EU - tough on software companies, weak on terrorist states..
The EU takes on Microsoft, closes eyes to Iran
Sunday, July 16, 2006 by Draginol | Discussion: Microsoft
This past week the EU put another $357 million fine on Microsoft over anti-trust issues. This is on top of the previous $300+ million fine and the on-going $2+ million per day ongoing fine. When it comes to dealing with the global threat posed by American software giant, Microsoft, the EU is quite brave.
Meanwhile, Europe heads towards year 4 of completely unproductive negotiations with Iran, a country that has made it clear that they are pushing to have nuclear weapons. Iran, as you may recall, has publicly promised to annihilate Israel in a ball of fire and whose missiles are likely able to reach Europe.
Luckily for Iran, they are not bundling a media player with their nuclear program or else the EU might then finally take the threat seriously.
Neelie Kroes, the "competition" commissioner for the European Union, apparently earned her nickname "Nickel Neelie" because she's tough in the same way as the "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher -- at least that's what pundits are saying. Really? REALLY?
No, I don't see the similarity. One was a leader in the war against terrorist forces, tyranny, and oppression around the world even when it was unpopular. The other is a beareucrat who is sticking it to a foreign software company for reasons I doubt she fully grasps in a move that is very popular with "the people".
Kroes claims that what Microsoft has to do to comply with the ruling is "crystal clear". Microsoft disagrees. I would be interested in the "crystal clear" camp to come forward and demonstrate that clarity. As a software developer, I find the EU's demands to be vague in the extreme. You can read the official document here.
For example, the ruling demands that Microsoft "disclose complete and accurate interface documentation" so that their cmopetitors can achieve "full interoperability" with Windows PCs and servers. What the hell is "interface documentation"? What exactly is the official excuse of its competitors in not being able to work with Windows PCs and servers?
Tiny software developer Stardock, where I work, has managed to create software that seamlessly extends the feature set of Windows as if it's part of the OS. Heck, we have software that actually can alter the Windows GUI -- a pretty low level part of the OS -- to look like whatever we want. And we did that without "interface documentation" let alone source code or any other special help.
The only aspect of the ruling that seems clear is that Microsoft has to provide OEMs a version of Windows without Windows Media Player. But even that is vague if you're a software developer. Does that just mean the player app or the underlying codecs and libraries that are relied on by thousands of programs?
My point isn't to make Microsoft out to be an angel. They're not. They've been quite ruthless over the years. But it strikes me as absurd to see the court jump on Microsoft with massive fines while playing footsie with nations like Iran. Heck, the EU had a lot more patience with Saddam Hussein -- a decade of UN security counsel resolutions -- and still didn't want to do anything particularly strong.
From an outsider's point of view, it just strikes me as ludicrious to see how quick the EU can muster significant sanctions against a computer software company but demand "patience" if the threat against them is actually, you know, real.
Kroes writes:
I must say that I find it difficult to imagine that a company like Microsoft does not understand the principles of how to document protocols in order to achieve interoperability.
Spoken like a true non-technical person. It takes two to, ahem, interoperate. I suspect that there are plenty of people at Microsoft scratching their heads wondering "What more do these people want? Do we have to actually code up the software used by our competitors for them, hand it to them and provide a developer to sit there and answer CS 101 questions?"
How about answer this question: What specifically is the problem that these unnamed competitors are having? What specifically do they need in order to interoperate? If the answer includes "source code" then they need to start hiring software developers who have training in...software development.
Lest someone think I'm some sort of Microsoft fanboy, I spent the first several years of my career as an OS/2 developer. I saw some pretty unsavory tactics used by Microsoft to win the OS market. If the EU (or US courts for that matter) had gotten involved then, they could have made specific requirements that would have made sense not just to lay people but software developers as well (such as "You can't charge an OEM $6 to bundle Windows for Workgroups but then charge IBM $20.50 for every WinOS2 license used in OS/2.").
