Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
Their concern with MFN clauses goes back to at least May 2002. That doesn't seem sudden to me. Or are you saying that, at some date in the past, whether May 2002 or earlier, when the EU authorities first started being concerned with MFN clauses involving companies with high market share, it was, at that time, sudden?
The first time a law is enforced, it is, almost by definition, sudden. So what? |
I think that if MFN clauses were such a problem then perhaps it should've been a problem before.
Instead I see the EU lodging a raft of near-simultaneous complaints against a number of successful businesses.
The common factors amongst these complaints:
They target non-EU companies and prefer EU companies.
These companies are industry leaders.
What they don't have in common:
The offense.
Given that, I feel I am justly suspicious of the suddenness of their concern.
Quote:
It is in the nature of competition law that that the rules are different if you are successful.
As for persecution, under the law being invoked here, you can't be sent to prison. They can't even wake Jeff Bezos up in the middle of the night to serve process, as happens (not sure if they do it for antitrust) in Amazon's home market. It may be that you have a different idea of persecution than I do.
As for your claim that EU companies are treated differently from ones headquartered elsewhere, maybe it is because no EU retailer has Amazon's literature market share. This idea of EU perfidy seems to me an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
|
I maintain my stated claim: they are persecuting non-EU
companies.
And I have yet to hear convincing logic produced by the EU as to why success should be penalized. I have, however, seen them throw the proverbial spaghetti at the wall to see what charges stick to said companies.
I accept that as a valid explanation of the EU viewpoint.
