Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

China Approves Google Motorola Mobility Merger

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the no-longer-just-a-simple-search-bar dept.

Android 78

symbolset writes "CNET is reporting that China has approved Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility. Previously approved by regulatory authorities in the U.S. and Europe, China was the last holdout. The deal will now reportedly close 'within days.'" I wonder what conditions Google may have faced from the regulators, and whether they include any exceptions to the "don't be evil" guideline.

cancel ×

78 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

don't be evil (-1, Flamebait)

partofme (2643183) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055381)

I wonder what conditions Google may have faced from the regulators, and whether they include any exceptions to the "don't be evil" guideline.

Google really never cared about those anyway. They only left China's search engine market because they were seriously losing to Baidu. They just decided to go out with some big bang and blame the chinese for their own failure.

Re:don't be evil (4, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055507)

Submitter here. Google left China's search engine market because China wanted them to enforce censorship and disclose identifying information for posters - and that violated their "do no evil" motto. The CEO at the time, Eric Schmidt wanted to do it. Larry page wanted to do it. But Sergey Brin took a position something like (not a literal quote) "then you'll do it without me because I'm not going there. Dad was a Russian political dissident and I might have grown up in a Gulag and you all might not have met me but for his escape to freedom. I won't be involved in anything like depriving others of freedom of speech." I imagine there were several incidences of the phrase "fuck you" involved too, but that might just be my imagination.

The hacking thing was a secondary issue, but might have been reason enough in its own right. Regardless, Google faced the threat and didn't cross the rubicon. They didn't cave. That should have submarined this Motorola Mobility deal, but it didn't. Google serves the China search market from Taiwan now, where these requirements don't apply - but the Great Firewall blocks some Chinese citizens from getting the best use of their Google, but at least Google isn't participating in it.

The fight over this is probably why Schmidt isn't the CEO any more. And that's OK. For babysitting Larry and Sergey for a few years he got $10 billion, which makes him the highest paid babysitter of all time.

That "I wonder" stuff was added by timothy, as is his right as an editor. The submission [slashdot.org] is the stuff in the blockquote.

The condition added by China's regulators is the same as other governments required: Android has to stay open - which Google intended anyway.

I'm actually pretty surprised that China approved this deal. I thought Google was going to have to take Motorola Mobility without their China operations - and that they would. Somewhere in China is a Google employee who earned a really large bonus. He made it rain.

Re:don't be evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055593)

For babysitting Larry and Sergey for a few years he got $10 billion, which makes him the highest paid babysitter of all time.

How is this not evil?

Re:don't be evil (2)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055617)

How is this evil? Google's board obviously agreed on Eric Schmidt's compensation, and he got paid accordingly. If you don't like it, don't use Google - churn out your AGPL3 based search service and use it.

Re:don't be evil (3, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055627)

This wasn't Larry Page and Sergey Brin's idea. The bankers who backed the IPO insisted on a babysitter with experience in running a multinational corporation, and they got one. That it cost so much wasn't because they offered it but because he had the wisdom to insist on stock options rather than straight pay. He might have got nothing at all if Google had tanked right after. He was also smart enough to let them do their thing. Instead of tanking Google shares flew to the moon, and he became wealthy beyond the dreams of Midas - though he was beyond worring about paying the rent even beforehand.

Re:don't be evil (2)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055649)

BTW: Eric Schmidts $10 billion didn't cost Google anything at all. So it was a sweet deal for Google too.

Re:don't be evil (0)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055829)

Who paid it then, the tooth fairy?

Re:don't be evil (4, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055839)

Google printed options of no value, and the market made them into $10 B on its own. But Google didn't pay. That money didn't come out of Google's revenues.

Re:don't be evil (2)

athe!st (1782368) | more than 2 years ago | (#40056819)

No, the value came out of the pockets of other shareholders since their shares are diluted by the value of his created shares

Re:don't be evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40058165)

GP is at +4 insightful. Go figure.

Are DeVry doing finance degrees now? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058227)

Tosh. The pie is a finite size. To make an extra slice you have to cut down somebody else's.

Re:Are DeVry doing finance degrees now? (1)

Weatherlawyer (2596357) | more than 2 years ago | (#40058461)

The whole point of having stock of unknown value is that you are betting it has infinite value until the stock is sold or valued in some other way it is of indefinite value. The apparent drain on their value was incorporated in the added value of the input from the additional share holder as without him at the start of the deal it was not going to go through the roof.

