In a country where you can sue someone for the fact that the coffee is too hot and burns, indeed a nerve in the form of attachment to the operating system, web browser absurdities not difficult. Fortunately, some judges no shortage of oil in the head.
The rule of law all the same rules apply. This means that even if the law is absurd, as long as it will not be reformed (remember the principle of lex retro non agit ), all must apply to him. This means that the courts must recognize even the most ridiculous lawsuits, and even accuse flood greatest nonsense, using all sorts of absurdities in the construction set. On the (un) fortunately, the law of many countries, there is some flexibility and room for interpretation of the rules. So it is also in US law.
Why on English-language Spider’s Web in general deal with US law? The American market is one of the most important companies operating globally, and many of them have in this country are established. Penalties, bans and other restrictions may therefore have an impact on the situation of the company worldwide. Fortunately, Google will not have to deal with two potentially dangerous issues for him.
Ah, the “vile monopolist”
The Californian court received two lawsuits of a collective agreement, suggesting that Google uses strong position of the Android operating system to combat unfair competition. They were made by individuals who feel limited (sic) by this system. In their view, pre-load on the operating system of Google restricts their choice and orientation on offer competing service providers, offering alternative applications.
Floods are right. Each manufacturer of Android devices that do not want to use the basic version of this system (AOSP) is required to preinstall most androidowych Google as well as appropriate prominence to the user. Has the right to install on their own alternatives, but can not get rid of those from Google.
It is also true argument plaintiffs who suggest that the typical consumer only rarely changes the default settings of electronic devices and thus, no idea about the existence of alternative search engines to that of Google, such as DuckDuckGo and Microsoft Bing.
I have to ask: So what? Fortunately, the court sees no problem
a matter of course is the fact that the manufacturer of the solution wants to provide the user with the most useful tools without requiring the user to take unnecessary actions. The obvious is the fact that this manufacturer wants to provide their own solutions. Both business for obvious reasons, but also because for these solutions are solely responsible and can quickly fix any errors, faults, defects or bungle.
Google is not the only one. Microsoft used the same tactics, like Apple (although this still most of the services provides by third parties). Is reasonable and quite typical. A legal absurdity of having forced dominant service providers to offer alternatives has been in practice long ago overthrown (example: Firefox started to effectively answer to Internet Explorer market long before the introduction of the “browser choice screen”, which in addition function only in parts of Europe).
The district court in California came from a similar assumption. This must, however, comply with the law, and not just rely on your own “whim”. But failed to settle the matter in a way that does not raise an elegant and controversy. Well abuse of a dominant position on the market must be documented in some way. And as the court argued, there is no evidence that offering Google as the default search engine adversely affect the price of smartphones in the US market. The reasons suggested by blocking innovation is a “purely hypothetical”, especially since the Android operating system does not prevent in any way the user changes the other service providers who offer their services for this operating system.
Back to normal?
Normality is a situation in which the market a better product wins. Where “better” is quite flexible definition, which also includes the price and sympathy of consumers to the brand. At the time, in which the corporation has an overwhelming majority of the market, to break it is very difficult. That’s why over the years has been synonymous with the Windows operating system, and the “google’owanie” We replaced the “search for information on the Internet.”
Chrome, Android or iPhone does not need to weaken the market leaders by idiotic restrictions to succeed. Bing or DuckDuckGo if others also do not need. They must simply be better than Google and endure the right amount of time to the corresponding group of consumers has come to a similar conclusion. Other solutions demotywowanie to strive for perfection. The California court’s decision is applauded.
No comments:
Post a Comment