Slashdot Mirror

In general, a dominant position derives from a combination of several factors which, taken separately, are not necessarily determinative [5]

[5] Case 27/76 United Brands and United Brands Continentaal v Commission [1978] ECR 207, paragraphs 65 and 66; Case C-250/92 Gøttrup-Klim e.a. Grovvareforeninger v Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskab [1994] ECR I-5641, paragraph 47; Case T-30/89 Hilti v Commission [1991] ECR II-1439, paragraph 90.

Greek law article mentioned

references this directive (2001/29/EK or 2001/29/EC):

2001/29/EC

I'm no lawyer though...

Ironically perhaps, in relatively-socialist (relatively) Europe the EU has to approve any significant "state aid"

The primary reasoning given is it distorts competition between companies (thus ultimately harming the consumer), but also recognised in the criteria - and what most often causes us to hear about it - is distorting competition between member states.

If a company relocates from A to B just because state aid is offered, there's a clear implication that the combined benefit gained by country B + company is less than the loss to country A. The company has to be compensated for losing some kind of natural advantage present in country A, so it must be inefficient.

That's not to say state aid is necessarily bad. If it was a new company that wouldn't otherwise exist, it's actually pretty easy to make a good case for state funding. Maybe harder in US with the lower taxes, but here in UK, say 75% of the loan was going onto payroll for new jobs, well ~25% of that rolls straight back to the government in payroll taxes so they make ~19% hidden return right off the bat. More than half the money left in employees pockets will be spent on goods attracting VAT at 20% so there's another hidden return of ~6%. Oh and they avoided paying unemployment and some benefits, lets assume that would have cost them around 10% of the company's payroll so further hidden return of ~7%. Before you even start thinking about the jobs for suppliers the government gets back something like a third of their money just through taxes. If two other state-aid projects merely make enough other money to repay the loans and nothing more, a third project can completely fail and still government breaks even. If a project not only repays it's loans but keeps going for several years, the return can be astronomical - total payroll taxes make corporation tax receipts (even when completely fair, fully paid with no dodging) look like chump change.

But of course, if it's a relocation, all those returns being generated by the new state are being lost by the old state - they're merely displaced. Also, if these "new" jobs result in a different company being unable to compete and go under, again the apparent gains are merely displacement.

This is BEFORE we start thinking about whether it's fair that companies receive taxpayers' money, or whether it's fair that one company receives this advantage whilst another does not.

No, as i said, in the EU the Sales and Guarantees Directive only applies to physical products, it does not apply to software, there was a proposal some years back and AFAIK it never passed.

You're an idiot. The plane was certified by numerous agencies, and has been flying commercially since April of 2011.

It is certified as meeting the relevant airworthiness and safety requirements by the Interstate Aviation Committee and the European Aviation Safety Agency; The EASA certification is more or less identical in procedure and requirement to our own FAA requirements.

This has nothing to do with "insufficient safety regulations and inspection" in Russia, the plane passed all the same certifications it would need to pass here in the USA, and in fact, the certificate that was awarded by EASA may very well be valid in the US, as there is some reciprocity in these certification processes.

Initial reports suggest that it was CFIT, and they flew right into the side of the mountain; unless you've got access to the black box already, maybe you should hold off on hollow political posturing until an understanding can be reached as to what actually happened?

While you're right, I think the cookie thing was an EU sponsored piece of legislation.

Although our wonderful media often overlooks it, remember that British MEPs probably voted in favour of the legislation (I'm sure it should be linked somewhere from here, but I can't find the voting record).

(Also, I think it's a decent bit of legislation. I don't want my visit to a newspaper website to be known about (and tracked) by 10 third-party companies, like ad networks and Facebook etc.)

You don't know if I'm talking about that at all, because I didn't say what the special handling would be for out of country imports.

Regardless, linked below is the EU page on the VAT:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/index_en.htm

As you'll see, they assess the VAT on import. If your prediction is true, the EU's application of the VAT to imports should have already started a "global trade war". Did it, or do you... have less predictive power than you think?

