Slashdot Mirror

Have you ever heard about the relation between prices and demand? When the price is 0 the demand is immensely greater than when the price is not 0. These 90% of people that pirate are just the added demand that wouldn't exist if the price was not 0, as found here:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/03/new-research-music-piracy-should-not-be-a-concern-for-copyright-holders/

And here:

http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=6084

Just to cite the last published study among many.

it'd be illegal pretty much everywhere and it isn't.

Well, it's certainly not for the lack of trying... I would say it's pretty straight up

Orwellian would be if the proposal was titled "Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU", and it told companies they had to have gender stereotypes in their ads. Instead, take a look at the actual proposal. They are concerned about the uneven usage of sexuality to sell products, and the message that sends. They have clearly screwed up the logistics of tackling that issue, but the relationship between the bill itself and the content is not Orwellian.

I wonder what it would take to stop the release of new gTLDs at this late stage?

The gTLDs are plain daylight robbery of our common words and introduction of extremely unfair monopolies.

I suppose EU could ban the gTLDs but it doesn't seem to be of any concern yet.

Are there specific limitations on how much companies can accept by cash, by law?

Yes in EU

once your name, phone number, profile picture and other identifying data is stripped, they can do whatever they want with your data?

If all other identifying data has been stripped away, it is really "your" data any longer?

I'm not sure that the situation you describe here would protect the data under the existing rules either:

(a) 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;

I think there is a difference between the situation which you describe (which seems to be anonymous data) and pseudonymous data, though, in that pseudonymous data does not have all identifying data stripped out, but rather replaced by a less obvious identifier.

The phone number 07700 900771 might become a2t6#g1, but, if, in a stream / sequence of data, that number always becomes that alternative descriptor, anyone in control of the algorithm / key could convert obtain the original number again with relative easy — just run all possible permutations of the phone number (which is of standard form, with specified structure) through the algorithm and pattern match.

To my mind, provided that the algorithm doing the conversion is appropriately protected, pseudonymisation may be one good method of reducing the risk associated with the processing of personal data, protecting it in the event for a data breach, and thus be a form of security measure, but is unlikely to stop the data from being capable of identifying the individual, in the hands of the party carrying out the pseudonymisation.

Counting first-generation immigrants only: the percentage of foreign-born population in the 'old' (pre-2004) EU countries is mostly in the 10-15% range (source: Eurostat). In the USA, the figure is 12.9%. In other words, the proportion of immigrants in the US is about the same as that in France, the UK, Germany, Spain or Italy. Or the Netherlands.

If you exclude people born outside the EU, the pattern is only slightly different. Taking the UK as an example, 7.7% of the population (2010 estimate) was born outside the EU, with another 4.2% born in a different EU country (total first-generation immigrant percentage: 11.9%). I can't find any reliable stats for the percentage of second- and third-generation immigrants, who are the targets of a lot of casual racism, but I'd be surprised if the total figure (for 1st, 2nd and 3rd gen combined) is less than 20%.

Can you tell me how much testing is done to verify these things are safe?

A lot.

How long and how numerous are the human trials?

Why don't you tell me why they are necessary. Okay, a corn has a cspB gene, or a cotton has a Cry1Ab gene, or a soy has C4 epsps gene, or a papaya has prsv cp gene, or an apple has an antisense PPO gene. Why should that bother me, especially considering all the other mandatory testing?

I would be suspicious that anything developed in the past ten years or less is completely guaranteed to be safe for the duration of a human life.

You should be suspicious of things that you have reason to be suspicious of, not things that could potentially have an unknown unknown, which is pretty much everything. You can't prove that something won't be dangerous because you can't prove a negative, but there is neither reason to suspect that GE crops are dangerous nor is there evidence suggesting that GE crops are dangerous, unless you count Wakefield grade rubbish like the Séralini study. It irks me that when people say that some stuff about wifi or cell phones they are mocked but saying it about biotechnology is enlightened.

If you can convince me not to worry about that, I'm all ears!

Read these studies, and statements from various organizations like the WHO, FDA, EFSA, FSANZ,NAP, ANBIO, AAAS, ect. The scientific consensus on genetic engineering is pretty solid. You can hate on Monsanto all you want (although you should be aware that the business end, like the science end, is often fought with misconceptions, half truths, and downright FUD), and I'm not saying there are not nuances that should be rationally discussed (such as herbicide resistant weeds and resistance breakdown, although those are larger issues that have affected non-GE crops as well) but the science behind genetically engineered crops is solid. In many ways, the controversy over genetically engineered crops is the agricultural equivalent to the controversies surrounding evolution, climate change, and vaccines.

Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible – and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy. Therefore, even if the licence agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy.

(Emphasis mine)
So even if some activation mechanism tries to stop a transfer, it's illegal, because the rightholder has no right to oppose the sale and thus is forbidden to use technical or organisational means to hinder it. And this is not only valid for sales to consumers, it's the same für business to business sales (the case in question was about Oracle licenses and software, which are not a typical consumer product).

I can't imagine any legal grounds anyone would have for a lawsuit, in this instance. You can sell or trade or give away your games all you want, leaving the first sale doctrine intact. The fact that the game no longer works for the poor guy who bought it isn't Microsoft's problem since they aren't obligated to provide support for used products.

It won't work in the E.U., given current rulings of the European Court of Justice. It explicitely ruled that making available a permanent copy of a software to a customer for a fee is a sale (independently of the name in the contract, just naming it "license" doesn't make a difference), and thus the First Sale Doctrin applies. The copyright holder is not allowed to oppose such a seal, and technical means to render a resold copy unusable will probably be seen as an opposition of the copyright holder to a sale -- thus making them illegal.
The ruling goes even further:

Therefore the new acquirer of the user licence, such as a customer of UsedSoft, may, as a lawful acquirer of the corrected and updated copy of the computer program concerned, download that copy from the copyright holder’s website.

Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible – and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right.

Taken from DIRECTIVE 2009/24/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:111:0016:0022:EN:PDF

2. The first sale in the Community of a copy of a program by the rightholder or with his consent shall exhaust the distribution right within the Community of that copy, with the exception of the right to control further rental of the program or a copy thereof

Here is a report for the European Parliament (Pdf) about cyber crime and privacy of Cloud services, co-written by Caspar Bowden, it discusses the ramifications of FISAAA. The salient section is "3.4. The inter-state/states/companies relation" on page 34.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=79050

Furthermore, proposed changes to the EU's data protection regulations will facilitate FISAAA. Specifically, if a Security Companies' audit of a Cloud Service uncovers U.S. spying, they will be obligated not to inform an affected EU company. I wonder what pressure the U.S. is applying to get this passed...

US lobbying waters down EU data protection reform

"For example, IMCO voted to allow easier profiling of users by companies, and lessen the importance of reporting personal data breaches as soon as they occur. At the same time, most proposals to strengthen regulation were rejected.

EASA

In the EU, people already have

the right to obtain from the [data] controller:

(a) [snip]

(b) as appropriate the rectification, erasure or blocking of data the processing of which does not comply with the provisions of this Directive, in particular because of the incomplete or inaccurate nature of the data;

(c) notification to third parties to whom the data have been disclosed of any rectification, erasure or blocking carried out in compliance with (b), unless this proves impossible or involves a disproportionate effort.

(Data Protection Directive). So Jewell at the very least would have a right to insist that news agencies publish corrections (and I'm relieved to read that he won libel actions too).

Some of your other examples don't make any sense to me, possibly because I'm missing some cultural background. Do you name and shame bad renters on a website? And with the employer background check - how is it going to help this ex-colleague if when another company does a background check along the lines of "What can you tell us about this guy who worked with you for 20 years?" the reply is "We have no record of that."?

It depends on the poll. For a counterpoint, according to this, while formal religion is a minority, many of the remainder believe there is 'some sort of spirit or life force". The latter may or may not mean the person believes someone (who is not God) may be watching.

That aside, nothing says belief that someone is watching is the one and only way to elicit ethical behavior. A good social safety net probably helps a lot in the Scandinavian countries.

(1) Even if the term "precedent" is being used as a non-legal-term-of-art, it still doesn't apply; one of the principal distinguishing characteristics of civil law jurisdictions is it doesn't matter what another court has done before. All primary law is codified in a jus civile system, whereas in a jus gentium system statutes are only the beginning of the analysis, and judicial "decisional law" (i.e., precedent) must also be considered.

(2) There's no "3 years[sic] legal guarantee" in Europe; the EU mandates a two year warranty coverage (with a three year statute of limitations). http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/protection_of_consumers/l32022_en.htm

The EU antitrust commission fines companies from all around the world, and plenty of european ones. See for yourself http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/closed/en/ind1990.html .

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Freight_transport_statistics

17.1% by rail and 6.5% by water in the EU.

