Google faces up to $5B fine from Competition Commission of India(timesofindia.indiatimes.com)
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Google faces up to $5B fine from Competition Commission of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/internet/Google-faces-up-to-5-billion-fine-from-Competition-Commission-of-India/articleshow/31724382.cms
11 comments
You did not factor in a few important aspects into your analysis:
a. A law was passed in India called the "Foreign Exchange Regulation Act" in 1973 with the aim of regulating payments and foreign exchange. It contained language that was extremely restrictive for any foreign investments, by all foreign entities including Indian citizens living abroad.
b. This was not initially a concern, but became a huge problem during a 21 month period between 1975-77 when a state of emergency was declared in India [[following the assassination of the then Prime Minister]] edit: incorrect attribution, emergency was declared, but the prime minister was assassinated a few years later.
c. The law was fixed/made more flexible in 1993, and foreign investments immediately started returning.
d. The act was repealed in its entirety in 1998.
e. The issue mentioned in the article revolves around a complaint being made to CCI and as "a complaint filed with CCI cannot be withdrawn" there is no choice but to investigate.
f. The $5B amount is baseless and pure conjecture with no source/comment from either the Competition Commission of India, Lawmakers or Google.
Strangely there are very few to no parallels over here. It definitely does not warrant a statement as broad as India is just not a good place for anyone (other than its citizens perhaps) to do business.
a. A law was passed in India called the "Foreign Exchange Regulation Act" in 1973 with the aim of regulating payments and foreign exchange. It contained language that was extremely restrictive for any foreign investments, by all foreign entities including Indian citizens living abroad.
b. This was not initially a concern, but became a huge problem during a 21 month period between 1975-77 when a state of emergency was declared in India [[following the assassination of the then Prime Minister]] edit: incorrect attribution, emergency was declared, but the prime minister was assassinated a few years later.
c. The law was fixed/made more flexible in 1993, and foreign investments immediately started returning.
d. The act was repealed in its entirety in 1998.
e. The issue mentioned in the article revolves around a complaint being made to CCI and as "a complaint filed with CCI cannot be withdrawn" there is no choice but to investigate.
f. The $5B amount is baseless and pure conjecture with no source/comment from either the Competition Commission of India, Lawmakers or Google.
Strangely there are very few to no parallels over here. It definitely does not warrant a statement as broad as India is just not a good place for anyone (other than its citizens perhaps) to do business.
It definitely does not warrant a statement as broad as India is just not a good place for anyone (other than its citizens perhaps) to do business.
Agreed.
India has implemented both command economy policies[1] and free market policies[2] in recent history. But today they definitely seem to be leaning more towards free market policies, though not to the extent of the Western democracies[3].
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_of_India
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_reforms_in_India
3: http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21576372-how-ge...
Agreed.
India has implemented both command economy policies[1] and free market policies[2] in recent history. But today they definitely seem to be leaning more towards free market policies, though not to the extent of the Western democracies[3].
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_of_India
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_reforms_in_India
3: http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21576372-how-ge...
>>>a. A law was passed in India called the "Foreign Exchange Regulation Act" in 1973 with the aim of regulating payments and foreign exchange. It contained language that was extremely restrictive for any foreign investments, by all foreign entities including Indian citizens living abroad.<<<
I'm pretty sure that you have misunderstood the law. Here's a report prepared by a group at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign in 1987;
"""During 1977, IBM was asked to withdraw from India due to its unwillingness to comply with the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) of 1973. Earlier, IBM commenced operations in India in 1952, with long term objectives of growth and increasing market share in the world com- puter and information systems market through an improved competitive stance. During a period of 25 years, IBM made total profits of approxi- mately U.S. $5 million on a total investment of $8 million. Total remittable profits, at the time of phasing out its operations in 1970, were approximately $10 million. These profits included a net asset value of approximately $5 million.
This poor performance was largely attributed to several factors, including compensation of approximately $7.5 million paid to employees and assets sold at less than book value. Other factors included a high rate of effective taxation of 80% to 85% as well as low rates of depreciation on equipment. IBM-India operations constituted only 0.06% of IBM Corporation's total business. IBM's activities in India during this period and the events leading to the IBM-India withdrawal are summarized in Appendix A.
During this period, the Government of India (GOI) alleged that a large number of foreign-owned and foreign-controlled corporations operating in India were making excessively high gross revenues and before-tax profits. Further, the repatriation of large amounts of capital by the multinational corporations constituted a serious drain on India's scarce foreign exchange reserves. The GOI contended that the multinational corporations were using monopolistic power to stifle competition in the Indian market. In addition, the multinational corporations, according to the GOI, gained favorable rates for large financial credits, thereby competing with domestic firms for scarce capital. Finally, the GOI per- ceived that the multinational corporations were transferring obsolete technology or current technology of minor importance for developmental purposes.