C//

17434/11 - Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records to the United States Department of Homeland Security

ARTICLE 2
Scope
1.
PNR, as set forth in the Guidelines of the International Civil Aviation Organization, shall
mean the record created by air carriers or their authorized agents for each journey booked by or on
behalf of any passenger and contained in carriers' reservation systems, departure control systems, or
equivalent systems providing similar functionality (collectively referred to in this Agreement as
"reservation systems"). Specifically, as used in this Agreement, PNR consists of the data types set
forth in the Annex to this Agreement ("Annex").
2.
This Agreement shall apply to carriers operating passenger flights between the
European Union and the United States.
3.
This Agreement shall also apply to carriers incorporated or storing data in the
European Union and operating passenger flights to or from the United States.
ARTICLE 3
Provision of PNR
The Parties agree that carriers shall provide PNR contained in their reservation systems to DHS as
required by and in accordance with DHS standards and consistent with this Agreement. Should
PNR transferred by carriers include data beyond those listed in the Annex, DHS shall delete such
data upon receipt.

Article 2 Item 1 Defines PNR as being data gathered for any flight, anywhere
Article 2 Items 2 and 3 Specify that carriers who must comply are those who operate flights to the USA even if they are incorporated and store their data - in Europe

The data in the Annex - mentioned in Article 2 Item 1 and Article 3 is as follows:

ANNEX
PNR Data Types
1. PNR record locator code
2. Date of reservation/issue of ticket
3. Date(s) of intended travel
4. Name(s)
5. Available frequent flier and benefit information (i.e., free tickets, upgrades, etc.)
6. Other names on PNR, including number of travelers on PNR
7. All available contact information (including originator information)
8. All available payment/billing information (not including other transaction details linked to a credit card or account and not connected to the travel transaction)
9. Travel itinerary for specific PNR
10. Travel agency/travel agent
11. Code share information
12. Split/divided information
13. Travel status of passenger (including confirmations and check-in status)
14. Ticketing information, including ticket number, one way tickets and Automated Ticket Fare Quote
15. All baggage information
16. Seat information, including seat number
17. General remarks including OSI, SSI and SSR information
18. Any collected APIS information
19. All historical changes to the PNR listed under points 1 to 18

I have seen nothing in the agreement that limits the data gathering to flights to / from the USA

If anyone finds wording to contradict me please reply.

It's "funny" because:
- It seems Germany has some agreements on international data transfers.
- Just a couple of months ago, the European Commission proposed a Comprehensive Reform of the data protection rules... It's super effective!

This is a renegotiation of the July 2007 agreement that the EU send passenger flight data to the US. Under the new agreement, the US 'should' share 'information about terrorism and serious transnational crime that results from the analysis of PNR data by non-EU countries' with Europol.

This is a renegotiation of the July 2007 agreement that the EU send passenger flight data to the US. Under the new agreement, the US 'should' share 'information about terrorism and serious transnational crime that results from the analysis of PNR data by non-EU countries' with Europol.

"You lost all credibility when you said "banning the light bulb"."

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/368

Try this? http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf

18% of Europe explicitly disbelieves, and 3% doesn't venture an opinion. France seems to have the highest level of atheism at one in three people.

It's high time that USA also gets "All sales are final" rules, like most of the world.

You must be joking, Monsieur!

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/675&type=HTML

4) 14 Days to change your mind on a purchase

The period under which consumers can withdraw from a sales contract is extended to 14 calendar days (compared to seven days legally prescribed by EU law today). This means that consumers can return the goods for whatever reason if they change their minds.

Extra protection for lack of information: When a seller hasn't clearly informed the customer about the withdrawal right, the return period will be extended to a year.

Consumers will also be protected and enjoy a right of withdrawal for solicited visits, such as when a trader called beforehand and pressed the consumer to agree to a visit. In addition, a distinction no longer needs to be made between solicited and unsolicited visits; circumvention of the rules will thus be prevented.

The right of withdrawal is extended to online auctions, such as eBay -- though goods bought in auctions can only be returned when bought from a professional seller.

The withdrawal period will start from the moment the consumer receives the goods, rather than at the time of conclusion of the contract, which is currently the case. The rules will apply to internet, phone and mail order sales, as well as to sales outside shops, for example on the consumer's doorstep, in the street, at a Tupperware party or during an excursion organised by the trader.

5) Better refund rights

Traders must refund consumers for the product within 14 days of the withdrawal. This includes the costs of delivery. In general, the trader will bear the risk for any damage to goods during transportation, until the consumer takes possession of the goods

For physical goods, you have to charge VAT etc in the customer's country if your sales to that country exceed the "distance selling threshold" for that country. It is £70,000 in the UK, and typically around €10,000 elsewhere in the EU. http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/traders/vat_community/vat_in_ec_annexi.pdf

Amazon will probably exceed that threshold in an less hour for each country, so they do need to pay local VAT.