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2006_fcvt_fotw412.html

US: 36% rail, 20% water.

It's probably as much down to the population / economic distributions of the two continents. I'd bet the total tonne-km is less in the EU. (Consider rearranging the US so all the "poor" states are in the east, and the richer ones in the west, but one of the richest on an island.)

“citizens increasingly hear the word copyright and hate what is behind it. Many see the current system as a tool to punish and withhold, not a tool to recognize and reward.” Source

So this is good news, the more Ye Average Americans hit their nose against the Great Wall of Copyright, the better. Our job is to show them that this is not "just the way it is" but that there are viable alternatives.

29. Urges the Commission and Member States to devise appropriate measures to promote, develop and manufacture European encryption technology and software and above all to support projects aimed at developing user-friendly open-source encryption software; 30. Calls on the Commission and Member States to promote software projects whose source text is made public (open-source software), as this is the only way of guaranteeing that no backdoors are built into programmes; 31. Calls on the Commission to lay down a standard for the level of security of e-mail software packages, placing those packages whose source code has not been made public in the ‘least reliable’ category;

If only Russian officials had listened.

Just vote Pirate Party, especially for the European elections. The majority of people don't even bother to vote so your vote carries more weight, and for the correct forum to make changes,

PS "Public Opinion Monitoring Unit"? Oi!

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf

Note that the regulation exempts pretty much anything that actually matters: the EU itself, national security, and police. "Private" information means pretty much anything that is personally identifiable. It also doesn't mention free speech or freedom of the press, and doesn't seem to have exceptions for reporting on politicians.

Because this is an article about just one case? For the full list for all European cartel cases since 2001, see here:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/cases/cases.html

This is from the 1995 law that is under change proposal. Wording about who it applies to:
From EUR-Lex:

(d) 'controller' shall mean the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data; where the purposes and means of processing are determined by national or Community laws or regulations, the controller or the specific criteria for his nomination may be designated by national or Community law;
(e) 'processor' shall mean a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller;

Absolutely!

A lot of laymen that I talked to about ECHELON think that I am some kind of crazy conspiracy theorist even though it is very well documented. Even in a report to the European Parliament. Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A5-2001-0264+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

And the somewhat smarter people obviously know that nothing on the internet is untraceable, though you can make it really hard, but they do not realize and/or accept that it is commonplace to intercept, datamine and record all online communications. And that it is kept till the end of days. Sadly enough datastorage is just that cheap these days.

Now the question arises will that information harm you now, in one year, 10 years, 20 years, 50 years...

The best response that I've heard to people saying that they have nothing to hide: Just tell them to give you all their passwords, to their Mail Account, Facebook, Dropbox, etc. If they argue that they do not trust YOU, tell them to send it in an envelope to the FBI, NSA, etc.

We should keep that information away from the police and do what we can to keep that information secret. The government might have legit reasons to have our secrets but at the same time they have to be kept from exploiting our secrets in their political pursuits, the pursuit of justice, or anything other than national security.

When in the recent past have you seen a court rule on copyright with common sense?

I'm not sure that Usedsoft applied common sense, but rather some convoluted reasoning, but the outcome seems sensible enough. Picking on rulings relevant here, I think the US court's decision in Wallace v. IBM was common sense, as was the finding of the German court in Welte v. Skype.

Perhaps look also at Griggs v. Evans — a pragmatic decision on the facts, to my mind.

Sure, there are some odd judgments, but there are some sensible, practical judges out there too.

The town leaders are open to most any suggestions, and are open to the idea of having the website facilitate a more open government [..]

If the town leaders like to go "more open" as in "more direct democracy", have a look at Liquid Feedback.

As a reference you might refer them to the German district Freisland. (The decision to implement LF has been made meanwhile)

That some may profit at the expense of others doesn't make anything into a Ponzi. But don't take my word for it, here's what the European Central Bank's analysts have to say on why Bitcoin isn't a Ponzi scheme:

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf

"On the one hand, the Bitcoin scheme is a decentralised system where – at least in theory – there is no central organiser that can undermine the system and disappear with its funds. Bitcoin users buy and sell the currency among themselves without any kind of intermediation and therefore, it seems that nobody benefits from the system, apart from those who benefit from the exchange rate evolution (just as in any other currency trade) or those who are hard-working “miners” and are therefore rewarded for their contribution to the security and confidence in the system as a whole."