Begone troll.

Re:Are DeVry doing finance degrees now? (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#40061253)

Have you ever taken an economics class? The pie is not static.

Re:Are DeVry doing finance degrees now? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40062435)

the pie of people buying those stock options wasn't dependent on if he got the stock or if google sold them as a company, so google gave him a boatload of money.

Re:don't be evil (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055701)

The China hold out was purely personal, as such all that was required was an individual arrangement. Google was stuck between a rock and a hardplace, either pay and be evil or be screwed by M$ being evil.

Re:don't be evil (3, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055811)

Your post is suffering from Aphasia, which is indicative of a stroke. If you can still read this I would recommend that you dial 911 and ask for help.

Surprising? Not at all! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055797)

You have to know how China or any other communist country really works. Bribery is the number one means that can get you through almost everywhere. No questions asked. Even in post-communist countries there are some deeply nested schemes to make things work. I do NOT want to imagine the sums of money needed in China to approve this kind of a big business deal.

Re:Surprising? Not at all! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055861)

And death penalty risk involved too.

Re:Surprising? Not at all! (2)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055955)

Money corrupts governments everywhere. Am I supposed to be surprised that money corrupts China's government too? It's US silly season again and this year we're coining new words like "SuperPAC" to legitimize the acceptance of unlimited amounts of graft.

Re:Surprising? Not at all! (2)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057045)

I think he's saying that bribery is more common in societies that have (or have recently had) forced income equality. While "communism" itself doesn't apply to the modern China, which is Communist only in name, the culture of bribery is still rife due to its history. As a comparison, we hear of underqualified legacies getting into Ivies in the US, but how often do we hear of parents giving money to elementary or middle school officials to secure a place for their children? It happens in China, and the difference is not that one country does it while the other does not, but in the pervasiveness and cultural acceptance.

My guess for why it is this way is that while we can limit wealth, we cannot limit the influence a person can gather. So a person who wields greater influence than others in a income-equalized society may more often believe himself shortchanged by that society and thus "deserving" of bribe moneys for the amount of work they accomplish. Without a strong sense of patriotism or a deep emotional commitment to one's community, this sort of proactive recompense for perceived victimization goes unchecked. I'm not sure if this all has scientific backing, but it makes sense as one explanation, and is reflected by the CCP's resistance to calls for lower public servant wages -- their explanation to the public being that a high wage raises the bar for bribing an official thus preventing most attempts at bribery. You don't get to hear this sort of stuff in the US.

Re:don't be evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40056125)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hYN2wSrLpjlkw315NjrmHTeNEq2Q?docId=adfa482ccdf348208c46b2181a3d5337

>Google's Android software powers more than 250 million mobile devices made by a variety of manufacturers, including Motorola Mobility. The latest versions must be made available free of charge for the next five years, apparently in response to concerns that competition could be hurt if Google gives updated versions to Motorola Mobility and withholds them from others. Google doesn't currently charge for Android.

The availability of Android would have impacts on China's manufacturer, so there is no surprise of seeing this condition attached.

Re:don't be evil (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | more than 2 years ago | (#40059961)

It's a shame China couldn't have demanded that Google force Motorola unlock their bootloaders worldwide as a condition of approval. My Photon is for sale on eBay right now because their 2.3.5 update *really* locked the bootloader once and for all, and made the phone impossible to root for at least a few days.

I refuse to be like Motorola's battered spouse any longer. I will not graciously thank them for giving me a thin, damp, moldy blanket to help keep warm when they make me sleep naked on the dungeon's cold concrete floor.

Damn you, Motorola, and your kernel's blighted "ondemand" governor. I want "interactive", and refuse to suffer with lockscreen lag for one fscking day more. When I hit the power button or touch the screen, I want the phone at 100% CPU speed... NOW. I'm tired of having to "exercise" the phone by flipping the notification tray open and closed, over and over again, to keep the phone from slowing down and making me feel like I'm try to slog through wet concrete for 30 seconds while it runs at 200MHz. I didn't buy a dualcore 1-GHz phone so it could run more slowly than my ancient Hero that's overclocked and locked to 711MHz.