That, however, does not apply to electronically supplied goods, such as Kindle Books, the MP3 store or software supplied by means of download rather than shipped on physical media, so they can and do sell these from Luxembourg which has the lowest VAT rate in the EU. The iTunes store is also based in Luxembourg for that reason.

Why is it that the only antitrust enforcement I hear about in the EU is against non-EU based companies?

Technically every enforcement action is against an EU based corporation - in order to legally do trade within the EU, you need an EU corporate presence. The European Commission regulates violations of trade law within the EU. The EU didn't levy fines against Microsoft US for antitrust violations within the borders of the United States, it levied fines against Microsoft Europe for antitrust violations within the EU borders.

I would guess that you haven't heard about other enforcement actions because you don't read the EU antitrust news? You chose to read US oriented news, which doesn't report on enforcement actions of foreign regulatory bodies against foreign companies? Also, the EU is made up of many nation states, each of which has its own antitrust regulatory body. The EU only gets involved in antitrust when the scale of the illegal activity exceeds the ability of the national courts to handle, or where the national courts have erred or require clarification. This is usually difficult cases, or those with international scope that involve large transnational corporations. EU-level enforcement actions are, by their nature, more likely to be against a large corporation trading internationally, which for tax and trade reasons may well be headquartered in the U.S. (although increasingly companies are choosing to be headquartered in Ireland or Luxembourg for tax purposes, see Facebook, Twitter, etc.).

Is it really that case that no corporations inside the EU are big enough to be anti-competitive?

The EU have issued over €12 billion of fines in the last 5 years against illegal cartels. How many of those cases did you read about in the U.S. press? This is not some conspiracy - it is entirely understandable, their readers (Americans) generally don't care about the EU fining a Belgian glass manufacturer, or Frankfurt Airport. They only feel an emotional connection when the target of the fine is the subsidiary of a U.S. corporation.
2011/03/03 Siemens AG fined €397 million by EU antitrust
2012/03/29 Telefonica fined €152 million.
2011/10/25 Solvay fined €23 million
2011/06/22 Telekomunikacja Polska S.A €127 million
2008/11/12 Largest every cartel fine from the EU - over €1.3 billion against a Japanese/US/English/Belgian cartel.

Why is it that the only antitrust enforcement I hear about in the EU is against non-EU based companies?

Technically every enforcement action is against an EU based corporation - in order to legally do trade within the EU, you need an EU corporate presence. The European Commission regulates violations of trade law within the EU. The EU didn't levy fines against Microsoft US for antitrust violations within the borders of the United States, it levied fines against Microsoft Europe for antitrust violations within the EU borders.

I would guess that you haven't heard about other enforcement actions because you don't read the EU antitrust news? You chose to read US oriented news, which doesn't report on enforcement actions of foreign regulatory bodies against foreign companies? Also, the EU is made up of many nation states, each of which has its own antitrust regulatory body. The EU only gets involved in antitrust when the scale of the illegal activity exceeds the ability of the national courts to handle, or where the national courts have erred or require clarification. This is usually difficult cases, or those with international scope that involve large transnational corporations. EU-level enforcement actions are, by their nature, more likely to be against a large corporation trading internationally, which for tax and trade reasons may well be headquartered in the U.S. (although increasingly companies are choosing to be headquartered in Ireland or Luxembourg for tax purposes, see Facebook, Twitter, etc.).

Is it really that case that no corporations inside the EU are big enough to be anti-competitive?

The EU have issued over €12 billion of fines in the last 5 years against illegal cartels. How many of those cases did you read about in the U.S. press? This is not some conspiracy - it is entirely understandable, their readers (Americans) generally don't care about the EU fining a Belgian glass manufacturer, or Frankfurt Airport. They only feel an emotional connection when the target of the fine is the subsidiary of a U.S. corporation.
2011/03/03 Siemens AG fined €397 million by EU antitrust
2012/03/29 Telefonica fined €152 million.
2011/10/25 Solvay fined €23 million
2011/06/22 Telekomunikacja Polska S.A €127 million
2008/11/12 Largest every cartel fine from the EU - over €1.3 billion against a Japanese/US/English/Belgian cartel.

There are many cases brought against European corporations. Most of those do not make the news across the pond, and many do not make the headlines here in the EU either. The same goes for antitrust cases brought against lesser-known US companies.

I have training and experience in chemistry which includes developing products used in direct and indirect food contact. I am suggesting that there are many plastic products that are perfectly safe for use in food contact during cooking.

