European Justice (Vengeance?): First Microsoft, now Google in the crosshairs of EU regulators
February 25, 2010 34
Email article | Print article 
The Americas and Europe have had their disagreements in the past; apparently, in this case, the “past” does not necessarily mean history, because recent events seem to foretell that the friction is alive and well! The EU is well known for its seeming hatred dislike of Microsoft (or Microsoft’s business practices, whichever you prefer). First in 2004 they demanded that Microsoft release a version of Windows XP for Europe without Windows Media Player. Microsoft compiled and created Windows XP N. Then in 2009 the EU decided that shipping Windows 7 with Internet Explorer was also illegal. At first Microsoft said they would give Windows 7 the XP treatment and release a version of Windows 7 without Internet Explorer, called Windows 7 E. Now no one can say Europeans don’t learn from their mistakes, because after the Windows XP N fiasco (no one bought it), Windows 7 E did not seem so appealing. So instead Microsoft is releasing an update to Windows 7 that presents the user with a randomly ordered list of other browses for users to install, including Chrome, Safari, Firefox, and Opera or to keep Internet Explorer. However, this article is not about taking sides and deciding if EU was/is right on regulating Microsoft or not; I just wanted to give you a brief history on the EU-Microsoft relationship and, at the same time, use it as a segway for the topic at hand: A European target on Google’s back.
In late 2006, students at a school in Turin, Italy uploaded a video to Google Video of them bullying an autistic schoolmate. As soon as Google was notified, they took down the video and helped Italian authorities track down the offenders. Most would agree Google reacted well in the situation and did right by taking down the video ASAP and helping Italian authorities; so the case closed, right? Wrong. A public prosecutor in Milan decided to indict four Google employees of criminal defamation and a failure to comply with the Italian privacy code over this incident. On February 24, a judge in Milan today convicted 3 of the 4 employees and found them guilty of failing to comply with Italian privacy code. All 4 were found not guilty of criminal defamation. Drama doesn’t end there, though.
On the same day as the conviction, Google announced on its Google Public Policy Blog that 3 European companies, Foundem, ejustice.fr, and Ciao! from Bing, levied complaints against Google to the EU. According to Google, the three companies are charging Google with demoting their websites in search results because they are vertical search engines. Neither the EU nor any of companies from Europe have confirmed this as of now, but one would hardly think Google would publicly make an announcement if it held no little truth to it.
It seems Europe has had its fun with Microsoft and is now moving on to Google. Is it that Europe hate American tech powerhouses, or Europe is just more strict about “fair competition” (whatever that term may imply – keep in mind much of Europe is less capitalistic in terms of markets than the USA)? In that regard, it should also be mentioned that some of the companies that supposedly levied complaints against Google (remember the complaints have not been confirmed by the EU yet) have ties to Microsoft so to say Europe has an agenda against American companies would a tiny, itty-bitty stretch of the truth.
Feel free to share your thoughts on the matter in the comments below.
(Please keep in this mind this article is not pro/anti Europe, America, Google, Microsoft, etc. The humor in the article is just that – humor. We do no intend to take sides; rather we are just reporting the juicy details.)
[via PCMag.com]
![This is Google Glass from the eyes of a toddler [Video]](http://cdn.dottech.org/media/2013/05/googleglass2-134x90.jpg)
![Running Windows is more painful than torture [Comic]](http://cdn.dottech.org/media/2013/05/klingon_pain_stick_comic-134x90.gif)
@route67:
route67 said – “Here in Italy in some newspapers and blogs you can read testimonials to the fact that the cancellation does not actually occurred so immediately”.
route67 I totally agree with you. Google’s responsibility should not stop merely at “search engine management” but also extend to preventing “something bad” e.g. this video” from reaching public domain.
Google has the world’s largest number of the world’s best mathematicians! They must work on this “type” of problem as well.They must develop an algorithm to stop this “type” of problem. At most it would delay a “file host”. Better to delay hosting/ avoid hosting “bad” files rather than rushing to host “all” files.
“Choosing well” is as important as “hosting fast”. Knowing Google they will find an algorithm which in the future would permit “choosing well” as well as “hosting fast”.
Ramesh :)
@joa1:
joa1 you are absolutely right about what you say.I quote joa1 – “if they can make millions and billions developing smart algorithms to channel ads and pub revenue into their and their investors pockets, they should be able to do same to block such content from being spidered, indexed, promoted, etc”.
Ramesh :)
@Giovanni:
Friend Giovanni you have made so many perceptive & correct observations that quoting all of them would be quoting so many points. :)
1)Politicians in every country of world have “praised or bashed internet” “sometimes” mainly or only to suit their purpose. Often politicians pretend to be noble even when they actually are not. Same is true for companies too. A sad fact.
2)Again you are 100% right. Some countries muzzle the internet &/or search engines more or while others muzzle the internet &/or search engines less.
The search engine guys also go along with it – not just because they suffer (sometimes they are not even bothered) but also because they may gain ads if they accept the muzzle. A sad fact. Sometimes country aka “politicians” pretend to be nobler than the “company”; at other times the “company” pretends to be nobler than the country aka “politicians”.
Since fortunately for all countries there are good politicians too I do feel that 100% “internet muzzle” is as bad as 0% “internet muzzle” simply because in this world of ours everyone is constantly competing even though they do collaborate as well – whether it be company, country or user.