If I had a Trebuchet, I'd gather the media, then wheel it over to your parking lot and use it to hurl that now-lobotomized piece of locked-down junk through one of your office windows... after Father Marilyn Manson performs the last rites, while a half-dozen drag queen nuns sing spirituals about the chariot in the sky while the phone sails over your parking lot and across the great Rainbow Bridge over the River Styx into the welcoming arms of Jay Miner, Jon Postel, and Dennis Ritchie -- one of whom will have the private key needed to unlock its soul and allow it finally feel the healing kiss of CM9.

With God, Xenu, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as my witnesses, I will never, *ever* buy another Motorola phone with a locked bootloader.

Re:don't be evil (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 2 years ago | (#40061991)

If China wants Google to ensure that Android stays open the best thing they could do would be to BUY ORACLE.

I'm sure that China could afford it, maybe have to call in some of the debt that the USA owes them...

Oracle is a different issue (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40062219)

The best we can do for the previously open projects acquired with Sun by Oracle is to fork them. Oracle is run by Larry Ellison. Larry Ellison is not in the "giving stuff away" business.

Re:don't be evil (0)

pseudofrog (570061) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055699)

As annoying as your shilling is, I'm a bit saddened to see that you aren't even trying these days.

China Is Not Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055389)

Certainly not any more (or less) evil than the U.S. as of late.

Seriously, just because they don't see some things eye to eye with your U.S.-centric P.O.V. doesn't make them automatically evil.

Re:China Is Not Evil (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055411)

yes they are a lovable country of communist slave labor lynch mobs

Re:China Is Not Evil (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055447)

I spend about 10 months of the year in China. There are some problems with civil liberties, but when it comes to business, they're better capitalists than the US. And chinese pussy is better than american pussy. And really, what good are civil liberties if all they get you is dumb shit like "occupy wall street" and a "free press" that can't do it's god-damn job?

Re:China Is Not Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055695)

Yeah, who needs freedom when you can have money instead?

Re:China Is Not Evil (2)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055789)

You're scum.

Re:China Is Not Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055805)

I think most of his points are very good.
Although I wouldn't make such a firm generalization regarding the quality of pussy.

Re:China Is Not Evil (0)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055837)

It's imaginary pussy.

Re:China Is Not Evil (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40056031)

Although I wouldn't make such a firm generalization regarding the quality of pussy.

Yep. There's good pussy all over the world. I speak from experience with ladies from China and India as well as African-Americans, a wide variety of Europeans, and one Polynesian. Never got to sample any Inuit or Native Americans (north or south) or Mongolians or Arab ladies.

Posting as AC, because my wife does not - and should not - know everything I did in my dissolute youth (before I met her and became staidly conventional).

Re:China Is Not Evil (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#40061289)

What I find sickening is that your wife knows your slashdot id, and how to find your comments.

Re:China Is Not Evil (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 2 years ago | (#40061977)

Although I wouldn't make such a firm generalization regarding the quality of pussy.

Yep. There's good pussy all over the world. I speak from experience with ladies from China and India as well as African-Americans, a wide variety of Europeans, and one Polynesian. Never got to sample any Inuit or Native Americans (north or south) or Mongolians or Arab ladies.

Posting as AC, because my wife does not - and should not - know everything I did in my dissolute youth (before I met her and became staidly conventional).

If you were ever in Mongolia and DIDN'T sample Mongol pussy then you really didn't try. Or you were scared off by the Mongol guys.

Mongol guys don't like foreigners messing with Mongol girls because THEY KNOW HOW EASY THEY ARE!

Re:China Is Not Evil (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#40061283)

Whoa, whoa, whoa....what about this "pussy" now? Can you elaborate?

Re:China Is Not Evil (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055485)

Who said that? Seriously, where did that come from? This story doesn't say anything about China is evil. And what sort of ass-pull got America involved in it? I'm genuinely curious.

Re:China Is Not Evil (1)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055541)

Here try this. Go to China Try and spread a rumour in China that the Chinese premier is a Muslim... See how far that gets... Oh BTW while you are at it try to claim that he wasn't born in China.

Re:China Is Not Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055671)

If he's indeed a Muslim I doubt anything would happen to you. But if he's not, why would you do such a thing, and who would be the evil one if you did?

Re:China Is Not Evil (1)

thexile (1058552) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055859)

Nothing will happen to you. So stop spreading FUD.

