weakened the alliance between US and NATO, much more effectively than his predecessors all without the use of military hardware. Als
Re: (Score:3)
Trumps actions isn't going to help. It will just strengthen the EU Resolve to enforce it.
Sometimes trumps twitters are entertaining. Sometimes he is is own worse enemy. Maybe we should fit trump with a shock collar and get the remote to his secret service goons.
"Sir are you on twitter?"
"No...."
Burrrzaaapppp
Re: EU has always been tough on US companies. (Score:3, Informative)
Post WW2, where they turned up late, the US has preferred fighting wars against small countries who can't fight back like Panama or Grenada. Anything bigger and it tends to get its ass whipped, eg. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, okay, even small countries can whip the US of A's ass. All those tax dollars spent on weapons and they still can't win. Sad!
Re: (Score:3)
The US Military has been primed for Full Scale War, Where everyone in the border is a target.
The problem is politically most of us don't fall for the propaganda of the Evil Enemy. But a bunch of innocent people caught in a tough situation between bad leaders. So we can't just bomb a country capital plant a flag and declare victory. We need to win hearts and minds. This is why we havn't been winning small wars. Because post WWII We learned that we cant just go killing everything just to win. Because you
Re: (Score:2)
Unless Germany decides to align itself with Russia?
However most stable countries and leaders are able to compartmentalize Economic disputes with military ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
wheres the fine for apple who is way more closed off then android.
Apple isn't preventing other companies from manufacturing potentially competing products. From a consumer point of view, Apple's behavior isn't any better than Google's, but legally there's a difference, since Apple isn't using their monopoly position to force behavior from other companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing at all since the EU also fined VW
https://www.theguardian.com/bu... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I hadn't commented. You need modded up.