I appreciate that it was of symbolic value only, and the text is exhortative only, but Dimi and Karl, could you give us a bit of background on the Google vote today.
It's always a bit difficult for outsiders to understand what's going on, who's voted for what and why, because even the recorded roll-count votes aren't published for a couple of days, and without really following the dossier it takes a lot of work to unpack which amendment is which, and which groups went which way over it.
The crude picture I've got from tweets here and there is that there was an amendment to take out the break-up language from the resolution, with (I think) the Liberals and some national delegations critical of the measure, and the Greens seeing it as a distraction; or worse, as a Trojan horse to force Google to have to index links even if it had to pay for the privilege.
But these amendments were voted down roughly 3-to-1 -- presumably by other groups who hadn't written them.
Both the Economist and policy tank EPIC had some things to say about why it doesn't appear to make that much sense
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21635000-european-moves-against-google...
http://www.epicenternetwork.eu/briefings/unbundling-search-engines/
Even if Google's market share is massive, search is a very contestable market, and there's very little consumer lock-in.
Google's Android can arguably be said to be pro-competitive, a defensive effort that made sense for Google, to prevent its core offerings being sidelined at the Operating System level.
So why did this motion get so many MEPs to pile in with their support?
Which were the groups that pushed it, and why?
And if, as some are saying, this is the publishers showing their legislative power with a warning shot against those who seek a more liberalised downstream copyright environment, is that analysis right; and does it suggest that the forces of restriction have a strong hold on a large swathe of MEPs ?
I'd be interested to know the team's analysis.
-- James.