Surveying the industrial scene, the GOI found that most foreign direct investment had occurred in the consumer goods sector. These ventures yielded high rates of profit and required simple technology which could be furnished by domestic entrepreneurs.
Based on these findings, the GOI formulated its own priorities with regard to the country's development. With an abundance of natural re- sources and a large supply of low-cost skilled labor, India provided the multinational corporations with a large, untapped market and opportunity to enhance their international competitiveness.
Taking stock of its developmental priorities and increased bargaining strength, the GOI formulated its desire to influence the course of foreign direct investment in India. The primary objective was to ensure that foreign direct investment in India would fall in line with the nation's developmental priorities. The means adopted to achieve this objective was the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) legislated on January 1, 1974.
Foreign Exchange Regualtion Act— The FERA affected all foreign companies with foreign equity exceeding 40 percent. According to FERA, four levels of foreign equity participation were permitted.
First, all trading companies engaged in purely commercial activities as well as manufacturing enterprises utilizing "non-sophisticated" technology, were required to reduce their foreign equity to 40 percent.
Second, "high technology" companies, utilizing "sophisticated" technology and/or engaging in "special" activities, as designated by the GOI, were permitted to retain a foreign equity holding of 74 percent.
A third intermediate level of 51 percent foreign equity was established for multi-activity companies engaged in both sophisticated technology fields and other commercial and trading activities.
The fourth level of 100 percent foreign equity was permitted only in those instances where foreign firms were engaged in purely export activities."""
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/28913/...
That sounds like an equity grab to me.
>>> b. This was not initially a concern, but became a huge problem during a 21 month period between 1975-77 when a state of emergency was declared in India [[following the assassination of the then Prime Minister]] edit: incorrect attribution, emergency was declared, but the prime minister was assassinated a few years later.
c. The law was fixed/made more flexible in 1993, and foreign investments immediately started returning. <<<
The assassination in of itself was a result of an intense power struggle in the Indian state. It's not so hard to look at it and see that these people needed additional revenue and decided to pressure successful companies to get a cut of their business. You can call that market protection if you want or attach any other label, but the fact is that they saw (from their perspective) a potential source of revenue and they flexed their muscle to get a slice of the pie. It backfired and they had to drop the changes they made to get people back on the table.
>>> d. The act was repealed in its entirety in 1998. <<<
The protections were enshrined elsewhere. The only thing really changed was that now the Indian market was large enough and that the power players were willing to make nudge-nudge-wink-wink exceptions for much smaller fee.
>>> e. The issue mentioned in the article revolves around a complaint being made to CCI and as "a complaint filed with CCI cannot be withdrawn" there is no choice but to investigate.
f. The $5B amount is baseless and pure conjecture with no source/comment from either the Competition Commission of India, Lawmakers or Google. <<<
I've said nothing about the amount or the complaint, just that such shenanigans aren't out of the ordinary from the Indian power players.
>>>Strangely there are very few to no parallels over here. It definitely does not warrant a statement as broad as India is just not a good place for anyone (other than its citizens perhaps) to do business.<<<
So a country where you have to get a permit for doing every small thing and there's a bribe associated with each permit is a good place to do business?
I'm pretty sure that you have misunderstood the law. Here's a report prepared by a group at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign in 1987;
"""During 1977, IBM was asked to withdraw from India due to its unwillingness to comply with the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) of 1973. Earlier, IBM commenced operations in India in 1952, with long term objectives of growth and increasing market share in the world com- puter and information systems market through an improved competitive stance. During a period of 25 years, IBM made total profits of approxi- mately U.S. $5 million on a total investment of $8 million. Total remittable profits, at the time of phasing out its operations in 1970, were approximately $10 million. These profits included a net asset value of approximately $5 million.
This poor performance was largely attributed to several factors, including compensation of approximately $7.5 million paid to employees and assets sold at less than book value. Other factors included a high rate of effective taxation of 80% to 85% as well as low rates of depreciation on equipment. IBM-India operations constituted only 0.06% of IBM Corporation's total business. IBM's activities in India during this period and the events leading to the IBM-India withdrawal are summarized in Appendix A.
During this period, the Government of India (GOI) alleged that a large number of foreign-owned and foreign-controlled corporations operating in India were making excessively high gross revenues and before-tax profits. Further, the repatriation of large amounts of capital by the multinational corporations constituted a serious drain on India's scarce foreign exchange reserves. The GOI contended that the multinational corporations were using monopolistic power to stifle competition in the Indian market. In addition, the multinational corporations, according to the GOI, gained favorable rates for large financial credits, thereby competing with domestic firms for scarce capital. Finally, the GOI per- ceived that the multinational corporations were transferring obsolete technology or current technology of minor importance for developmental purposes.