But the EU isn't doing that. They are basically asking Microsoft, after the fact, to magically make its competitors more effective and at some point, the competitors have to step up and...start competing. And by levying such massive sanctions, it only brings into stark relief how weak the EU is on real tyranny, oppression, and danger in the world. The whole situation would appear a little less ridiculous if, for instance, the EU could muster up some sanctions against say Iran. The Iron lady would certainly support that.
 |
|
Page 3 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #42 Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:15 AM
| Good enough? |
Actually, no it's not. Dr. Guy explained it best.
| Washington has admitted the existence of a list, possibly hundreds or even thousands of names long, of people it deems worthy of special scrutiny at airports |
Good. If you want I can show links between so-called "anti-war" protestors and islamic "charities" that are funding sources for terrorist groups.
| and limiting yourself to reading the US edition of CNN ain't going to help much, btw - and then make an *informed* guess at what is trully happening. |
You obviously don't know much about U.S. media then. They are constantly against this administration and this country for that matter.
The links you posted show nothing about a "police state" other than the obviously misinformed person who wrote it. I take it nobody who ever calls the U.S. a "police state" has ever lived in one. This is typical rhetoric usually from people who don't even live here and have no real clue of what they are talking about.
Reply #43 Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:17 AM
JcRabbit - you do realize that your argument basically rests on the "If you don't agree with me it's just because you're not well informed."
The US is hardly becoming a police state. Heck, the New York Times arguably commited treason lately by giving away the secret of how close the US was monitoring international money transfers. IF the US was anywhere near a police state, the New York Times would be gone now.
Also, please spare me the tired "You only believe what you do because you believe the lies your government has told you." Good grief. It seems like that's the best I can ever expect from those who don't like US foreign policy. They can't put together a coherent argument so they run off and just make personal attacks. I've written, at length, why *I* supported the US removal of Saddam dozens of times over the years. It's its opponents that are the ones that make hysterical motivations such as "It was for the oillll!" or "It was to settle a score.." or some other such nonsense that doesn't stand up under close scrutiny.
The United States removed Saddam from power because it was in our best interests to do so. Because in the long term, Saddam would have been an increasing threat to the region and the world and history has demonstrated that in the long term, it always ends up with the US having to clean up the mess. Better to do it sooner rather than later.
When the US starts anexxing other countries to be part of the United States then you can make simplistic comparisons of the US being Nazi Germany. Because until then, the simplistic comparison I see is closer to Saddam being a proto-Hitler and the US skipping the 10 years of Europe appeasing him and then having to spend hundreds of thousands of American lives to help remove him. Of the major powers that fought Nazi Germany, only the UK and the US didn't have to expend the blood and treasure to defeat him but luckily they did. Similarly, the US and UK didn't have to expend blood and treasure to remove Saddam but they did because it was in their long-term best interest to do so.
You are entitled to disagree, but have the decency (or common sense) to show some respect for people who are informed on the issues who have simply reached a different conclusion. Because I'd happily put my history, political and foreign policy knowledge up against yours any day. But you don't see me asserting that you and others who disagree with me are just a bunch of mindless sheep brainwashed by your anti-American, left-wing biased press who have such an utter lack of history that they don't recognize the repeat of the pattern of appeasement and where it leads.
Reply #44 Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:33 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/06/inv.ashcroft.hearing/
All government officials have to do is to convince *some* people that questioning the Bush administration is equivalent to helping terrorists and the whole thing becomes a rolling snowball of the type 'if you're not with us, you are against us'. Even those who privately think otherwise will then become too afraid to speak out: look at what happened back in 2003 with the Dixie Girls, when singer Natalie Maines publicly criticised Bush during a concert in London in 2003. Radio stations boycotted the group and fans staged bonfires, where they burned CDs and merchandise after calling the girls traitors - your regular witch hunt. All because they spoke their mind about Bush and his policies.
