Google Alleges India Antitrust Body Copied Parts of EU Order on Android Abuse (reuters.com) 36
Google has told a tribunal in India that the country's antitrust investigators copied parts of a European ruling against the U.S. firm for abusing the market dominance of its Android operating system, arguing the decision be quashed, legal papers show. From a report: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) in October fined Alphabet's Google $161 million for exploiting its dominant position in markets such as online search and the Android app store, and asked it to change restrictions imposed on smartphone makers related to pre-installing apps.
In its filing to an Indian appeals tribunal, Google argues the CCI's investigation unit "copy-pasted extensively from a European Commission decision, deploying evidence from Europe that was not examined in India." "There are more than 50 instances of copypasting," in some cases "word-for-word," and the watchdog erroneously dismissed the issue, Google said in its filing which is not public but has been reviewed by Reuters. "The Commission failed to conduct an impartial, balanced, and legally sound investigation ... Google's mobile app distribution practices are pro-competitive and not unfair/ exclusionary."
In its filing to an Indian appeals tribunal, Google argues the CCI's investigation unit "copy-pasted extensively from a European Commission decision, deploying evidence from Europe that was not examined in India." "There are more than 50 instances of copypasting," in some cases "word-for-word," and the watchdog erroneously dismissed the issue, Google said in its filing which is not public but has been reviewed by Reuters. "The Commission failed to conduct an impartial, balanced, and legally sound investigation ... Google's mobile app distribution practices are pro-competitive and not unfair/ exclusionary."
That's funny... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No?
Re: That's funny... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
If that's covered in the article. I didn't bother reading. This is Slashdot, after all. But even in a different jurisdiction, if the entirety of the argument is, "They copied someone else's homework," it's a pretty lackluster effort, even for lawyers. It's entirely possible it's the same reasoning in a different jurisdiction. I guess I was just flat-out making fun of the summary's wording.
Re: That's funny... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the complaint is the same, in regards to global market share etc... then whoever wrote it doesn't matter.
They're entering evidence to a court case, Google's abuses of market position are a global issue. India's issues are the same as the EU's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, the British East India Company brought the Common Law to India, and its influence continues to this day [lex-warrier.in], so the legal systems are based in part on the same underpinnings. It's not surprising if they are generally compatible.
Re: (Score:1)
No, but country A should go after them for what they did in country A, with reference to country A's rules, not what they did in country B compared to country B's rules.
Re: That's funny... (Score:2)
Re: That's funny... (Score:3)
Only Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only Google tries to get out of an antitrust lawsuit by claiming bit of a ruling from another antitrust lawsuit they lost elsewhere are inadmissible as evidence. They have very creative - and shameless - attorneys.
Re: (Score:1)
Any smart attorney would question whether "found guilty of something somewhere else" was given more weight than it deserves in a current proceeding.
Re:Only Google... (Score:4)
So, laws vary from place to place, and behavior may be different from place to place, so... it's a pretty straight-forward argument. If the prosecutors in India just copied and pasted a bunch of things that happened in the EU on the assumption that they also happened in India (and are also against the law in India), that's pretty much inexcusable. Also, if Google has already been punished by the EU for things done in the EU, India doesn't have a right to also punish them for the same events.
Just because you don't like the target doesn't mean that misconduct by prosecutors should be accepted.
Re: (Score:3)
If the prosecutors in India just copied and pasted a bunch of things that happened in the EU on the assumption that they also happened in India (and are also against the law in India), that's pretty much inexcusable.
If, then. Is Google even alleging that? Google's allegations aren't public, we're depending on a vague secondhand report from Reuters.
Just because you don't like the target doesn't mean that misconduct by prosecutors should be accepted.
Just because you do doesn't mean misconduct occurred.
Re: Only Google... (Score:2)
+1 informative
Maybe... (Score:2)
#becauseEuropeSaidSo (Score:1)
And so ?!? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Android has been copied from linux...
Un, no. Android is Linux. Actually, Android is a Java GUI running on top of a custom Linux kernel. That isn't copying. As long as Android follows the GPL License that Linux is released under, it is fine. Where did you get the idea that Android was copied from Linux? That isn't at all how OpenSource works.
copy-pasted word for word (Score:3)
"There are more than 50 instances of copypasting," in some cases "word-for-word,"
So there were some instances of non word-for-word copypasting, what does that mean!
Re: copy-pasted word for word (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One pastes it twice, one above the other. One changes words, word order, some other things on one of the pasties, ending up with the same basic info and ideas, which goes into your new document. If one has made it through college, one has the skills. Heck, nowadays, middle school.
Isn't that how laws are written? (Score:3)
For example, take a look at your city's parking requirements. Do you think your city's planners carefully study parking? Do they conduct surveys at various times of day, various days of the week and various times of the year to decide that each restaurant needs 1 parking space for every 3 seats, and that a bank or an office needs 1 space for every 200 square feet of floor space, and a plant nursery needs 1 space for every 1,000 square feet of sales space? Do they ask the business owner how many spaces should be required?
No, of course not. That's all too much work. They just copy the same law from another city [dallascityhall.com]. Done.
Re: Isn't that how laws are written? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Its parts of a document ie judgement that were copies into current judgement / order / chargesheet etc.
Not any legal accusation / process. Which anyway makes no sense - how do you copy a legal process ?
The legal process will be very similar all over the world for many cities/countries.
The accusation/chargesheet will obviously be similar to 1000's of cases. If you murder someone then its going to accuse you of murder, not some novel nomenclature
For small cases judgements are so similar court even have prepri
Re: (Score:2)
So if you get a parking ticket in one city, do think it's okay for another city to use a photocopy of the same ticket in their effort to fine you too? This isn't the law that's been copied but charges.
And we're also not talking about trivial standardization like building/zoning codes, so I'm betting India didn't copy EU law. Also, national laws are written with lots of local study (bureaucrats and lobbyists have to earn a living too).
Re: (Score:1)
:) They do. And good luck ever getting out of it by saying its a copy of some other city's ticket
What's good for the goose... (Score:3)
But when the likes of Google use their lobbyists in the USA to have nearly carbon copy legislation ("model legislation") put forth in multiple state legislatures, that's just good business.
https://www.usatoday.com/pages... [usatoday.com]
Just because India copied language from Europe to articulate India's own problems, doesn't mean it's not true or invalid.
Re: (Score:2)
So what. Many countries look to other legal systems for "precedent" when they don't have any relevant precedent in their own country. In this case, India looked at the EU, which until recently the UK was part of and large swathes of Indian law predate 1947 and thus were basically made up by the UK. Consequently, it would be entirely reasonable for an Indian court to look to an antitrust judgment that was relevant in the UK, and copy parts of it that they thought were relevant into their own judgment. If you
So What? (Score:3)
If you're pulling the same shit in another country.
Maybe they Googled it (Score:3)
I mean, finding stuff and using it yourself is Google's whole thing, isn't it?
Wish we were all allowed such excuses as corps (Score:1)
I wish we were all allowed to give such excuses to get out of parking tickets and other mild criminal infringements
Almost all complicated judgments replicate / quote multiple previous judgements and copy entire paragraphs and pages or language extensively.
And most simple, short judgements for small stuff are verbatim copy of each other & many courts have them as preprinted Forms with a few details to be filled out by the judge that the clerks will then type out.
Much better than what i saw while staying