Surveying the industrial scene, the GOI found that most foreign direct investment had occurred in the consumer goods sector. These ventures yielded high rates of profit and required simple technology which could be furnished by domestic entrepreneurs.
Based on these findings, the GOI formulated its own priorities with regard to the country's development. With an abundance of natural re- sources and a large supply of low-cost skilled labor, India provided the multinational corporations with a large, untapped market and opportunity to enhance their international competitiveness.
Taking stock of its developmental priorities and increased bargaining strength, the GOI formulated its desire to influence the course of foreign direct investment in India. The primary objective was to ensure that foreign direct investment in India would fall in line with the nation's developmental priorities. The means adopted to achieve this objective was the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) legislated on January 1, 1974.
Foreign Exchange Regualtion Act— The FERA affected all foreign companies with foreign equity exceeding 40 percent. According to FERA, four levels of foreign equity participation were permitted.
First, all trading companies engaged in purely commercial activities as well as manufacturing enterprises utilizing "non-sophisticated" technology, were required to reduce their foreign equity to 40 percent.
Second, "high technology" companies, utilizing "sophisticated" technology and/or engaging in "special" activities, as designated by the GOI, were permitted to retain a foreign equity holding of 74 percent.
A third intermediate level of 51 percent foreign equity was established for multi-activity companies engaged in both sophisticated technology fields and other commercial and trading activities.
The fourth level of 100 percent foreign equity was permitted only in those instances where foreign firms were engaged in purely export activities."""
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/28913/...
That sounds like an equity grab to me.
>>> b. This was not initially a concern, but became a huge problem during a 21 month period between 1975-77 when a state of emergency was declared in India [[following the assassination of the then Prime Minister]] edit: incorrect attribution, emergency was declared, but the prime minister was assassinated a few years later.
c. The law was fixed/made more flexible in 1993, and foreign investments immediately started returning. <<<
The assassination in of itself was a result of an intense power struggle in the Indian state. It's not so hard to look at it and see that these people needed additional revenue and decided to pressure successful companies to get a cut of their business. You can call that market protection if you want or attach any other label, but the fact is that they saw (from their perspective) a potential source of revenue and they flexed their muscle to get a slice of the pie. It backfired and they had to drop the changes they made to get people back on the table.
>>> d. The act was repealed in its entirety in 1998. <<<
The protections were enshrined elsewhere. The only thing really changed was that now the Indian market was large enough and that the power players were willing to make nudge-nudge-wink-wink exceptions for much smaller fee.
>>> e. The issue mentioned in the article revolves around a complaint being made to CCI and as "a complaint filed with CCI cannot be withdrawn" there is no choice but to investigate.
f. The $5B amount is baseless and pure conjecture with no source/comment from either the Competition Commission of India, Lawmakers or Google. <<<
I've said nothing about the amount or the complaint, just that such shenanigans aren't out of the ordinary from the Indian power players.
>>>Strangely there are very few to no parallels over here. It definitely does not warrant a statement as broad as India is just not a good place for anyone (other than its citizens perhaps) to do business.<<<
So a country where you have to get a permit for doing every small thing and there's a bribe associated with each permit is a good place to do business?
That sounds like an equity grab to me.
I prefer free markets and am generally biased against protectionism, but at times its required.
The most common argument for Protectionism is the "infant industry" justification. Considering in 1973 India was 25 years old. The infant theory can be given some merit.
Also note the "Indicators of foreign direct investment regulation in 87 economies"[0] study by world bank, which gives more insight into this.
The protections were enshrined elsewhere.
Actually I know of one that was not enshrined elsewhere i.e. Glass–Steagall Act. But that's a whole different story.
such shenanigans aren't out of the ordinary from the Indian power players.
So a country where you have to get a permit for doing every small thing
There's a bribe associated with each permit
But I have to ask, from a capitalist point of view, if a corporation wants to do business in such an atmosphere, could this atmosphere be concluded as the cost of doing business?
Also read up on this a bit further, turns out Coke was the largest contributor to the previous government's political campaign in the early 70's which resulted in the opposition party exerting extra pressure on Coke when the opposition came into power in India.
I've said nothing about the amount or the complaint
The alternative solution would be to make nudge-nudge-wink-wink type of settlement with a bribe or just letting it slip between the cracks and do nothing.
[0] http://iab.worldbank.org/~/media/FPDKM/IAB/Documents/IAB-rep...
> These acts were designed to force them to "partner" with an Indian company.
FWIW, China does this in just about any manufacturing/tech-related sector, and it's been pretty successful for them. The not-very-hidden intent of the requirement is to ensure that there's a Chinese partner who, it is hoped, will gain enough expertise from the joint venture to jettison the foreign partner in the next iteration (this might include "borrowing" some trade secrets). Hence e.g. Exxon's plants in China are all joint ventures, because they aren't allowed to open fully self-owned/operated plants.