Also, if you follow slashdot you aware of recent skepticism regarding the approaches make in much of the medical literature which report correlations between exposure at extremely low levels and certain deleterious effects. BPA reports fall right smack dab into this category. The exposure levels are minute, and the effects reported are large. In addition there is no actual known metabolic mechanism that supports these observations. Even more telling the effects reported are not observed in occupational cohorts - that is people who work in factories that make BPA based products.

Scientific American printed an article that summed up this problem:

"Although experts debate whether mice make good models for human effects, the crux of the argument over BPA is that experimental results have not been reproduced. A 2004 report from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis found âoeno consistent affirmative evidence for low-dose BPA effects.â According to I. Glenn Sipes of the University of Arizona, a co-author of that paper, it is this inconsistency that bothers skeptics. âoeIâ(TM)ve never had a problem saying that we can see biological effects in these low-dose studies,â he says. âoeBut why are we seeing these studies that canâ(TM)t be repeated?â A onetime result in a rodent model, Sipes argues, cannot be extrapolated to mean negative impacts for human health."

So while I support the idea that BPA in the food chain should be carefully regulated because of reports that it MAY be an issue, I also believe that the case against BPA is far from conclusive.

The US FDA, the EU EFSA and the Japanese, and the regulatory agencies of many other countries have all reviewed the evidence and reached the conclusion that BPA is safe under current regulations.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/bisphenol.htm

Presumably some of the people working for these agencies are trained in chemistry.

"If there really is that kind of law, could some kind soul tell me where to find it?"

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/protection_of_consumers/l32022_en.htm
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:EN:NOT

"If there really is that kind of law, could some kind soul tell me where to find it?"

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/protection_of_consumers/l32022_en.htm
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:EN:NOT

A mandatory warranty that all _sellers_ of goods have to give by law, which is valid for two years. This covers only problems that existed prior to the purchase. So for example, if some part breaks simple to being worn out, the _seller_ has no obligation to cover it.

That's not actually true. It also covers failures due to the goods not being of satisfactory quality or manufacture, where the definition of "satisfactory" depends on the nature and cost of the goods and any statements made by the manufacturer. So if some part in your expensive Macbook breaks due to wearing out after just over a year and you as a customer quite reasonably expected - based on Apple's carefully cultivated image of quality - that it would be designed with parts that lasted a little longer, the seller of the goods would still be on the hook for it.

Firstly it was only a MOU not a directive so afaict it's only binding on those who signed it (which admittedly DOES include apple) and those signatories reserve the right to withdraw at any time....

Further looking at the memor itself

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/rtte/files/chargers/chargers_mou_en.pdf

"4.2.1 In order that compatibility of as many Mobile Phones as possible with a Common EPS may be enabled, if a manufacturer makes available an Adaptor from the Micro-USB connector of a Common EPS to a specific non-Micro-USB socket in the Mobile Phone, it shall constitute compliance to this article."

So it seems adaptors like the one apple offers are fine.

and don't live in a town called Dorking.

Could be worse...

And we can look forward to an aptly-named lager also.
On a side note, I spent a few weeks here, back in the 80s (the job was exhausting work, too).

And if you want more, here is one small piece of evidence: 9000€ collected in 3 months to fund Nepomuk

Nepomuk is a desktop framework that cost 17 million euros to develop. And they raised 9000 over 3 months?! That's only 3k/mo... not even enough to hire 1 developer. And you expect that one person to maintain an entire desktop framework?!

If they can keep that up, in just 472 years they will have collected enough to pay for the initial development costs.

Do you think the world would be a better place without the US, the West, and the ability to project and protect principles of freedom and liberal democracy, even if imperfectly?

At what point did the US project or protect liberal democracy? We are more concerned with the profitability of our businesses than with the rights and freedoms of foreign citizens (sometimes we are even more concerned about business profits than with the rights or freedoms of Americans). How are we projecting liberal democracy in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait? How are we projecting liberal democracy in South America? How about Africa?

I know some people might be stunned to learn this, but the primary mission of the foreign intelligence agencies is FOREIGN intelligence.

Why would anyone be stunned by it? The real question is not whether the NSA is gathering foreign intelligence, but what is being done with that intelligence. We know little because of the secrecy; what we do know is this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/820758.stm
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A5-2001-0264+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

What is that? Foreign intelligence operations being used to promote the interests of US businesses and harm the interests of their foreign competitors? We are really pushing liberal democracy with that one, right?

We only push for "democracy" when it coincides with favorable policies for US businesses, period. If a dictatorship is friendly to US corporations, we would never dream of trying to subvert the dictator or promote democracy. We put on a great show of things, criticizing censorship and other human rights abuses, but at the end of the day our foreign policy puts corporate interests first and foremost.