Reply #45 Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:42 AM
| But Ashcroft's statements, although not directed at anyone in particular, are pretty well documented: |
No where in that statement does he call anyone "un-patriotic".
| ook at what happened back in 2003 with the Dixie Girls, when singer Natalie Maines publicly criticised Bush during a concert in London in 2003. Radio stations boycotted the group and fans staged bonfires, where they burned CDs and merchandise after calling the girls traitors - your regular witch hunt. All because they spoke their mind about Bush and his policies. |
That is the most ridiculous arguement I have read today. The Dixie Chicks did this in a foreign country, and Americans responded.
So let me get this straight. The dixie chicks have the right to speak their mind about Bush, but Americans don't have the right to respond to their criticism?
Just a little hypocritical I think.
Reply #46 Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:42 AM
| Radio stations boycotted the group and fans staged bonfires, where they burned CDs and merchandise after calling the girls traitors - your regular witch hunt. All because they spoke their mind about Bush and his policies. |
So you are saying that only those opposed to Bush can speak their minds, but those who support him cannot? No cars were set on fire, no Dipsy Chicks hanged, no one killed. Yet they are not allowed to show their opinions through boycotts?
I see. If you dont agree with me, sit down and shut up. Typical of many on the left.
Reply #47 Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:51 AM
So far, neither the Executive, nor the Legislative, nor the Judicial branch of government has questioned any American citizen's patriotism.
Reply #48 Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:21 PM
| you do realize that your argument basically rests on the "If you don't agree with me it's just because you're not well informed." |
Actually what I said is for each individual to take the time to research the subject by themselves and then make up their own minds. I've reached my own conclusion, and you've reached yours - they just happen to be on opposite sides.
| IF the US was anywhere near a police state, the New York Times would be gone now. |
No, simply because things can't change that suddenly. It is a slow and insidious process. If you read what I wrote again, I didn't say that the US *is* a police state, I said it is *becomming* one. Very different things.
| It seems like that's the best I can ever expect from those who don't like US foreign policy. They can't put together a coherent argument so they run off and just make personal attacks. |
Heh? What personal attack? You accusing me of not being able to put together a coherent argument?
| The United States removed Saddam from power because it was in our best interests to do so. |
No argument there. Just don't try to disguise it as the 'moral thing' to do. Democracy cannot be imposed by force, it must come from within, not from outside. Foreign policy - ANY country's foreign policy - is always about self interest.
| Because in the long term, Saddam would have been an increasing threat to the region and the world |
This is where I strongly disagree . Saddam posed no threath to the US or to the rest of the world - only to his own people - except in what concerns oil. Iraq did not have terrorist camps and it did not have WMDs. There were no Iraquians in the planes that crashed into the WTC towers - there were Saudi Arabia nationals, though. Saddam was no religious fanatic either, just a small time dictator like so many out there. His MAJOR mistake was to invade Kuwait.
"The U.S. and other industrialized Western nations could not risk the loss of oil from the area. Kuwait is the second largest source of petroleum in the Middle East and so Iraqi invasion of Kuwait sent the world oil market into a frenzy. Iraqi forces then gathered their forces on the border with Saudi Arabia, the second largest supplier of oil in the world. This in turn brought the military might of the United States into the conflict."
So, it *is* about oil, not about 'freeing' people from the claws of a major bad guy.
I'm pretty sure you've heard about Jerry Pournelle, a well respected American SF writter and also a long time collumnist of Byte magazine, whose work in the aerospace industry including editing Project 75, a 1964 study of 1975 US defense requirements. You should read his essays on the US being on the verge of turning into an Empire.
| When the US starts anexxing other countries to be part of the United States then you can make simplistic comparisons of the US being Nazi Germany. |
Hey, I never compared the US to Nazi Germany. I just said that the methods used to induce people into war are well known and were well described by Goering back in Hitler's days.
As for anexxing other countries... I suppose in your POV installing a puppet friendly regime in a country you just invaded doesn't count?
| You are entitled to disagree, but have the decency (or common sense) to show some respect for people who are informed on the issues who have simply reached a different conclusion |
And where did I show dis-respect? I just stated my opinion on the subject. You and I don't agree on this, that's all. Nothing personal.
| But you don't see me asserting that you and others who disagree with me are just a bunch of mindless sheep brainwashed by your anti-American, left-wing biased press who have such an utter lack of history that they don't recognize the repeat of the pattern of appeasement and where it leads. |
Err... You just did.