FWIW, China does this in just about any manufacturing/tech-related sector, and it's been pretty successful for them. The not-very-hidden intent of the requirement is to ensure that there's a Chinese partner who, it is hoped, will gain enough expertise from the joint venture to jettison the foreign partner in the next iteration (this might include "borrowing" some trade secrets). Hence e.g. Exxon's plants in China are all joint ventures, because they aren't allowed to open fully self-owned/operated plants.
India of 1977 is different to India in 2014. So I think, it is not worth to go back in the past.
Ikea is looking for space to start stores in India. Please search in Google. Your information seems to be outdated. https://www.google.co.in/#q=ikea+in+india India's FDI in retail policy wants to protect its SME's. Elected Govt. is supposed to do that to distribute wealth across society.
India is still good place for business. It is complex, slow moving compared to west, chaotic at first glance but any one can adapt easily.
Ikea is looking for space to start stores in India. Please search in Google. Your information seems to be outdated. https://www.google.co.in/#q=ikea+in+india India's FDI in retail policy wants to protect its SME's. Elected Govt. is supposed to do that to distribute wealth across society.
India is still good place for business. It is complex, slow moving compared to west, chaotic at first glance but any one can adapt easily.
India has been fining international companies ridiculous amounts of money recently, I think the instability of the current government has something to do with it. Let's see what happens after the next election.
If you talking about Vodafone case:
While retroactive applicability of Income Tax act is questionable, it is hard to argue for Vodafone or Hutchinson when they tried to avoid Tax by doing the transaction through a Cayman Island registered entity. To me, while it may be legal at that time, it sounds like pure corporate greed which Indian government is trying to fix. But that is not very different from other countries such as UK, Countries in EU trying to clamp down on Tax Haven exploits by Google etc.
While retroactive applicability of Income Tax act is questionable, it is hard to argue for Vodafone or Hutchinson when they tried to avoid Tax by doing the transaction through a Cayman Island registered entity. To me, while it may be legal at that time, it sounds like pure corporate greed which Indian government is trying to fix. But that is not very different from other countries such as UK, Countries in EU trying to clamp down on Tax Haven exploits by Google etc.
Developed countries won't change rules for the past, since it is quite impossible to follow them...it just doesn't make sense. I'm also thinking of Nokia and uncertain tax liabilities, India is just a horrible place to do business these days, it's riskier than even china.
>> I think the instability of the current government has something to do with it.
Care to elaborate? I don't see the correlation between instability of a government and fining international companies for antitrust. Besides, the current United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in India has been in power for 2 full terms (10 years). The second term is about to end now and the elections are due in April 2014.
Care to elaborate? I don't see the correlation between instability of a government and fining international companies for antitrust. Besides, the current United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in India has been in power for 2 full terms (10 years). The second term is about to end now and the elections are due in April 2014.
Many of the comments on this thread are just lazy armchair theories, including this one.
You talk about a "historical precedent" that goes back to when India firmly identified itself as a socialist country. And from that distant, warped past, you fast forward 36 years to the present and to a country that in 1991 began its journey of economic liberation (which included jettisoning its socialist principles for all practical purposes), and expect us to believe that the two incidents are somehow related?
But what better examples to refute your ludicrous theory than Coca-Cola and IBM themselves, both of which came back to post-liberalization India. To the extent that India likely has IBM's largest global workforce [0], and Coca-Cola pours billions of dollars to maintain its leadership over Pepsi [1]
Surely those companies would know a thing or two about "historical precedents", don't you think?
As for the most likely reason behind this $5 billion figure (sorry conspiracy theorists, it isn't extortion either as Indian politicians know Google's power isn't something to be messed with in the age of social/Internet savvy voters) is the old-fashioned plant. I'm guessing Microsoft (the primary shadow-backer behind all anti-Google cases in India) laid out the worst-case scenario off-the-record to a PTI journalist, along with the $5 billion figure. And the journalist was either too lazy to question/research it, or too taken in (journalists like throwing up "exclusives" like this with billions of dollars in the headlines) to reduce it to the decidedly unsexy $~33M.
It's just a theory mind you, but having been a business journalist in India for nearly 6 years (and having done stories severely critical of Google, lest you think I'm a shill for them), I think it's much more likely than some of the other fantastic theories in this thread.
[0] http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9234101/In_a_symbolic...
[1] http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-11/coca-cola-masala...
You talk about a "historical precedent" that goes back to when India firmly identified itself as a socialist country. And from that distant, warped past, you fast forward 36 years to the present and to a country that in 1991 began its journey of economic liberation (which included jettisoning its socialist principles for all practical purposes), and expect us to believe that the two incidents are somehow related?