"Moreover, the scheme does not promise high returns to anybody. Although some Bitcoin users may try to profit from exchange rate fluctuations, Bitcoins are not intended to be an investment vehicle, just a medium of exchange. On the contrary, Gavin Andresen, Lead Developer of the Bitcoin virtual currency project, does not hesitate to say that “Bitcoin is an experiment. Treat it like you would treat a promising internet start-up company: maybe it will change the world, but realise that investing your money or time in new ideas is always risky”. In addition, Bitcoin supporters claim that it is an open-source system whose code is available to any interested party."

Can you lose your shirt if you invest heavily in Bitcoin? Yes. Can you get scammed by other users? Yes. Is the whole thing a Ponzi scheme? No.

The US has been very unwilling to curtail CO2 emissions in any significant way. China has been attempting to do so. (Not consistently, but they've been trying.)

That's funny, considering the fact that in the past 10 years China's emissions have doubled whereas the US emissions have declined. http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/CO2REPORT2012.pdf
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/c02-emissions-hit-new-record-on-china-surge-20121114-29b7x.html
http://rightweather.net/2012/10/the-united-states-declining-role-in-co2-emissions/

I'd say the US efforts at curtailing CO2 emissions have been more effective.

It may not help in your case but people in the EU can send anything ordered online and delivered by post/courier ('distance selling') back without having to give a reason within 7 days (14 in some countries). So there's no reason you can't buy online and if something about the keyboard, screen, Linux driver support or anything else isn't to your liking just box it up and send it back.

I did this with a 1000 Euro ultrabook in Germany that when it arrived I realised had very poor wireless range, in both Windows and Linux. Something only a few of the reviews mentioned and obviously something I couldn't test until I had the thing in my house. I ran the recovery DVD, boxed it up and sent it back to Amazon. Money was refunded a couple of days later (cash in my account, not gift vouchers or any credit) and I bought a different Ultrabook.

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/dist_sell/index_en.htm
"Consumer's right to cancel the contract within a minimum of 7 working days without giving any reason and without penalty, except the cost of returning the goods (right of withdrawal);"

In 2005 eighteen out of the twenty six European countries had a national minimum wage. http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2005/07/study/tn0507101s.htm

Yeah do you ever bother to think that something you say might get fact checked? For the EU-15 from http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ghg-trends-and-projections-2012/

Average 2008â"2011 emissions in EU-15 were 11 % lower than the base-year level, below the Kyoto target of -8 % for the period 2008â"2012. In the sectors not covered by the EU ETS, emissions were lower than their respective target, by an amount equivalent to 1.7 % of base-year emissions.

LULUCF activities are expected to decrease net emissions by an annual amount equivalent to 1.4 % of base-year level emissions. EU-15 intends to use the flexible mechanisms at government level by acquiring an amount of Kyoto units equivalent to 2 % of base-year emissions per year.

Taking all these effects into account, average emissions in the sectors not covered by the EU ETS in EU-15 were standing below their target level, by a gap representing 4.9 % of the base-year emissions.

The EU-15 was therefore on track towards its Kyoto target by the end of 2011. However, to ensure that the EU-15 reaches its common target, all of its Member States must achieve their respective burden-sharing target. Excess Kyoto units resulting from overachievement by some countries might not be available to the EU-15 for achieving compliance.

Oh I get it, you're not a "word and concept type " person. You need pictograms. Well, fortunately I have some handy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2009/nov/30/copenhagen-summit-world-carbon-emissions

That pretty much says , well, golly if it doesn't say EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you were saying.

Do you ever get sick of being just plain wrong. I mean I know we're all writing in persistent-anonymous identities and what not but ... aren't you ashamed to show your persistent identity on line after you get caught out telling whale-size, exact-opposite-from-reality whoppers like that?

Just asking to get a datapoint for my little self-imposed project to try to understand the psychology behind denialism, especially the "I'm not a denier" type of denialism.

In June 2009, Europe's major mobile phone manufacturers agreed to adopt a universal charger for data-enabled mobile phones sold in the EU. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) - to date signed by 14 manufacturers - commits the industry to provide charger compatibility on the basis of the micro-USB connector. In the first months of 2011, European consumers will be able to purchase a standard mobile phone charger for all data-enabled phones - including smartphones - sold in all 27 EU Member States.

Here you find the signatories of the MoU. Apple complies by adaptor.

In June 2009, Europe's major mobile phone manufacturers agreed to adopt a universal charger for data-enabled mobile phones sold in the EU. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) - to date signed by 14 manufacturers - commits the industry to provide charger compatibility on the basis of the micro-USB connector. In the first months of 2011, European consumers will be able to purchase a standard mobile phone charger for all data-enabled phones - including smartphones - sold in all 27 EU Member States.