Wouldn't they have to honour it in all of the EU, being EU law..?

As far as I know, most "EU law" is actually EU guidelines that are put into national laws by the member states. So the member states will have very similar laws, but it's not a single law that is applied to the entire EU.

A directive is not a guideline: the EU member states have the obligation to implement the directive as a national law.

The directive under discussion is this one.

"For two years, a consumer has the right to return a good (and either replace it with a similar product or get a refund), if it was already defective at the time it was sold. For the first six month after the sale, it is assumed, that any defect occuring was already present at the time of the sale, and the seller has to prove that the buyer didn't handle the product with care. For the remaining 18 month, it's assumed, that the product was mishandled, and then the buyer has to prove that the defect was present already at the time of the sale."

Are you sure this is the standard implementation across Europe? In the UK it's defined as the reasonable life as the product, which would normally be more than 2 years, and in fact the UK sets a maximum of up to 6 years meaning past that initial 6 months you have another 5.5 years on more expensive consumer products to file a claim if you can prove fault in the product. The UK had this in place before the EU's 2 year warranty came into play, and so hasn't changed it's law because it already offered stronger protections.

The European law came in to remove the disparity where some EU states had a more US style attitude of "Aww, your product broke after 6months? tough fucking shit", whilst some had UK style stronger consumer protection laws.

I was under the impression that how that 2 years is implemented is country specific and that some European countries had gone as far as just giving a 2 year version of the afformentioned 6 month rule in the most consumer friendly cases and so some countries do actually assume a product should be defect free for 2 years.

Your explanation is a great clarification to what has been posted but I don't think it's quite correct- certainly in the UK it's more than 2 years at least, and I'm pretty sure elsewhere it is a full 2 years of assumption against consumer fault and in fact the EU's consumer-facing documentation on it does actually imply that it should be a 2 year period of assumption against consumer fault too:

http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/move/64/index_en.htm

I think it really depends which implementation of the EU law you're living under, but certainly 2 years is only the baseline, and the 6 month thing doesn't seem to apply to every EU country.

Now, what the european consumer advocacy groups say is that Apple misleads the already (through the “Liability for defects” EU Directive) fine protected consumer into believing they wouldn't be protected after 12 months without buying Apple Care. If people are very stupid, and often they are, this could very well be the case.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:EN:HTML

Confusing Warranty (Garantie) and the EU mandated "Gewährleistung" (what you referred to as "Mangelhaftung") is actually quite a common mistake. You should check out a few European consumer electronics forums - on the German ones that I frequent, most people who join to ask questions about their dead electronics don't know the difference between the two. I sure as hell didn't until I actually needed to use a warranty in Germany for the first time...

Maybe you should read the Directive? If repairing imposes "disproportionate costs" on the seller, he can just give the money back.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:en:HTML

You may be surprised that a summary on /. is less than correct ... OK I'll leave the snark out.

Repeat after me: *There is NO “mandatory 2 years warranty” in the European Union*

What there is, is a “Maengelhaftung”, which is usually translated to “Liability for defects”. This is to be granted by the *seller* of a consumer good to a consumer. It is valid for 2 years from the date of purchase. Any defect showing in the first 6 months is assumed to be a manufacturing error, burden of proof of the opposite is with the seller, for the remaining 18 months the customer has to proof that the defect was already present at time of purchase.

As Apple sells its products in its own stores in europe (online included) it adheres to EU law, if Apple products are sold through a third party, the consumer has to deal with that third party.

Apple grants a voluntary 1 year warranty. This actually strengthens the purchasers position, because the above mentioned “burden of proof” now lies with Apple for the first *12* months. No consumer advocacy group in Europe has a problem with this.

But Apple additionally sells “Apple Care” contracts, which extend Apples warranty to three years. If you read closely this far, you'll notice that this is a much better protection for the consumer than the mandatory “Liability for defects” the EU imposes and absolutely doesn't touch this EU Directive. Regardless of any voluntary or sold warranty the EU Directive still stands.

Now, what the european consumer advocacy groups say is that Apple misleads the already (through the “Liability for defects” EU Directive) fine protected consumer into believing they wouldn't be protected after 12 months without buying Apple Care. If people are very stupid, and often they are, this could very well be the case.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0044:EN:HTML

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20120301-0900-COMMITTEE-JURI&category=COMMITTEE&format=wmv Only managed to get it to play in IE.

