Which is exactly what the EU did a few years back of course. Try to force the creation of a new Google. What did they come up with?
Except they were not the EU "Try[ing] to force the creation of" anything, nor were they "a new Google", meaning the only parts of that sentence you get to keep are the spaces.
Kelkoo did its thing before Google did shopping. Google is the mimic here.
Kelkoo *pre-dates* Google's shopping search system, by a few years (Google's one first launched as Froogle in Dec 2002).
> The EU commission claimed these companies were the European competition for Google (and then kept the money they got from Google that was supposed to let them build their companies)
1. When did the EU commission get money from Google, for any purpose or reason, including fines? Was it around fifteen years after Kelkoo was bought and sold by Yahoo!?
And therefore would have needed a time machine to be involved in the creation of Kelkoo?
2. The actual reality is that Kelkoo joined in a lawsuit against Google for monopoly abuse[a], claiming to have been damaged by Google manipulating search results to favour its own products.
Important: The US courts have also found Google guilty of antitrust violations[b].
If you try to insist that this case — which is the closest I can even find to your phrasing, you've not cited anything — can use any of the words "forcing", "creating", or the sentence "and then kept the money they got from Google that was supposed to let them build their companies", then you have to also apply this to the US courts.
It's incorrect to use those words and phrases to describe the US case against Google, it's incorrect to use those words and phrases to describe the EU case against Google.
The case was not brought by the EU, it was brought at the EU. These companies sued Google for antitrust violations, at the EU who immediately stole all the spotlight, but technically it was those companies, not the EU directly. So the EU put out press releases that these antitrust violations were why these companies had not become full-fledged search engines. Why we didn't have an EU search engine. That's why I stated that they claimed stuff like kelkoo could replace Google if only given the chance. That's what they did claim.
It was, and is, a completely absurd claim, that the goal was to have an EU search engine, that goal, of course, totally failed, and that it is very weird where the money went. You know, given the goal. Given what they supposedly wanted to achieve.
Well, perhaps I should really clarify. I'm sure that what happened to the money is totally legal, but that it is going to achieve exactly nothing for the stated goal, and just happens to go to the budget of the politicians involved. Totally unrelated, I must say, the Berlaymont building, where these people work, has a nice restaurant. Well, multiple. I especially love the foamed milk with imported praline on a stick with just a drop of ... I forgot. It's whiskey, basically, but some Belgian version. Oh and you want to recognize EU commissioners there? They're the little mean guys with 20 security guards around them, eating in a huge separate space in the back, because some of them are so popular they've been attacked by their own EU personnel. And you'd think that would be an excuse to use security guards as servants, but actually no, I was somewhat near one incident. They really were attacked by their own workers. Rumor is some security guards joined in the attack.
You said:
Except they were not the EU "Try[ing] to force the creation of" anything, nor were they "a new Google", meaning the only parts of that sentence you get to keep are the spaces.Kelkoo did its thing before Google did shopping. Google is the mimic here.
Kelkoo *pre-dates* Google's shopping search system, by a few years (Google's one first launched as Froogle in Dec 2002).
> The EU commission claimed these companies were the European competition for Google (and then kept the money they got from Google that was supposed to let them build their companies)
1. When did the EU commission get money from Google, for any purpose or reason, including fines? Was it around fifteen years after Kelkoo was bought and sold by Yahoo!?
And therefore would have needed a time machine to be involved in the creation of Kelkoo?
2. The actual reality is that Kelkoo joined in a lawsuit against Google for monopoly abuse[a], claiming to have been damaged by Google manipulating search results to favour its own products.
Important: The US courts have also found Google guilty of antitrust violations[b].
If you try to insist that this case — which is the closest I can even find to your phrasing, you've not cited anything — can use any of the words "forcing", "creating", or the sentence "and then kept the money they got from Google that was supposed to let them build their companies", then you have to also apply this to the US courts.
It's incorrect to use those words and phrases to describe the US case against Google, it's incorrect to use those words and phrases to describe the EU case against Google.
[a] https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39...
[b] https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/05/google-loses-antitrust-case-...