But what better examples to refute your ludicrous theory than Coca-Cola and IBM themselves, both of which came back to post-liberalization India. To the extent that India likely has IBM's largest global workforce [0], and Coca-Cola pours billions of dollars to maintain its leadership over Pepsi [1]
Surely those companies would know a thing or two about "historical precedents", don't you think?
As for the most likely reason behind this $5 billion figure (sorry conspiracy theorists, it isn't extortion either as Indian politicians know Google's power isn't something to be messed with in the age of social/Internet savvy voters) is the old-fashioned plant. I'm guessing Microsoft (the primary shadow-backer behind all anti-Google cases in India) laid out the worst-case scenario off-the-record to a PTI journalist, along with the $5 billion figure. And the journalist was either too lazy to question/research it, or too taken in (journalists like throwing up "exclusives" like this with billions of dollars in the headlines) to reduce it to the decidedly unsexy $~33M.
It's just a theory mind you, but having been a business journalist in India for nearly 6 years (and having done stories severely critical of Google, lest you think I'm a shill for them), I think it's much more likely than some of the other fantastic theories in this thread.
[0] http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9234101/In_a_symbolic...
[1] http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-11/coca-cola-masala...
>>> Many of the comments on this thread are just lazy armchair theories, including this one.<<<
That's an ad hominem that adds very little in terms of substance to your argument as you do not know anything about me or my background.
>>>You talk about a "historical precedent" that goes back to when India firmly identified itself as a socialist country. And from that distant, warped past, you fast forward 36 years to the present and to a country that in 1991 began its journey of economic liberation (which included jettisoning its socialist principles for all practical purposes), and expect us to believe that the two incidents are somehow related?<<<
Entity X has demonstrated a history of Y actions. Ignoring that day while analysing the probability of X doing something in the future is foolish.
Further, while the dialogue might have change. The individuals that hold power in India haven't changed over time. It's highly family oriented and it's reasonable to assume that they will act in a similar manner to preserve their interests.
>>>But what better examples to refute your ludicrous theory than Coca-Cola and IBM themselves, both of which came back to post-liberalization India. To the extent that India likely has IBM's largest global workforce [0], and Coca-Cola pours billions of dollars to maintain its leadership over Pepsi [1]<<<
It's a large market. They dropped the statutes is it unreasonable to presume that they won't capitalise on that? I don't see the point on attributing any emotional qualities to this. There is no profit in petty vendettas.
>>>Surely those companies would know a thing or two about "historical precedents", don't you think?<<<
I'm sure they do. Doesn't detract anything from my point or the analysis I've posted elsewhere. I fail to see the argument you're making over here.
>>>As for the most likely reason behind this $5 billion figure (sorry conspiracy theorists, it isn't extortion either as Indian politicians know Google's power isn't something to be messed with in the age of social/Internet savvy voters) is the old-fashioned plant. I'm guessing Microsoft (the primary shadow-backer behind all anti-Google cases in India) laid out the worst-case scenario off-the-record to a PTI journalist, along with the $5 billion figure. And the journalist was either too lazy to question/research it, or too taken in (journalists like throwing up "exclusives" like this with billions of dollars in the headlines) to reduce it to the decidedly unsexy $~33M.<<<
I've never mentioned anything about that. I merely pointed out that such fines and the Indian government being onerous towards entrepreneurial interests is something well established.
>>>It's just a theory mind you, but having been a business journalist in India for nearly 6 years (and having done stories severely critical of Google, lest you think I'm a shill for them), I think it's much more likely than some of the other fantastic theories in this thread.<<<
Okay. You still haven't refuted the core argument of what I had stated which is simply that there is a power base that would like to do such equity grabs and so on and it's not a convenient place to do business. Is that wrong?
That's an ad hominem that adds very little in terms of substance to your argument as you do not know anything about me or my background.
>>>You talk about a "historical precedent" that goes back to when India firmly identified itself as a socialist country. And from that distant, warped past, you fast forward 36 years to the present and to a country that in 1991 began its journey of economic liberation (which included jettisoning its socialist principles for all practical purposes), and expect us to believe that the two incidents are somehow related?<<<
Entity X has demonstrated a history of Y actions. Ignoring that day while analysing the probability of X doing something in the future is foolish.
Further, while the dialogue might have change. The individuals that hold power in India haven't changed over time. It's highly family oriented and it's reasonable to assume that they will act in a similar manner to preserve their interests.
>>>But what better examples to refute your ludicrous theory than Coca-Cola and IBM themselves, both of which came back to post-liberalization India. To the extent that India likely has IBM's largest global workforce [0], and Coca-Cola pours billions of dollars to maintain its leadership over Pepsi [1]<<<
It's a large market. They dropped the statutes is it unreasonable to presume that they won't capitalise on that? I don't see the point on attributing any emotional qualities to this. There is no profit in petty vendettas.