Text of Compromise 20 (AMC 20) can be found on page 28 of this document which I found on publications page of JURI under "Votes".

Text of Compromise 20 (AMC 20) can be found on page 28 of this document which I found on publications page of JURI under "Votes".

It includes the following documents for this dossier:

* Text proposed by the EU Commission
* Committee rapporteur's draft report, with her proposed amendments (1 to 48)
* Amendments proposed by other members of the committee (49 to 170)
* Opinion of the Culture committee (CULT), and their proposed amendments (CULT 1 to CULT 55)
* Opinion of the committee on the Internal Market (IMCO), and their proposed amendments (IMCO 1 to 41).

Unfortunately there does not appear to be a copy of the "Compromise Amendments", including the disputed amendment in question, "Compromise 20". One of the MEPs complains in the video at the end of the agenda item (10:51) that the text of these were only circulated on the night before the meeting.

It's not unusual for new texts to appear as heads get bashed together in the days immediately before the actual voting (in fact, it is an essential part of the system); but in this case they don't appear to have been placed on the website, or at any rate I didn't know where to find them.

The amended report from JURI, consolidating the results of these votes, appears now to have been formally prepared with the document reference A7-0055/2012, though I couldn't find the text of it yet on the Parliament website. This will now go forward for a short debate before the whole parliament, before voting on the amendments proposed by JURI, the amendments proposed by the other two committees, and any other amendments to the Commission text proposed by a sufficient number of MEPs.

It includes the following documents for this dossier:

* Text proposed by the EU Commission
* Committee rapporteur's draft report, with her proposed amendments (1 to 48)
* Amendments proposed by other members of the committee (49 to 170)
* Opinion of the Culture committee (CULT), and their proposed amendments (CULT 1 to CULT 55)
* Opinion of the committee on the Internal Market (IMCO), and their proposed amendments (IMCO 1 to 41).

Unfortunately there does not appear to be a copy of the "Compromise Amendments", including the disputed amendment in question, "Compromise 20". One of the MEPs complains in the video at the end of the agenda item (10:51) that the text of these were only circulated on the night before the meeting.

It's not unusual for new texts to appear as heads get bashed together in the days immediately before the actual voting (in fact, it is an essential part of the system); but in this case they don't appear to have been placed on the website, or at any rate I didn't know where to find them.

The amended report from JURI, consolidating the results of these votes, appears now to have been formally prepared with the document reference A7-0055/2012, though I couldn't find the text of it yet on the Parliament website. This will now go forward for a short debate before the whole parliament, before voting on the amendments proposed by JURI, the amendments proposed by the other two committees, and any other amendments to the Commission text proposed by a sufficient number of MEPs.

It includes the following documents for this dossier:

* Text proposed by the EU Commission
* Committee rapporteur's draft report, with her proposed amendments (1 to 48)
* Amendments proposed by other members of the committee (49 to 170)
* Opinion of the Culture committee (CULT), and their proposed amendments (CULT 1 to CULT 55)
* Opinion of the committee on the Internal Market (IMCO), and their proposed amendments (IMCO 1 to 41).

Unfortunately there does not appear to be a copy of the "Compromise Amendments", including the disputed amendment in question, "Compromise 20". One of the MEPs complains in the video at the end of the agenda item (10:51) that the text of these were only circulated on the night before the meeting.

It's not unusual for new texts to appear as heads get bashed together in the days immediately before the actual voting (in fact, it is an essential part of the system); but in this case they don't appear to have been placed on the website, or at any rate I didn't know where to find them.

The amended report from JURI, consolidating the results of these votes, appears now to have been formally prepared with the document reference A7-0055/2012, though I couldn't find the text of it yet on the Parliament website. This will now go forward for a short debate before the whole parliament, before voting on the amendments proposed by JURI, the amendments proposed by the other two committees, and any other amendments to the Commission text proposed by a sufficient number of MEPs.

It includes the following documents for this dossier:

* Text proposed by the EU Commission
* Committee rapporteur's draft report, with her proposed amendments (1 to 48)
* Amendments proposed by other members of the committee (49 to 170)
* Opinion of the Culture committee (CULT), and their proposed amendments (CULT 1 to CULT 55)
* Opinion of the committee on the Internal Market (IMCO), and their proposed amendments (IMCO 1 to 41).

Unfortunately there does not appear to be a copy of the "Compromise Amendments", including the disputed amendment in question, "Compromise 20". One of the MEPs complains in the video at the end of the agenda item (10:51) that the text of these were only circulated on the night before the meeting.