Plus with your initial statements, you were trying to ridicule the EU (which, in this particular case, is well deserved. Those EU burocrats being lobbied by MS competitors should get their asses kicked all the way back to Brussels, as I already had the previlege to state in another thread here).
Reply #49 Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:37 PM
| No, simply because things can't change that suddenly. It is a slow and insidious process. If you read what I wrote again, I didn't say that the US *is* a police state, I said it is *becomming* one. Very different things |
You are wrong either way. The U.S. is not a police state, nor is it becoming one. You can't cite one piece of evidence which says so.
| . Iraq did not have terrorist camps and it did not have WMDs. |
Actually Iraq had both. Iraq also harbored many notorious terrorists including the recently killed al-zarqawi. Almost every intelligence agency and country believed Saddam had WMD's. Just by the U.N. accounts, Iraq still has WMD's that are unaccounted for. The question is not if Saddam had WMD's, but where he put them.
| So, it *is* about oil, not about 'freeing' people from the claws of a major bad guy. |
I knew an "oil for war" comment would be brought up. I will agree this war had it's link to oil. That being from the U.N., France, and Germany, all who were making money off Saddam and his oil.
Reply #50 Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:38 PM
| So let me get this straight. The dixie chicks have the right to speak their mind about Bush, but Americans don't have the right to respond to their criticism? |
Errr, of course they do. They can *say* they don't agree with them and why. But threatening their livelihood and calling them 'traitors' just because they voiced their opinion? Isn't that just what I was talking about?
Reply #51 Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:44 PM
| Errr, of course they do. They can *say* they don't agree with them and why. But threatening their livelihood and calling them 'traitors' just because they voiced their opinion? Isn't that just what I was talking about? |
And Americans have the right to do that. Americans can voice their opinions at the marketplace also. If we want to boycott a dixie chick because she disgraces our President in France, then let's do it. There is nothing "police state" about it.
Anyways, the original point was government officials doing this, I haven't heard the President call the dixie chicks traitors or anything else.
Reply #52 Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:44 PM
| Errr, of course they do. They can *say* they don't agree with them and why. But threatening their livelihood and calling them 'traitors' just because they voiced their opinion? Isn't that just what I was talking about? |
SCOTUS has ruled that free speech encompasses more than just the written or spoken word. By boycotting their songs, these people were making a statement. One more effective than "You are wrong" would have sent. It is not the boycotters who are threatening their livlihood. Since when has buying music become compulsory? Perhaps in that Police state you imagine it is, but not here.
And if you were talking about Joe American calling some people unpatriotic or unamerican, you are not going to get an argument from me. But then that is their right to do so, whether they are right or wrong in their opinion.
We have freedoms. And one of them is the freedom to voice opinions. And not buy products we dont like or we do not agree with the manufacturer. At least we have not gotten that far into a communist state yet.
Reply #53 Wednesday, July 19, 2006 1:12 PM
Besides, whatever is causing IE to freeze for a few seconds whenever the forum page refreshes is really getting on my nerves (something already mentioned by several people on another thread). Weird.
Anyway, discussion and the exchange of ideas and opinions is always a nice thing. I enjoyed this one, hope you guys did too.
Reply #54 Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:13 PM
I live in The Netherlands and i have the following reaction to your story.
Microsoft has to follow the laws in the EU.
The EU believes M$ isn't doing that and that is why M$ has to pay.
If M$ doesn't agree M$ can go the the Court in Europe, that is the correct way.
The Court will decide if the EU is right or not.
I hope that you as an American (and all other Americans) accept the ruling of an EU Court, even if it is negative in it's ruling for M$.
But i seriously doubt that, as many Americans dont' recognize the Internatiol Court in The Hague in The Netherlands.