>>>Surely those companies would know a thing or two about "historical precedents", don't you think?<<<
I'm sure they do. Doesn't detract anything from my point or the analysis I've posted elsewhere. I fail to see the argument you're making over here.
>>>As for the most likely reason behind this $5 billion figure (sorry conspiracy theorists, it isn't extortion either as Indian politicians know Google's power isn't something to be messed with in the age of social/Internet savvy voters) is the old-fashioned plant. I'm guessing Microsoft (the primary shadow-backer behind all anti-Google cases in India) laid out the worst-case scenario off-the-record to a PTI journalist, along with the $5 billion figure. And the journalist was either too lazy to question/research it, or too taken in (journalists like throwing up "exclusives" like this with billions of dollars in the headlines) to reduce it to the decidedly unsexy $~33M.<<<
I've never mentioned anything about that. I merely pointed out that such fines and the Indian government being onerous towards entrepreneurial interests is something well established.
>>>It's just a theory mind you, but having been a business journalist in India for nearly 6 years (and having done stories severely critical of Google, lest you think I'm a shill for them), I think it's much more likely than some of the other fantastic theories in this thread.<<<
Okay. You still haven't refuted the core argument of what I had stated which is simply that there is a power base that would like to do such equity grabs and so on and it's not a convenient place to do business. Is that wrong?
Every country protects its markets in various forms.
Some more than others. It's not as though Coke and IBM have had to pull out of many other markets.
Tell me why are Coke and IBM back in India if it is so bad there?
Didn't say it was "so bad there," just that there is substantial variance in the degree to which countries "protect their markets."
Compare India or China with the US or Australia. I can't think of any companies that have been completely shut out of the latter two, but there seems to be a substantial list that have been unable to continue operating (at some point in time) in India and China. Eventually they might work through it and re-enter, but it's clear that they have far from ideal circumstances for foreign companies.
Compare India or China with the US or Australia. I can't think of any companies that have been completely shut out of the latter two, but there seems to be a substantial list that have been unable to continue operating (at some point in time) in India and China. Eventually they might work through it and re-enter, but it's clear that they have far from ideal circumstances for foreign companies.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-04-17/news...
One does not have to look far.
One does not have to look far.
They are like cockroaches always find their way. There was embargo on Germany during WW2 but IBM was renting their machinery to Nazi. Also Coca Cola was on every corner in Iraq during embargo :-)
Some forms of "market protection" are smarter and less restrictive than others...
India of 1977 is vastly different from India of today. Today, IBM India is mammoth.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/I...
My point is this: Google may not be entirely in the clear. The big G does lots of shady things (thankfully its pals in the US govt. help it out each time). There are lots of shady things done by the Indian govt. Lets us wait for more details before condemning an entire nation.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/I...
My point is this: Google may not be entirely in the clear. The big G does lots of shady things (thankfully its pals in the US govt. help it out each time). There are lots of shady things done by the Indian govt. Lets us wait for more details before condemning an entire nation.
Coca-Cola is harmful for your health, so maybe they did the right thing after all. You're not supposed to choose things just based on how much money it can make you.
Here are the only words that people should pay attention to in the article "a complaint filed with CCI cannot be withdrawn". Also there is no source for the $5 billion in fine.
With a bit more digging I was able to find extracts from the original complaint/concern.
CUTS believes that Google can potentially engage in anticompetitive activities to the possible detriment of these markets in India and that therefore such activities in this regard need to be thoroughly investigated by the CCI.
This is further explained using the following example:
CUTS conducted a thorough study on Google and we have come across instances where the firm is abusing its dominant position.CCI had asked us to further investigate. For instance, if you search for Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg on Google, the first five results are on his Google Plus pages. His Facebook page was the 8th result.
This case may have been inspired by those filed in other countries:
1. In Canada: http://business.financialpost.com/2013/12/13/google-inc-abus...
2. EU: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/eu-commission-i...
3. United states: http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/01/google...
With a bit more digging I was able to find extracts from the original complaint/concern.
CUTS believes that Google can potentially engage in anticompetitive activities to the possible detriment of these markets in India and that therefore such activities in this regard need to be thoroughly investigated by the CCI.
This is further explained using the following example:
CUTS conducted a thorough study on Google and we have come across instances where the firm is abusing its dominant position.CCI had asked us to further investigate. For instance, if you search for Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg on Google, the first five results are on his Google Plus pages. His Facebook page was the 8th result.
This case may have been inspired by those filed in other countries:
1. In Canada: http://business.financialpost.com/2013/12/13/google-inc-abus...
2. EU: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/eu-commission-i...
3. United states: http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/01/google...
The article is bylined to the news agency Press Trust of India, so expect even less rigour and fact-checking than you would from the newspaper that's carrying the report (Times of India).
While I can't comment on what the CCI will or won't do, I do find it silly the journalists think CCI can impose a fine which is a function of Google's global revenues (over which it has no jurisdiction).