It's not unusual for new texts to appear as heads get bashed together in the days immediately before the actual voting (in fact, it is an essential part of the system); but in this case they don't appear to have been placed on the website, or at any rate I didn't know where to find them.

The amended report from JURI, consolidating the results of these votes, appears now to have been formally prepared with the document reference A7-0055/2012, though I couldn't find the text of it yet on the Parliament website. This will now go forward for a short debate before the whole parliament, before voting on the amendments proposed by JURI, the amendments proposed by the other two committees, and any other amendments to the Commission text proposed by a sufficient number of MEPs.

It includes the following documents for this dossier:

* Text proposed by the EU Commission
* Committee rapporteur's draft report, with her proposed amendments (1 to 48)
* Amendments proposed by other members of the committee (49 to 170)
* Opinion of the Culture committee (CULT), and their proposed amendments (CULT 1 to CULT 55)
* Opinion of the committee on the Internal Market (IMCO), and their proposed amendments (IMCO 1 to 41).

Unfortunately there does not appear to be a copy of the "Compromise Amendments", including the disputed amendment in question, "Compromise 20". One of the MEPs complains in the video at the end of the agenda item (10:51) that the text of these were only circulated on the night before the meeting.

It's not unusual for new texts to appear as heads get bashed together in the days immediately before the actual voting (in fact, it is an essential part of the system); but in this case they don't appear to have been placed on the website, or at any rate I didn't know where to find them.

The amended report from JURI, consolidating the results of these votes, appears now to have been formally prepared with the document reference A7-0055/2012, though I couldn't find the text of it yet on the Parliament website. This will now go forward for a short debate before the whole parliament, before voting on the amendments proposed by JURI, the amendments proposed by the other two committees, and any other amendments to the Commission text proposed by a sufficient number of MEPs.

It includes the following documents for this dossier:

* Text proposed by the EU Commission
* Committee rapporteur's draft report, with her proposed amendments (1 to 48)
* Amendments proposed by other members of the committee (49 to 170)
* Opinion of the Culture committee (CULT), and their proposed amendments (CULT 1 to CULT 55)
* Opinion of the committee on the Internal Market (IMCO), and their proposed amendments (IMCO 1 to 41).

Unfortunately there does not appear to be a copy of the "Compromise Amendments", including the disputed amendment in question, "Compromise 20". One of the MEPs complains in the video at the end of the agenda item (10:51) that the text of these were only circulated on the night before the meeting.

It's not unusual for new texts to appear as heads get bashed together in the days immediately before the actual voting (in fact, it is an essential part of the system); but in this case they don't appear to have been placed on the website, or at any rate I didn't know where to find them.

The amended report from JURI, consolidating the results of these votes, appears now to have been formally prepared with the document reference A7-0055/2012, though I couldn't find the text of it yet on the Parliament website. This will now go forward for a short debate before the whole parliament, before voting on the amendments proposed by JURI, the amendments proposed by the other two committees, and any other amendments to the Commission text proposed by a sufficient number of MEPs.

Video of the voting is available on the EP website. The agenda item starts at 10:27, and the voting runs from 10:31 to 10:51. The amendment in question appears to be "Compromise 20", voted on at 10:39, which is indeed rejected by 12 votes to 14. This was an all-party amendment that the centre-right EPP party then withdrew support from, because they were not entirely happy with the wording, according to one of their MEPs at the start of the meeting. (10:29). As the video shows, the EP tends to machine-gun through amendment votes, which are held in one swoop after months of discussion. You really need the papers for the meeting and your preferred faction's voting guide to turn them into an acceptable spectator sport. One of the extra votes could perhaps have been the chairman's casting vote; but it's not clear how there could have been two.

Article refers to a hoax blog posting which the article believed was true. Read down through the comments, no evidence backing up the article's claim beyond the article writer saying "I read it on an assistant to the meeting's blog post". Readers of the article link to the minutes of the meeting which show the actual vote was 22-1.