Here you find the signatories of the MoU. Apple complies by adaptor.

Yes, I actually don't think that would be unreasonable. But, having said that, someone else has pointed me at this:

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/shopping/online-shopping/when-things-go-wrong/index_en.htm

which seems like it could be unnecessarily problematic for small companies (if you run a bakery that takes orders online to be delivered around Paris by motorbike, does that mean you have to ship to Berlin if someone wants a doughnut?)

Iceland is not in the EU. But it is part of EEA. So only part of the EU law applies. The rules on consumer rights only apply in part when it comes to Iceland. But here is the EU web page on this.

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/shopping/online-shopping/when-things-go-wrong/index_en.htm

What would help, is legislation that would make any contract or legal document not drawn up to be comprehensible by the "target audience" null and void.

In Europe, see Article 5, directive 93/13/EC, on unfair terms in consumer contracts:

In the case of contracts where all or certain terms offered to the consumer are in writing, these terms must always be drafted in plain, intelligible language. Where there is doubt about the meaning of a term, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall prevail.

That should teach lawyers and companies to keep things clear, simple and understandable

Absolutely. Although contracts are rather like code in many respect (in my opinion, at least) — clear, simple and understandable may not mean short / succinct, and, to expect consumers to read something, it needs to be pretty short...

Not the "American company" argument again...

Microsoft had a binding contract with the EU comission, and they broke it.
If they hadn't, the browser ballot would bee a thing of the past in a few months and nobody would care about it anymore.

But Microsoft fucked up, and now they have to face the music for breaking a contract.

And the EU doesn't treat American companies any different from European companies. Ask Gaz du France and E.on whether they liked their fines of half a billion Euro each for collusion: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_39401

However, in Europe, Amazon is a Luxembourg company and the VAT rate there is 3% for these products.

However, since Amazon is a large retailer, it does not pay VAT in Luxembourg, but in the buyer's country. I would venture to say that most of Amazon's EU customers do not live in Luxembourg so the tax rates there do not mean much.

Yes, but ebooks can be delivered to consumers in the UK over the internet from a company established in Luxembourg and are currently considered a type of service. See here for the general rule that in that case, the place of supply is Luxembourg. Note that the rules for electronically supplied services are particularly complex, due to the ease in which people can exploit loopholes, so I may have missed something...

This situation is changing on 1 Jan 2015 per article 5 of Directive 2008/8/EC

Many softwares released under the FSF umbrella are great achievements with marvelous documentations. However it seems to me that using the GPL for the freedom of the peoples are shortsighted at best. Most Slashdot readers probably don't mind the english-only nature of the GPL but what good is a license for someone who can't understand it? There is 7 000 000 000 peoples on earth and 1 800 000 000(~26%) who understand english somewhat (only 380 000 000 (~0.05%) are native speakers). Yes, there is "unofficial" translation. But this clearly don't cut it. Would you redistribute software binding you to a license you don't understand or barely understand in it's official legal version? In fact, the FSF treat non-english speaker as second-class human, deprieving them of their right to be tied to a contract they understand merely for it's own convenience. I approve of free software and I like the copyleft ideals but I, for one, would be reluctant to redistribute GPL-ed software because of this reason. The GPL isn't freedom at all for most of humanity and the FSF don't give a shit.

There is at least one copyleft license that attempts to adress that shortcoming: the EUPL. This license is translated in 22 languages. It's a far cry from the thousands of languages of humanity but it's clearly a step in the right direction and it's far better than the anglocentrism of the GPL and the FSF. I would really like to see this license used more frequently.

Strange, the UK is at the top of all metrics for obesity in Europe:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Overweight_and_obesity_-_BMI_statistics
"The highest proportions of obese women were recorded in the United Kingdom (23.9 %), Malta (21.1 %), Latvia (20.9 %) and Estonia (20.5 % in 2006), and of men in Malta (24.7 %), the United Kingdom (22.1 %), Hungary (21.4 %) and the Czech Republic (18.4 %). "
But don't feel bad, this is happening in all "western" countries.

I had the same response when I read that claim:

In places like Europe, where a good chunk of the electricity comes from renewable sources

Eurostat reports EU electrical generation in 2011 was only 18% renewable, and 72% of that (13% of the total) was legacy hydro which has been on the books for decades. I guess that's a 'good chunk' or something. The other 82% is `conventional thermal', a euphemism for coal, and nuclear. They avoided illustrating the pathetically small contribution of solar by omitting it from the main graph.