Re:China Is Not Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40059379)

Uh, ok.

This may come as a shock to you but none of these are particularly terrible things. To the extent it would be a national scandal that Obama is foreign is that he wouldn't be the person he represented himself as: it's not beyond the realms of plausability to suggest that someone might run for President, and win, who's foreign born, albeit with the problem that he'd have to have the constitution changed somehow before he can actually take office.

And as for the Muslim thing: again, the only extent to which this would be a serious scandal is that Obama would have been lying about it. That, and tea-baggers who are convinced that all Muslims are terrorists because they've convinced themselves that, uh, all Muslims are terrorists, because LOOK OVER THERE! MUSLIM EXTREMISTS!!!

The "Foreign born, and a MUSLIM!!!" thing is generally a very American centric thing. It's a little silly to suggest that *random country* would consider both allegations an attack on their leadership.

Re:China Is Not Evil (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40059619)

and just to really stick the boot in, you could give the Chinese Premier THE MOST TERRIBLE INSULT of ALL! You could accuse him..

...wait for it...

...wait for it...

...of BURNING an AMERICAN FLAG!!!

*horror*

Re:China Is Not Evil (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40060521)

Ironically, one of the PRC vice premiers is Muslim; and no, they don't have a problem with it. Apparently, they don't care what you believe in so long as you consider yourself Chinese.

Re:China Is Not Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055571)

Hey AC, if you live in the US, put up or STFU and move to China then.

Yes, China Is Not Evil (2, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055619)

China is trying to join the present age gracefully without a painful civil war or excessive domestic violence. That's a difficult course, and I wish them all the luck in the world in that goal. I'm not a big fan of how they're managing the transition shock - they're certainly not doing it how I would do it. But I'm not looking at it from the party's point of view and they know their people better than I do. They have no successful historical guide for how this is done peacefully, because it's never been done peacefully in the history of Man. In this transition always before there has always been a great deal of blood spilled.

I'm sure to get some haters over this one. I don't hate the China government, and especially not their people - and I think most people in the world feel this way. They have a different view and diverse views are valuable. I think China's government is also regretful of the measures they feel they must impose to moderate the migration to the modern world - but that a reckless unrestrained adoption of openness might drive their people to anarchy. So they must loosen the ties that bind gradually so that their people can explore freedom without being harmed too much by it.

That doesn't excuse any of the most egregious violations of human rights we've heard of lately by any means. China is a different country, and at over a billion souls more diverse in operations than any we know. Of course there are going to be odd corners where bad things happen outside the general scheme, as there are at Guantanamo. The greater goal doesn't make these things right to do, and diminishes the effort overall - but there are always outlier individuals who implement beyond their remit thinking their actions serve the greater goal when they don't.

I believe that the average Chinese citizen wants what I want: to provide for himself and his family. And I believe that the Chinese government wants what my government wants: to preserve their citizens' standard of living, to protect their borders, to move progress forward. We are all the same in this regard.

Whether our governments reconcile or not, I hope our citizens can embrace each other in brotherhood, recognizing that we all suffer from the human condition - including being led by fools.

Re:Yes, China Is Not Evil (2)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40056387)

It's getting harder to see the difference between china and the rest of the world these days.
A recent documentary showed a company seeing if it could produce cushions in the UK competitively as compared to it's factory in China.

The British Machinists were faster and more productive than their chinese conterparts. Over the previous 5 years chinese wages had increased 500% to £1 an hour, yes 20pence an hour five years ago. The chinese workers worked longer hours slept in small company rooms away from their families. Their hope was their children would have better prospects in life than they did.

With the British workers sowing zips at a rate of 50 cushions an hour the British produced cushions cost an extra 8 pence to produce, the machinests were working extremely hard for a minimum wage of £6.35 an hour.

In the end it made me feel rather sad for both sets of workers both were working like slaves on these production lines, the British product commands a premium price in the American Export market which probably more than makes up for the 8 pence difference in production cost.

The real question for me was why isn't the production automated to a greater extent at least robots don't struggle to make ends meet while the executives are living it up.

I'd bet there are people on here who could automate a process like cushion making. What kind of life are we making for our fellow human beings.