Political activist quotes blog post which itself has no definitive references and makes unsubstantiated claim. Slashdot picks up on article refering to blog post.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-483.867&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01

"The Committee adopted the amended Commission proposal and the draft legislative resolution by 22 votes in favour and 1 abstention"

This is apparently about a vote on one of the amendments to the proposal. The minutes linked in the parent list accepted amendments, but don't give votes on the individual amendments. Similarly, the committee voting records ( see here ) don't seem to include the outcomes. It should be possible to check however, as the meetings are recorded:
The vote occurred during this session
Unfortunately, the wmv sound doesn't seem to work with flip4mac and I get all interpretations at the same time, so I can't check it now.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-483.867&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01

"The Committee adopted the amended Commission proposal and the draft legislative resolution by 22 votes in favour and 1 abstention"

This is apparently about a vote on one of the amendments to the proposal. The minutes linked in the parent list accepted amendments, but don't give votes on the individual amendments. Similarly, the committee voting records ( see here ) don't seem to include the outcomes. It should be possible to check however, as the meetings are recorded:
The vote occurred during this session
Unfortunately, the wmv sound doesn't seem to work with flip4mac and I get all interpretations at the same time, so I can't check it now.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-483.867&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01

"The Committee adopted the amended Commission proposal and the draft legislative resolution by 22 votes in favour and 1 abstention"

This is apparently about a vote on one of the amendments to the proposal. The minutes linked in the parent list accepted amendments, but don't give votes on the individual amendments. Similarly, the committee voting records ( see here ) don't seem to include the outcomes. It should be possible to check however, as the meetings are recorded:
The vote occurred during this session
Unfortunately, the wmv sound doesn't seem to work with flip4mac and I get all interpretations at the same time, so I can't check it now.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-483.867&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01

"The Committee adopted the amended Commission proposal and the draft legislative resolution by 22 votes in favour and 1 abstention"

The European Commission have some standard for web publication (379 pages for the printed version). I still wait for 1 contractor to follow even the most basics lines of the standard. They all have said in their bid that they will follow it, but none fully delivered to that promise.

When i manage a contract for creating a new website, I squeeze the contractor until the last 'bug' is corrected. By bug I mean every deviation from the standard. But when a colleague is in charge of a project and in this project there is a paragraph saying that they should have a website. They write a contract to ask a contractor to do the job for the project and add a paragraph in that contract saying that the contractor should also create a website following the IPG. Then the contractor deliver... And generally what it deliver is a soup of HTML tags that look good on the screen but doesn't even pass without errors in an html validator. The collegue have done everything right, except he is unable to check the work of the contractor because he doesn't know anything about websites and the contractor know it.

Dang, first post got eaten. Anyways - on enforcing the law. I did some research. It bans the importation and manufacture of non-compliant bulbs. It doesn't make selling them domestically illegal, nor possession, etc... So unless you're running a factory or importing business, I don't think you have to worry. Just like the toilets. They aren't going to break down people's doors looking for them.

Even you can see the right answer. So why go with a wrong one?

Remember I only stepped in to explain the analogy. Didn't say I agreed with it. I think we can both agree that pollution, especially too much of it, can be bad.

But not from light bulbs.

Let's see: ~70k deaths from air pollution in the USA per year. The UK is 50k. Worldwide is 1.3M per year.
Lighting is 9% of electricity usage.
Eyeballing this and averaging the four sources, I get 24% of air pollution from energy production and distribution. EPA says 67% sulfur dioxide, 23% nitrogen oxide. I dropped CO2. That would be 45%. I'll stick with 24%.

Using a straight blame - 70k deaths from air pollution. 17k would be from electricity generation. 1.5k for pollution from powering lights, on average. 28k worldwide.
So yeah, I can trace thousands of deaths to the pollution from light bulbs. Making matters worse - there's plenty of survivors affected - per 75 deaths there are '505 hospital admissions for asthma and other respiratory diseases, 3,500 respiratory emergency doctor visits, 180,000 asthma attacks, 930,000 restricted activity days, and 2,000,000 acute respiratory symptom days.' Per 75 deaths seems an odd measure to use, but it's what the article listed. That's a lot of lost labor due to the pollution.

As for the baseload vs peak - 'not many lights are left on overnight'? I refer you to this image. And coal power isn't entirely baseload - fire up another boiler, spin another turbine. It might have to be scheduled a bit more compared to hydro or NG, but it's there.

Look, it's not that we don't agree on some things, it's just that, well, if you're going to argue this stuff, you need to do it right, and denying facts isn't going to help. I lean majorly libertarian, but given the pollution levels in my town on occasion,

This will be complemented in EU level with the European citizens' initiative starting 1.4.2012:

http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome

The European citizens' initiative allows one million EU citizens to participate directly in the development of EU policies, by calling on the European Commission to make a legislative proposal.

Both patent and copyright legislation comes mostly from the EU, so the ministry would shoot down the proposals before they even reach the parliament. So you would need to do a European citizens' initiative, which is also coming soon.