I'm always wary of big biz but shouldn't the onus of proof be on the prosecution ?
Euro competition chief mulls forcing tech giants to prove their actions aren't harming market
European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager has proposed forcing technology firms to prove their actions are not harming the market or consumers. Vestager told the Financial Times that no decision had been reached, but there was a discussion to be had on what kind of regulation would be useful. She noted that …
Thursday 31st October 2019 15:20 GMT Mage
Re: onus of proof.
It's not the same scenario as individuals charged under a criminal justice system, nor indeed civil law, where more often you do have to prove you didn't do wrong. It's a completely different issue especially as many big international companies are more powerful than countries and think laws don't apply to them at all.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_corporate_acquisitions_and_mergers
These lists are incomplete.
Victorian Antony Trollope saw a lot of this coming: "The Way We Live Now".
c.f. Dickens and "Little Dorrit".
Or John Brunner and "Shockwave Rider", far better than over hyped "Future Shock".
Maybe even Roland Perry "Program for a Puppet".
Which Corp is most like House Harkonnen?
Thursday 31st October 2019 16:06 GMT Anonymous Coward
Saturday 2nd November 2019 10:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
Thursday 31st October 2019 15:19 GMT and I
Thursday 31st October 2019 15:39 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
Thursday 31st October 2019 15:59 GMT Anonymous Coward
Thursday 31st October 2019 16:00 GMT Dinanziame
Re: Only American tech companies?
Price-Fixing Truck Makers Get Record E.U. Fine: $3.2 Billion
She's not exactly overlooking EU companies either.
Thursday 31st October 2019 15:45 GMT DCFusor
Proving the negative - the non existence of anything - is impossible - there's always some corner someone can point out you didn't look in yet.
No matter how it's phrased, spun, or justified, it's a sign of not wanting truth or fairness. It's a trick of tyrants.
"Have you stopped beating your kids yet?".
No matter what innocence is proved (dubious...) - there's always "but did you look at x, y z?" which can go on endlessly, if for no other reason than to perpetuate some .gov job, play with the news cycle, or whatever someone wants to spin.
While yes, they are surely guilty - the normal processes should do fine, no?
Saturday 2nd November 2019 00:29 GMT Mage
Proving the negative - the non existence of anything - is impossible
A positive DNA match with the suspect can even be someone the suspect doesn't know, a false positive.
A negative DNA match exonerates the suspect*.
DNA testing at crime scenes is a big advance. But not as reliable as fingerprints. It's not a 100% detailed test. OTH, identical twins don't actually have a 100% match, but a better match than what is normally regarded as positive at a crime scene. Yet amazingly they DO have different fingerprints because those will develop differently even with a perfect clone or identical twins.
[* though they need to sample the DNA of the suspect widely if the person is a chimera, that is their own twin, then they have two sets of DNA! However a negative on both sets is conclusive.]
Thursday 31st October 2019 16:41 GMT codejunky
Thursday 31st October 2019 20:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
Thursday 31st October 2019 21:31 GMT Danny Boyd
What a great idea!
Excellent idea but rather limited in scope at the moment. But it's a good start - big companies for now, small companies later, and soon private citizens will have to prove to the police they didn't do _something_ illegal _sometime_, or their _intended_ actions won't be illegal _somehow_.
My, that Orwell guy thought he depicted a totalitarian society. Hah!
Friday 1st November 2019 10:38 GMT deadfamous
Friday 1st November 2019 13:50 GMT JoMe
Monday 4th November 2019 12:50 GMT Zangetsu