But the US want to prosecute people from other countries (like The Netherlands) in the US, if the US thinks that they did break the US law even if it is done in an other country... go believe that... there are many examples for it!
For instance a few people that the US thinks that they sell drugs to the US.. how wrong can you be......
About your steatement: " Meanwhile, Europe heads towards year 4 of completely unproductive negotiations with Iran" i have to laugh about it!
How many years is the US already busy with the situation in the Middle East and especially now with the situatin in Israel and Lebanon?
A "little" more than 4 years i think.
The US is doing nothing about it, only keeping his hand above the head of Israel.
In this way the situation in the Middle East will never be solved.
And the US thinks it is good that Israel is killing a lot of innocent people in Lebanon because 3 people are kidnapped......
Reply #55 Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:33 PM
| And the US thinks it is good that Israel is killing a lot of innocent people in Lebanon because 3 people are kidnapped...... |
No, Americans don't think it's good. But we also believe that the blame for the violence can be put to the people who initiated the attacks, not Israel.
Reply #56 Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:41 PM
| No, Americans don't think it's good. But we also believe that the blame for the violence can be put to the people who initiated the attacks, not Israel. |
Ditto on that.
We dont blame the family of the victims of a murder for the murder. We blame the murderer.
Reply #57 Thursday, July 20, 2006 5:10 AM
The problem I see within this discussion is that we have people from differing cultures and political climates....meaning that differences of opinion, even arguments will arise because not all are accustomed to the same principles and values, etc. However, rather than being a bad thing, it is in fact a good thing because it offers alternative views, checks and balances...we just need to keep open minds to them.
While I respect/admire the patriotic views shown by Americans, their eagerness to defend their country against all-comers, I can understand the concerns and criticisms of non-U.S. citizens because I don't agree with or like some of the ideals and policies emanating from the U.S. This, however, is not to say the U.S is wrong or evil, but that given the power and resources, I'd perhaps have done some things differently.
With regards to the U.S. being a police state sentiment, clearly it is not. Hitler & Stalin operated police states, and the U.S. resmbles neither of those. However, like it or not, it has become the world's policemen, if not militarily then politically. For those who don't want to believe it, Iraq, Grenada and Panama come immediately to mind...
And for those who don't like it, find it easy to criticise, who else with the power and resources is gonna do it? Who else is gonna enter the world's hotspots to defuse tinder boxes and leave them with a semblance of democracy? And once the U.S. has defused a hotspot, why wouldn't it want to leave behind a government friendly to it? Were it anyone else, they would!
Truth is, every country protects/looks out for itself....problem is when politicians with power to exercise, don't exercise it wisely, or when they're self-serving they exercise it corruptly. Sadly, this is a worldwide issue....and equally as sad, too many people worldwide look to blame the ills of the world on foreign interests, when in fact there are ills in their own backyards requiring greater attention.
Reply #58 Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:58 AM
Well said starkers.
My objections to some debaters, particularly ones in Europe in this discussion is that they are so myopic that they think anyone who doesn't think the way they do is just misinformed or brain washed. Because you know, us dumb Americans only watch CNN and that's our only source so we just believe what "the government" and its "government controlled" media tells us. Please. That's what gets Americans like myself really annoyed.
At a basic level the American attitude is that we feel like sooner or later we're going to have to clean up any major world mess and we've found it easier to do it sooner rather than later. And European chattering comes across as just noise from the peanut gallery from people who aren't willing to do anything to help solve the problems that affect us all but are still willing to bitch about US behavior.
On top of that, you have the attitude that the US is the biggest threat in the world and yet -- if that's true -- then why don't those governments do something about that like embargo US goods or something in a public denouncement of US foreign policy. Because whether one agrees with American foreign policy or not, when we say country X is a major threat, we don't just sit back and whine about them. We already have Iran's assets frozen and sanctions against them. Same with North Korea and Iraq was overthrown.
The EU's official policy is that Iran IS a serious threat and yet after years of negotiation they've done nothing. There's no stick. There isn't even the political will to put some sanctions on Iran.
