Then you'd have absolutely no problem of linking that evidence instead of blindly asserting like you do now. At that I rather trust the people who seem to have copious amounts of references in their rapport then a blind assertion.
To clarify the license thingie. Uber believes it's drivers can get by with a tourism vehicle license since they don't respond to street hailing and thus are only doing pre-booked arrangements (which that tourism license allows). While that is the letter of the law the intention was a license for for example drivers of buses for arranged excursions. This is what the French government is reacting on.
The taxi drivers are reacting since their license and all rules and regulations that come with it are vastly more expensive then the one that Uber uses. Which is undercutting their business.
I don't know how this is going to be ruled on since Uber is skirting dangerously close to the edge of the law and seeing how that France tries to protect its own industries.
Analogy doesn't work. The moment a swarm absconds (the jargon term of an entire hive worth of bees + queen packing up an leaving) the keeper will try to catch the queen and place that one back into the hive. This time with a bar in front of the hive opening which will prevent the queen (and only the queens) from exiting thereby preventing the swarm from leaving.
About the Google investigation, part of this is for the same thing that the US investigated and let them of with a promise they'd not do it anymore (in 2012 after 2 years of investigating). The EU doesn't do apologies like that. If the follow up indeed determines that Google abused its market-share in the EU to profit at the expense of other services, then Google will end up paying. And the fine will be more then the profit made due to the abuse. Seriously what is more of a deterrent against future misbehavior by a corporation? The expectation that if it breaks the law some regulatory agency gives the lawyers working there a stern talking to while allowing the corporation to keep the ill-gotten lucre. Or the knowledge that it has to answer to it's shareholders due to not only having to repay the money made by breaking the law but also having to pay a fine on top of that causing a dent in the bottom line?
And then the Facebook thing. Yes people can opt to not use it. However Facebook is providing services in the EU so it has to follow EU law. It can op to not follow EU law by not providing services there. If Facebook keeps insisting on using privacy protections based on US law for people in the EU it will keep running into lawsuits and investigations about it breaking EU law until it changes it's behavior or leaves.
Neither. It is just that in the US the only anti-trust spankings by the EU you get to see are the ones against US companies. Doesn't help that those companies tend to get the really big fines due to the revenue they generate in the EU combined with the habit of trying to play the same games they do with the US regulators only to discover that that tends to increase the fine. But if you look at the total value of the fines separated in EU only businesses and businesses from outside the EU, the amount of EU only fines is still larger then the ones outside ones.
Consquences: The non US parties agreed to a treaty with this little booby trap in it. By not agreeing to change the laws as the treaty demands when the US asks for it a whole raft of punishments can be levied on the country not changing their laws to suit the US. Everything from not implementing the US parts of the treaty to going to the WTO.
But now that the European Commission has accepted the argument that openness is likely to help the acceptance of TTIP, rather than harm it, and aims to release key documents routinely, how long can the US negotiators plausibly maintain their outdated position?
The answer to this question is in perpetuity. The simplest counter is that the US is not the EU and the US would never (*snort*) go against the wishes of it's citizens.
Guess who sponsored the please consider breaking up Google request that the European parliament voted on. A Spanish and a German MEP. The german one has a conflict of interest by working for the law firm that wrote the German Google Tax law.
What is worse is the cluelessness of the MEPs when it comes to search engines. For example demanding unbiased search results. Uh I want the results biased so that I don't have to go through all the pages to be sure that I find what are the most relevant results.
That said I'm waiting for the usual suspects to use this move by Google to cast it in a bad light with regard to the anti-trust probe that has been going on for the last few years (and to which it was found guilty). One of the complainers that got the probe started just happens to be the cartel of German publishers that got that Google Tax going in Germany.
The problem being that aggregators that could take the place of Google are either shutting down as well or looking at ways to move out of Spain while still providing their services. About the only aggregator that might be safe is Twitter because you can barely cram a headline and a link in a tweet. And that is not even a guarantee with how the new law can be read
No he contacted Comcast. He was telling them he was considering to complain about how they are screwing up their accounting to the regulatory body overseeing that. And that is something Comcast can't have with the proposed merger on the horizon.