Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by TekMol | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

TekMol

I wonder to what extend this was anticipated by the market.

The stock is down about 1%. Not much considering that $5B should be about 1/3 of Googles yearly earnings.

On the other hand, 1% of Googles stock is about $8B. From that viewpoint, one might think it has come unanticipated.

Then again, stocks rise and fall 1% all the time. So it's hard to read something into it.

Is this the same case as reported in January here?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-results/alphabet...

"Profit fell 35 percent to $12.6 billion because of the tax bill and a separate charge last summer for a $2.7 billion European Union antitrust fine, which is under appeal."

View on HN

5b is about one of Google's quarterly earnings.

5b is about one quarter of profit for Google. It's practically peanuts, 0.4% of their market capitalization.

I actually meant one third, rather than 'one', but I realized the mistake after I was too late to edit.

In return for not having to compete on equal terms in a giant market for years, that seems like a defensible deal for Google even if the fine is large per se.

It's not the same, IIRC that was for favoring their own services in search results.

Thanks. Looks like they are getting used to paying fines as a regular part of their business.

Maybe in future earning reports we will see statements like "Legal fines went up 80% YOY from $7B to $12B and we are planning to continue our aggressive spendings in this area to expand our market dominance".

When the fines are lower than the expected benefit from your "wrongdoing" then what's the incentive to stop?

As a person getting caught stealing/defrauding/etc. you would have to pay restitution and additional fines/time in prison. This is how it should work for businesses to. If the goal is to actually prevent future abuse.

You would have to record every single conversation to pin intent on specific individuals. This is one big advantage of being concentrated in cities, you can meet face to face with people and discuss things without fear of legal repercussions.

That wasn't my point. I'm not talking about assigning blame on individuals in a company but to at least use the same principles when punishing companies as we do with individuals.

A private individual is expected to return all illegal gains, pay additional fines, and possibly do prison.

But a company might be expected to pay fines that are actually a fraction of the profits made abusing the law. This means paying the fine is more lucrative business than ceasing the abusive behavior.

As such the system only gives the appearance that it's working when in reality it's just not bringing the expected benefits. If paying the fine and keep skirting the law is cheaper than fully complying than that's what companies will do.

Since the EU wants Google to stop within 90 days, I assume they can give them a fresh €4.5bn fine if they refuse. At least that's something.

That's definitely an incentive to stop once you were caught. But not really an incentive to not even do it in the first place.

Easier to say sorry than to ask permission, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com