The internet sometimes joins hands with good politicians & good people like you & other good people out here, in stopping a bad thing from happening or at least slowing it down. :)
3)You are 100% right about “privacy issue” as well. By way of solution I have 3 additional thoughts to offer. These are in addition to the point you made that it would be nice if there were a few more search engines too provided those “new” ones breach privacy less. My 3 additional thoughts are:-
a)I wish that EULA’s are not only reviewed & improved but that this improvement is also reported to citizens across the world.
*Oh I am not referring to the fact that EULA should inform the public domain when they get updated. They do that even now. That’s not what I refer to.*
Specifically I refer to 3 EULA clauses. Firstly “zero value indemnification” clause should no longer be allowed because it often (though not always) allows everyone including Google to get away with anything just because they are fully indemnified for zero value.
Secondly “zero person indemnity” clause also should also be stopped forthwith. “Zero person indemnity” extends currently to all directors, employees, 3rd vendors etc etc etc. As a result the app or the company often (though not always) gets away with zero accountability. :(
Thirdly privacy clause is often worded vaguely & privacy breach is often left unverifiable. Sad.
Therefore EULA Audit & Privacy Audit should be allowed by reputed 3rd party auditors (Okay I know that there is a very small tribe of reputed auditors ;) but even then. These Audit results should be posted both on on internet aka “demat” format & also on printed material (e.g. annual reports which are printed aka “mat” format.
Incidentally (although not my main intention ;) in these recession laden times that would also improve GDP of many countries simply because audit firms would do more business ;) Just joking
Ramesh :)
Ramesh :)
@Hyst:
Hyst! :) Wow!
1) Absolutely right. While referring to EU one should also understand it is a coalition of countries but it is not a single country.
2)You are not only right but you’ve also shattered some myths. I had earlier thought member countries differed only on non-internet issues e.g. Germany being the largest exporter of cars does not mind if VAT is high whereas other EU countries want VAT to be lower.
3)I had wrongly thought that on “internet issues” all EU countries were united, just like EU has one single Central Bank. I had wrongly thought that like in the case of “a single Central Bank” EU countries also had a “single internet policy” simply because it would serve to increase EU collective economic strength & muscle.
4)It was an eyeopener to learn that, I quote you – “In France cant download multimedia, they are warned by mail and on second download state blocked their IP (mac) adress”
Whereas, again I quote you “My law are opposite. I can download any media but can’t seed”.
I’d be grateful if you could explain to me why France prohibits leeching but not seeding whereas your country allows seeding but not leeching :) Also from your quotation it looked like France only stopped Mackintosh computers but not Windows computers. I wonder why? :)
5)Hyst I am glad both of us totally agree that both Google & Torrent should be held accountable if any “bad” content or “copyright breached” content gets uploaded on internet
Ramesh :)
@Samuel:
Why I said that the staff should be punished & not the owner in the Google video case –
The reasons I feel that “employees” rather than “owners” should be held responsible is because of:-
1)Savvy employees may also be savvy in office politicking (not always but at least often). ;) Savvy office politickers may even have used “more” of political savviness rather than talent to climb career ladders (not always, not in the same prescribed ratio, but at least often) ;)
2)Some employees gain “owner affections” because of “yesmanship” while others gain “owner affections” inspite of it. It varies from company to company, owner to owner & situation to situation :)
3)Software industry is known to have higher job hopping percentages in terms of dwell time & frequency compared to many other industries. Guys often quit & hop ;)
4)A larger percentage of owners tend to be magnanimous to a fault; if not in absolute terms at least to a degree. An errant or invigilant employee especially if senior and/or a shrewder politicker when fired could get away even without bad references from prior employers. Because of his political & politicking skills he may even know some “dark secrets” of the owner, thereby “forcing” the owner to turn if not a complete blind eye, at least a quasi-blind eye. ;)
In fact what is worse that errant/invigilant employee may not even get fired simply because as a “shrewd office politicker” he may know many “dark secrets” about the owner. If you leave such guys strolling about within the company they go unpunished both by the company & also by the police.
Trust me even very senior managers would find it quite challenging to rein in such a slippery devil.
However when culpability gets rested upon the shoulders of staff who are errant and/or invigilant then at least they’ll try to work at least as smartly as they “politick” because for a change their own neck is on the line. :)
If everything is bottlenecked at owner level accountability may actually evaporate simply because people can always toss up the ball to the owner.
That’s why I said the staff & not the owner should be punished by the law. The owner should also be punished. The owner should not be the “only one” to be punished in………any case :)
Ramesh
@RobCr: Oh…Ok.
@Ramesh Kumar: I think Hyst meant that they block the MAC address too, not that they only block Apple Computers.
@Ramesh Kumar: I agree with your logic, but I don’t think it applies to every case and in this one I think that it’s Google who should be help responsible not 4 random employees.
Europe should target Apple next, I don’t want to be forced to use safari when ever… if I ever buy a mac computer
@Samuel:
Thanks for clarifying about Hyst’s comment.
@Samuel Yes I believe you are right. In any case I believe you. Period. :) It is very sad & bad if 4 random guys got affected. Sheesh! :(
Ramesh
I don’t get it… how can Google still be sued or went to court or something when they “did the right thing” by taking the video off and telling the italian authorities about it?
The world now a days is so screwed up…
~Joji~