Re:Yes, China Is Not Evil (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40060539)

China is trying to join the present age gracefully without a painful civil war or excessive domestic violence. That's a difficult course, and I wish them all the luck in the world in that goal. I'm not a big fan of how they're managing the transition shock - they're certainly not doing it how I would do it.

The way I see it, they've looked at how Russia fared in its own transition - which involved a much more rapid change-over to wild west capitalism and political freedoms - and figured that they don't want to pay that price [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Yes, China Is Not Evil (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40060999)

You're giving the CCP way too much love over this. They caused a lot of China's problem. It's their duty to undo the messes they've created in the first place. Praise doesn't come until they unwind the effects of the cultural revolution and then cross the threshold to where they should be at (pre-revolution). Arguably, the CCP has set China back several generations. However, I'm not one to rub salt into the wound. But I won't be giving them that level of respect you're giving until a while longer. They're making progress, but there's still much work to do before a celebration is warranted.

HAHA !! WHO GIVES A SHIT !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055429)

If you give a shit what some commie country thinks, well, you give a lot more shit than I !!

Is China in on this, too, now? (4, Interesting)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055431)

It used to be you just had to get FTC approval for a merger.

Then the EU started to throw its weight around and got in on the act.

So now, China has to approve global mergers, too?

Is there a full list of approval authorities?

Do Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa (4 of the BRICS) also need to approve? All 200 or so countries of the world?

Or is it a game of chicken where if a podunk country says "You can't merge without our permission", a company will just say "Bye," but they can't say the same for huge markets?

Re:Is China in on this, too, now? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055479)

Only countries where the company is drawing like $1.5 billion+ in revenue. They sell a lot of stuff in China, behind only the US.

Re:Is China in on this, too, now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055521)

I was thinking the same thing, too. Of all the lax policies regarding businesses, intellectual property, etc. it makes me giggle when they step in on something like this. It's like STFU; your workers will still be able to work 18 hours/day for $5 and a bowl of rice so relax.

Re:Is China in on this, too, now? (2)

breeze95 (880714) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055545)

It used to be you just had to get FTC approval for a merger.

Then the EU started to throw its weight around and got in on the act.

So now, China has to approve global mergers, too?

Is there a full list of approval authorities?

Do Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa (4 of the BRICS) also need to approve? All 200 or so countries of the world?

Or is it a game of chicken where if a podunk country says "You can't merge without our permission", a company will just say "Bye," but they can't say the same for huge markets?

Well, we live in a different world now. Companies are no longer U.S. centric and if Google-Motorola wants to sell their products in China then the merger will have to be approved by Chinese authorities. The same goes for Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa. That's the price you pay for globalism.

Re:Is China in on this, too, now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055553)

Really? So the US gets to approve Chinese business mergers? They need to sell to us much more than we need to sell to them. This sets bad precedent that google even gave them the time of day on this. If they ban a company we just ban one of theirs back. Once again they need to sell to us much more than we need to sell to them.

Re:Is China in on this, too, now? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055607)

The problem is that far too many US companies want to sell into China so they are willing to give away everything just to make a few quick bucks.

Re:Is China in on this, too, now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055687)

Really? So the US gets to approve Chinese business mergers?

Yes. Whichever big Chinese company that wants to operate in the US will have to obey local laws. Try to understand that Google doesn't have to follow what China (or US, EU, etc) says, but if they don't they'll be locked out of that market. The Chinese (or US, EU, etc) market is big enough to make it worth the trouble.

They need to sell to us much more than we need to sell to them. This sets bad precedent that google even gave them the time of day on this. If they ban a company we just ban one of theirs back. Once again they need to sell to us much more than we need to sell to them.

There's no "us" in this. Google is a global company. They don't care which country sells more or less - that's not their problem. Are you new to Capitalism?

Re:Is China in on this, too, now? (1)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057169)

If the two businesses merging have presence in the US and rely on US protection for their patents (as is the motivation for Google buying up Motorola), then I imagine yes. So, if Google and Motorola have a presence in China, and Google needs China's auspices to solidify its future patent war chest, then you bet they would do everything they can to get it. Also, tit-for-tat mentality is what leads to the shitfests like the entire Middle East. US and China are smarter than that.

Re:Is China in on this, too, now? (1)

Sesostris III (730910) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055549)

Is there a full list of approval authorities?

Do Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa (4 of the BRICS) also need to approve? All 200 or so countries of the world?