But oh, look out, Windows Media Player comes bundled with the OS, and the EU can do something about that. And what's the defense? That the trade ministry of the EU has more power than the foreign policy branch? Please. If that's the case, then why the hel should anyone care what the EU thinks about anything? Why do we care if the EU to send representatives to Israel (4 power tlaks) or Iran or North Korea or anywhere for that matter? If they're so weak that their powers of punishment are dwarfed by the trade branch, then they truly are impotent.
Reply #59 Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:37 PM
| The EU's official policy is that Iran IS a serious threat and yet after years of negotiation they've done nothing. There's no stick. There isn't even the political will to put some sanctions on Iran. |
They still haven't learned that appeasement doesn't work, and just ignoring them will not make them go away.
Reply #60 Thursday, July 20, 2006 2:48 PM
| they are so myopic that they think anyone who doesn't think the way they do is just misinformed or brain washed. |
And the same could be said about those who believe anyone who doesn't think like them, or agrees with US foreign policy, is myopic.
Anyway, why do you keep insisting on labeling those on the other side of your point of view as 'Europeans' (why not Africans, or simply non-US citizens?) and those who agree with you as 'Americans'? Is it because it is easier to focus if you generalize? Europeans are ungrateful. All Arabs are terrorists. The only good Indian is a dead Indian.
I know plenty of American people, some of which you respect, who agree with my point of view and think Bush is the worst thing that could have ever happened to the US. Sadly, I don't know of any European who thinks that Bush and his foreign policy are good - which must mean we are ALL myopic, of course.
And by the way, as you know only too well, Europe is NOT a single nation like the US. Europe is a continent made of tens of INDIVIDUAL nations.
Furthermore, if you try to make this a case of us (Americans) vs them (Europeans), all you will achieve is generating ill feelings between the two groups. I would hate to see a nice argument degenerate into a name calling and rotten tomato throwing session.
I never said, or even implied, that Americans are dumb or brain washed, like I never said that ALL Americans are mis-informed.
| With regards to the U.S. being a police state sentiment, clearly it is not. |
For the THIRD time (sigh!
): I didn't say the US *is*, I said it *is becoming* (and I added s-l-o-w-l-y in a later post) - and it might become if its people are not careful and if its government keeps going down this loss of civil liberties route in the name of the fight against terrorism, using fear as the tool to get there. Does anyone here deny that something called the 'US Patriotic Act' even exists?There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access medical records, tax records, information about the books people buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into people's home and conduct secret searches without telling them for weeks, months, or indefinitely.
There is a place called Guantanamo Bay where people are held for months, even years, without a right to a lawyer or a fair trial. *Some* of them are innocent, they were put there because a disgruntled neighbor rated them out to the US forces as a terrorist sympathizer. Is it ok because that place is outside the US? Is it ok because the people there are not US citizens but *potential* terrorists? The US administration even tried to claim that the prisoners there were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention!!!! Doh?! (Something which the US Supreme Court ruled against on June 19, 2006, thanks God!)
Shouldn't the simple fact that such things actually exists in the US, a place where individual freedom and privacy is protected by the constitution itself, raise alarm bells?
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 3 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:48 AM
March 8, 2002
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (duly elected from the state of South Dakota), along with Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., dared to question the Bush administration's demand for huge increases in military spending without an explanation of military goals. As Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Byrd has the responsibility of asking just such questions.
Republicans quickly responded with a barrage of name calling, personally attacking the Democratic leaders rather than addressing the issues of military strategy or spending. The attacks were reminiscent of Attorney General John Ashcroft's congressional testimony in December. Ashcroft said that people who raise concerns about the impact of the Justice Department's actions on civil liberties ("those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty") actually "aid terrorists" and "give ammunition to America's enemies."
No. First, it does not say what names were called. Second, it is heresay. By the purported victims of the name calling. Simply put, the only ones screaming are the alleged victims, yet they cannot come up with a single instance where a Bush official actually said they were.