But hey, don't let reality intrude on your happy shiny Europe narrative.

Ignoring the DNT is a clear violation of the Consent clause of the European Union Data Protection Directive.

I'm pretty shocked that Apache should go along with this decision by folding in face of commercial interests.

Microsoft, Google, Apple -- what do they have in common?
All are based in the same country.
Anyone have a list of French or German companies fined?

hu? are you crazy?

take a look at p. 3; "Ten highest cartel fines per undertaking" - not a single US-based company.

there you idiot, the vast majority of cases is against companies in the EU. The Comission's role is the functionning of the internal market. If you want to see action against US companies for petty nationalistic reasons, look at the WTO cases.

Also, it is Apple's subsidiary in Europe which is being sued.

I understand that for a US citizen it is difficult to comprehend the concept of good market regulation and going after companies which try to fuck over the consumer, but this is the way it works in the EU. The Commission, for all its defects, does one thing well: market regulation in the domains where it is allowed to regulate the market.

The European Union is strict about consumer law so that consumers will be comfortable buying across national boundaries within the Union. It's part of the "single market" concept which defines the EU.

"A practice is misleading if it contains false or untrue information or is likely to deceive the consumer, even though the information given may be correct. In particular, this information relates to: ... the consumersâ(TM) rights on aspects of the sale of consumer goods."

Here's how Apple misleads customers: Start at the Apple UK site. Try to find warranty information. The "support" page does not mention a warranty. There's "AppleCare Products - extend support coverage for your Apple products." Going to that page, we see "All Apple hardware comes with a one-year limited warranty (1) and up to 90 days of complimentary telephone technical support.". Down at note 1, in grey 77% white type, there's a link to "Apple Products and EU Statutory Warranty" Only there does Apple admit there's a 2-year warranty.

I predicted unemployment would rise sharply. 33% increase is pretty sharp.

Um, it peaked at 10% in 10/09 and has been steadily dropping since then. The curve was much more gradual after he took office than leading up to 1/09.

you have the issue with america's credit rating being dropped twice during his presidency

9/2011's cut was due to the repubs in congress stamping their feet, holding their breath, and going back on good-faith efforts. I'm struggling to find the 2nd cut though. i see Moody's threatening, but not actually cutting.

Surely you noticed the devaluation of the dollar?

No...actually, i didn't. We lost some value back in 2009 against CAD and GBP, but we've been more or less flat since the beginning of 2010. We did lose some value since then against JPY and CNY. We've been making some strides against EUR. Here's the data back to '99 if you're interested.

The EU has not ban a specific technology, it banned incandescent bulbs based on their energy efficiency over the last 3 years.

There is a website about the change:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/lumen/faq/index_en.htm

Q: Why has the EU decided to phase out conventional incandescent bulbs?

A: To reduce CO2 emissions (by about 15 million tonnes a year).

Lighting can account for as much as one-fifth of household electricity consumption.

The most efficient lighting technologies use up to 5 times less electricity than the least efficient

Energy saving bulbs can reduce a household's total electricity consumption by 10-15%, saving the EU some 40 billion kilowatt hours a year (roughly equal to the annual consumption of Romania).

Q: How will I benefit?

A: Apart from the long-term environmental benefits, energy saving bulbs can easily save you €50 a year (including the price of the bulbs).

And the money saved overall – €5-10bn a year – will end up going back into the EU economy, boosting overall prosperity.

The EU has not ban a specific technology, it banned incandescent bulbs based on their energy efficiency over the last 3 years.

There is a website about the change:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/lumen/faq/index_en.htm

Q: Why has the EU decided to phase out conventional incandescent bulbs?

A: To reduce CO2 emissions (by about 15 million tonnes a year).

Lighting can account for as much as one-fifth of household electricity consumption.

The most efficient lighting technologies use up to 5 times less electricity than the least efficient

Energy saving bulbs can reduce a household's total electricity consumption by 10-15%, saving the EU some 40 billion kilowatt hours a year (roughly equal to the annual consumption of Romania).

Q: How will I benefit?

A: Apart from the long-term environmental benefits, energy saving bulbs can easily save you €50 a year (including the price of the bulbs).

And the money saved overall – €5-10bn a year – will end up going back into the EU economy, boosting overall prosperity.