This is partly answered in the article. It says that the deal had to be approved by various regulators, and mentions Israel and Taiwan along with the US, EU and China. I'm sure there were others - China, Israel and Taiwan were mentioned in the article as they seemed to be the laggards in the approval process.

China just joined the EU/US club (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055557)

This is nothing new.

Larger companies, like Coca-Cola, Intel, etc. still wrestle themselves into presence in the world.

Re:China just joined the EU/US club (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055583)

Larger companies, like Coca-Cola, Intel, etc. still wrestle themselves into presence in the world.

So do itty bitty ones. Not much of an observation unless you have something to add.

Re:Is China in on this, too, now? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055621)

Why not have the WTO do the approval for everyone? Until every member from Argentina to Russia approves, Google can't acquire Mot.

Re:Is China in on this, too, now? (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055667)

Do Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa (4 of the BRICS) also need to approve? All 200 or so countries of the world?

Of course. Any country in which you do business can tell you what you can and cannot do as a business in their part of the world. And so it should be. Deal with it.

Google wanted to reap the tax benefits of opening subsidiaries in lots of countries. Those subsidiaries are subject to local laws, and antitrust therefore potentially needs to be approved everywhere. Nothing to see here.

The article was updated (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055445)

From the update to the article, it is stated that Google must keep android free and open for at least the next 5 years.

Not a bad condition if you ask me.

Re:The article was updated (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055693)

Its been said enough already, but it's in Google's best interest to keep it open anyway. They make money on the number of people looking at ads, rather than pure profit of just the hardware.

Re:The article was updated (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055899)

keep? the google-apps/api's aren't free _now_..

Re:The article was updated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055983)

Err, what? "google-apps/api's" are as related to Android as "ms-office/azure" to Windows.

Re:The article was updated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40056097)

Tho they could be a first party advantage that Goog/Moto will leverage

Re:The article was updated (1)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057195)

Hmmm, 5 years is really short. Makes you wonder if the government thinks its state companies will be able to get a competitive OS out in that time.

Lets hope they ban all IPhones and Nokias (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055481)

Then a complete deadlock of every smartphone. Then finally politicians who own these phones can reform the patent system and see how absurd it is! ... at least I can hope since MS is banning all HTC andriod phones from the US.

Re:Lets hope they ban all IPhones and Nokias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40056105)

Similar to the way the girls of the world have banned you from anything remotely resembling sex?

Let me tell you about Google... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055581)

Let me introduce you to the top assholes at Google:

  • - Vic Gundotra : The asshole who ruined Google+ by insisting on his moronic Real Names policy.
  • - Sundar Pichai: The utter asshole whose incompetence has resulted in the shutdown of Google's Atlanta office.
  • - David Drummond: Chief Legal Asshole and author of the creepy privacy policy.
  • - Andy Rubin: Another huge asshole. A hypocrite who puts carriers first and users last. An imbecile who brags about Android's openness while keeping all development behind close doors.
  • - Ben Treynor: The very definition of arrogant asshole. Threatened Dell not to buy anymore hardware from them and then it turned out it was Google who hadn't signed the support contracts. Did he ever apologized for his 'arrogant asshole' behavior? Of course not!

And Moronola, well. Google just acquired it to get ahold of the patents. Their products have been a buggy piece of shit for years and no one with a clue would buy any of them.

Re:Let me tell you about Google... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055685)

You sound like a bitter little baby. Did you get fired for being a douche bag?

Re:Let me tell you about Google... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40056287)

Those sound like factual statements to me, that you did not bother rebutting.

Different AC, but agree that Google is a bunch of arrogant assholes.

Re:Let me tell you about Google... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40056489)

Third AC here. You sound like a whiney little bitch.

Leftist faggot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055819)

"I wonder what conditions Google may have faced from the regulators, and whether they include any exceptions to the "don't be evil" guideline."

Go occupy something and post it your facewall, shitcock.

What else does china approve? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055863)

Ten years from now:
"China Approves the U.S. President sneezing."

Stop buying chinese crap and empowering chinese fascists. Balanced economy and fair trade with equal partners are the order of tomorrow.
.

"don't be evil" (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40056951)

To whom?

No problem with "do no evil". (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#40059069)

China never demanded Google to deviate from "do no evil." It only demanded that it uses China's definition of "evil".

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?