Google India's revenue was around $330M last year, 10% of which will be $33M.
While I can't comment on what the CCI will or won't do, I do find it silly the journalists think CCI can impose a fine which is a function of Google's global revenues (over which it has no jurisdiction).
Google India's revenue was around $330M last year, 10% of which will be $33M.
Articles by the Press Trust of India are widely syndicated by newspapers within and outside India. This wouldn't be the situation if the articles were as error-ridden as you are implying. Do you have anything to back up your claim to "expect even less rigour and fact-checking than [...] Times of India"?
Just to add: Google in India is Google India Pvt. Ltd.
That does not matter. The fines will apply over global revenue and not just G' revenue in India.
Do have a source for that, because it would make very little sense and seems highly unenforceable.
India is a sovereign country, their laws don't need to make sense.
EU antitrust fines are also capped at 10% of the total turnover. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/overview/factsheet_f...
EU antitrust fines are also capped at 10% of the total turnover. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/overview/factsheet_f...
I will grant you your first point if you can point me to a specific Indian law that says cartelization fines are a function of a multinational's global sales?
As to your link on EU fines, it very clearly states that fines are a percentage of "relevant sales", defined as "usually the sales of the products covered by the infringement". I don't know how you came to the conclusion that means global sales?
As to your link on EU fines, it very clearly states that fines are a percentage of "relevant sales", defined as "usually the sales of the products covered by the infringement". I don't know how you came to the conclusion that means global sales?
Elections are around the corner. This seems like an indirect request for donations or other favors by parties and groups in power. Or it could just be arm twisting to make it disclose user information. India's politicians are beginning to believe that there is too much freedom online and would like control.
India's politicians and crony capitalist class are India's worst enemies.
India's politicians and crony capitalist class are India's worst enemies.
This seems a little extreme? I wonder if they're doing this because they want something else from Google that they know are not going to give as easily, such as helping them build the surveillance state in India:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A91idibgT0
Then again, I remember reading about Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Blackberry and others already giving in to their surveillance requests a couple of years ago, so they might've already done that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A91idibgT0
Then again, I remember reading about Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Blackberry and others already giving in to their surveillance requests a couple of years ago, so they might've already done that.
I’m surprised by Hacker News’ apparent general distaste of anti-trust authorities in this thread. Starting a company is about changing the status quo established by dominant players; if you can’t do that because they use their market share to price you out of any revenue stream, poach your engineers, threaten anyone carrying ads for your service, or in Google’s case, simply put their service ahead of yours no matter what the CTR and retention of your offers are… Well, there is no investor who’s going to look at you.
From a community that was hailing Duck Duck Go’s success a week ago, you seem barely concerned by allowing an Indian equivalent to emerge. Yes, the FTC is satisfied for the efforts in the US market -- but Google is not just in the US. Even if many of your decisions don’t reflect that, your service impact other cultures. Google realised that early on, and considers how Indians search (in several languages) write (with many alphabets) give directions (using visible facades rather than map-inspired cardinal points); LibertyMail, Duck Duck Go, Open Street Map don’t take that into account nearly enough, and if you want a billion person to have the luxury of not facing a ‘take it or get off the internet’ monopoly… That decision, as imperfect as it is or excessive as it might come of, needs to be defended.
Corruption? Do you really think that’s a point to be made without proof? Just because… you don’t know of India but you have prejudice about that?
Threats of leaving? Really? Because that’s exactly what all Google engineers of Indian descent want to say to their family in India: you know, there are commenters on Hacker News who think that the country where I received the education that lead me to be SVP is such a backward cesspool that they’d rather strike out the entire sub-continent where I grew up and where the people I love and for whom I work all live… Google invests in incredibly creative ways to offer connexion to remote places, ethnographers to understand what services they need and how to design them, because having more people on-line is their only hope of growth, and you’d think they would react out of spite, and throw that away? What you are projecting on them is your own blatant racism, stefan_kendall3, and no one here has failed to notice.
From a community that was hailing Duck Duck Go’s success a week ago, you seem barely concerned by allowing an Indian equivalent to emerge. Yes, the FTC is satisfied for the efforts in the US market -- but Google is not just in the US. Even if many of your decisions don’t reflect that, your service impact other cultures. Google realised that early on, and considers how Indians search (in several languages) write (with many alphabets) give directions (using visible facades rather than map-inspired cardinal points); LibertyMail, Duck Duck Go, Open Street Map don’t take that into account nearly enough, and if you want a billion person to have the luxury of not facing a ‘take it or get off the internet’ monopoly… That decision, as imperfect as it is or excessive as it might come of, needs to be defended.
Corruption? Do you really think that’s a point to be made without proof? Just because… you don’t know of India but you have prejudice about that?
