> PriceRunner is considered to have suffered damage as a result of Google having illegally favoured its price comparison service for many years<p>Why would Google NOT favor it's own service at it's own product? How is that illegal?
When you're a permitted monopoly you have the behave differently, including being fair to competitors.<p>1.5B is preferable to being broken up (not that Sweden could enforce that)
The thing that is illegal is leveraging a monopoly position in one market to give yourself an advantage in another market.<p>So Google is allowed to favour their own price comparison in, say, Hangouts, but not in Search.
Why would Swedish courts NOT favor their own national economic interests? How is that illegal?
Have you been sleeping under a rock for 30+ years, don’t know what antitrust is, and still feel confident enough to shout about it in a comment?<p>The law isn’t just “what you happen to intuitively think is right”, especially in a jurisdiction where you clearly do not reside.
It is illegal to use your monopoly in one area to unfairly distort the market in another. This is one of the core concepts of antitrust law.
"Why would Microsoft NOT favor it's own browser in it's own OS? How is that illegal?"
Last I checked they still do exactly that. Not sure why that case is used as an example when literally every OS bundles a preferred browser
You may not like it but I agree it shouldn't be illegal. If competitors aren't happy they can make their own OS.<p>At this point can you make a custom task manager and sue Microsoft to propose users to install your task manager on first boot? What about background image providers, why doesn't Microsoft propose to install background images from them at first boot?<p>It's an absolutely ridiculous idea.<p>They should not block alternatives, but having to promote them is complete nonsense.
Wow, this is impressively ignorant. If you don’t understand it, maybe go read the case law instead of assuming you’re smarter/have greater moral standing than anyone else and arguing against a straw man.
something something monopoly. Even US has laws about this, currently not enforced though.
Sure, but if I’m understanding this (maybe I’m not), a company could make a service competitive to an Alphabet product, then sue them for not using it?<p>For instance, if a company started up an ad business, are they going to sue and win, because Google uses their own ad service in Search instead of this new competitor?<p>That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.