Threats of leaving? Really? Because that’s exactly what all Google engineers of Indian descent want to say to their family in India: you know, there are commenters on Hacker News who think that the country where I received the education that lead me to be SVP is such a backward cesspool that they’d rather strike out the entire sub-continent where I grew up and where the people I love and for whom I work all live… Google invests in incredibly creative ways to offer connexion to remote places, ethnographers to understand what services they need and how to design them, because having more people on-line is their only hope of growth, and you’d think they would react out of spite, and throw that away? What you are projecting on them is your own blatant racism, stefan_kendall3, and no one here has failed to notice.
Indian here
- Indiatimes is a hype machine
- They write stories for headlines with little or no depth
- Indiatimes is a hype machine
- They write stories for headlines with little or no depth
"Under competition regulations, an entity found violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10% of its three-year annual average turnover" Surely they don't mean their annual GLOBAL turnover, but only that in India? $5B just for their activity in India looks largely overstated to me.
What I know is, India is the most corrupt country. If you want to do business in the best ethical way, this is not the place.
Try something else, or learn dirty politics and exploit peoples before you enter.....
I am Indian..
It would be nice if we could do that here with comcast.
I hope they try to fine Google and they pull out of India entirely.
When coke pulled out, hundreds of new flavors came into the market. When IBM did, thousands of software companies sprung up. So yes I hope Google pulls out too - the worlds information would get organized in hundreds more useful ways.
It's tough to try to spin a $5b fine on a large company as a 'win' for consumers, but I see you'll give it a shot. Isn't this tacit admission that the different soda brands can only compete by legislative fiat? The only winners are the ersatz soda companies, and consumers pay significant costs, direct and indirect, in compliance with these kinds of market protection schemes.
So what you're saying is that a monopoly is preferable?
I hope so, too. Then we'll probably see an Indian-based search engine, like Yandex in Russia or Baidu in China, and it would be for the better for Indians.
But I doubt Google will quit. Google is trying to give people Internet in Africa, so they can one day be the main search engine there, too. Compared to that they are in a much better position in India, even if not everyone there has Internet now.
But I doubt Google will quit. Google is trying to give people Internet in Africa, so they can one day be the main search engine there, too. Compared to that they are in a much better position in India, even if not everyone there has Internet now.
ok i will bite: why ?
There is no reason for them to hang around with such a big fine, since they make so little money India. This is like how google mostly pulled out of china, the costs and risks just were not worth the benefits.
can you provide any sources to how they make so little money in India?
as far as I know, India is one of the countries where google dominates in search. Which is not the case in China, google is not a major search engine in China. I just can't imagine they pulling out of India.
They just recently had heart warming google advertisements in TV which is very rare for google to do.
as far as I know, India is one of the countries where google dominates in search. Which is not the case in China, google is not a major search engine in China. I just can't imagine they pulling out of India.
They just recently had heart warming google advertisements in TV which is very rare for google to do.
I think they made only 300 or so million revenue in the last 3 years, and as for profits much less, which completely out of proportion with the proposed fine (no sources for this, just word of mouth). India is still a developing market, advertisers don't pay as much as in the developed world.
The ad is probably ran because of the government...they want to build some support with the people so they are treated better.
The ad is probably ran because of the government...they want to build some support with the people so they are treated better.
Reading the comments, I guess the common sentiment is "to teach them (India) a lesson"?
Would that be a bad thing? I don't mean in a vindictive sense. Just so that the government might stop bullying companies.
Context of this case is different to those of others appeared recently in the past (those are tax related).
CCI is independent arm of Govt. Let it investigate. So "Govt bullying companies" line of reasoning won't apply.
CCI is independent arm of Govt. Let it investigate. So "Govt bullying companies" line of reasoning won't apply.
To send a clear message to other countries who try to bully companies for cash.
It's a shakedown.
It's a shakedown.
Nonsense. Some one complained and CCI is investigating and Google will act as per the verdict. Where is bullying in this? What else Govt. is supposed to do? Do not investigate?
Many companies get investigated in the America/west/China for various reasons. We all see that in news. All of that is bullying?
Do not bring old cases into the current context. Also, Google know rules before operating in India. Do not they?
Many companies get investigated in the America/west/China for various reasons. We all see that in news. All of that is bullying?
Do not bring old cases into the current context. Also, Google know rules before operating in India. Do not they?
Yes. The government is not supposed to threaten massive fines for companies wildly improving the quality of life for its citizens. It lessens the incentive to build great products and bring those products to an international market.
"Other countries do it" is not an excuse that makes something ethical or right.
"Other countries do it" is not an excuse that makes something ethical or right.
Although there are several parallels over here, one of the key take-aways for me from this news is that India is just not a good place for anyone (other than its citizens perhaps) to do business. The system is inherently broken and flawed to the degree that any smart startup should look elsewhere if they're considering expanding to this market.
----
[1] http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919167,...