Slashdot Mirror

I seem to recall a rather more blunt quote, but since I unfortunately cannot find it, the official ICO response to the proposals was:

20 October 2008
ICO statement on the Communications Data Bill A spokesperson for the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) said: "This summer the Information Commissioner called for a public debate on government proposals for the state to retain citizensâ(TM) internet and phone records. The Commissioner warned that it is likely that such a scheme would be a step too far for the British way of life. Creating huge databases containing personal information is never a risk-free option as it is not possible to fully eliminate the danger that the data will fall into the wrong hands. It is therefore of paramount importance that proposals threatening such intrusion into our lives are fully debated. We welcome the fact that the government intends to fully consult the public on any scheme it brings forward. Precise details of the plans are unclear at this stage; the ICO will be studying the proposals once published and responding to the Government's consultation in due course."

Incidentally some may find the ICO's press release list (the source for the above quote) makes for some interesting reading. Surprised there is no follow-up to the debate though, I'd have thought he's try to get his oar in again.

Just kidding. They simply didn't bother with the debate: "Civil libertarians are outraged that the change came into force without a debate in parliament, having been brought in by statutory implement". (statutory instrument info).

So, it would appear that firstly they sneaked the EU directive in by calling it "commercial" legislation rather than a policing one. This forced themselves to implement it, but allows them to blame it on the EU, even though they were the ones pushing it through there. Back home, they proposed a Bill (which would result in an Act, a "proper" law by "proper" means IMHO), started the normal proposal procedure, but then didn't like what they were hearing so chucked it through as a statutory implement instead. Nice.

Oh and by the way, since people seem to be avoiding it, the names of the directives & law are, I think:
UK SI The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009
(Also see Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000)
EU Directive is EU Directive 2006/24/EC[PDF]
(doubtless there's a raft of other legislation of varying degrees of relevance)

Yeah right. Talking nonsense again, right?

European surveys have proved that French people actually work longer hours than Brits.

Don't believe me?

Check this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/mar/31/uk-long-working-hours
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/surveys/ewcs2005/index.htm

I have seen Brits and Swiss jerks leave their office at 5:00pm while I stayed at my desk until 10:00pm past. So that kind of "joke" is truly lame.

And yes, I work in France.

(repeat from below)

Within the EU, this is relatively straightforward. The Brussels Regime provides a framework for one member state to enforce the judgement of the Courts in another member state.

Within the US, there is also (in most cases) a mechanism for the enforcement of a foreign (i.e. UK) monetary judgements, but this isn't automatic by any means and is dependent on state law.

It should be noted that, in both cases, such judgements won't be honoured if the appeal process is still ongoing.

The Brussels Convention - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:41968A0927(01):EN:HTML

Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act 1962 - http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/fnact99/1920_69/ufmjra62.pdf

Within the EU, this is relatively straightforward. The Brussels Regime provides a framework for one member state to enforce the judgement of the Courts in another member state.

Within the US, there is also (in most cases) a mechanism for the enforcement of a foreign (i.e. UK) monetary judgements, but this isn't automatic by any means and is dependent on state law.

It should be noted that, in both cases, such judgements won't be honoured if the appeal process is still ongoing.

The Brussels Convention - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:41968A0927(01):EN:HTML

Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act 1962 - http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/fnact99/1920_69/ufmjra62.pdf

It's not just Solaris.

According to this, in 2006, sun was the leading corporate contributor to open source projects that were in the Debian distro.

Here's another look at Sun's open source contributions.

I have the impression that the sponsorship rather contributes to no improvements. Best example is the DIB engine. First implementations were proposed years ago but always rejected. It was said it takes like 3 month. Still there would be the option to introduce a DIB engine in a branch and stablize it. It won't happen. We probably have the fourth DIB engine implementation now. The patch rejection policy of the dictatorial project leader can be explained and rationalised by underlying commercial objectives of the commercial implementations which gain here competitive advantages or utter mismanagement of the development process. Sure, it is complicated but the contribution process does not look good. The wine project still does not scale properly in its development.

It also could not be too difficult to cut Wine in pieces and e.g. raise funds for the full and complete implementation of a particular API or the full support of a particular program. It does not happen. I cannot fund the whole API but I would be capable to give a bounty for a particular function. The monolithic development process does not permit real progress. No one knows why a patch is accepted or rejected.

Wine has specific coding styles but no automated quality process like the KDE guys did with Krazy/EBN. And the wine tests used for compatibility checks are known to be very buggy. Wine is nothing but a messy implementation of the Win32 mess.

I also don't see Wine on the political advocacy sphere to urge policy makers to apply stick and carrot for Microsoft to disclose API details, this is a quote from a Microsoft memo found in the 2004 EU antitrust case documents:

"The Windows API is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most ISVs would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead...

        "It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties [...] Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move.

        "In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago."

That is more than a smoking gun, hein? Don't you think it would have been possible to get funds from governments and industry players that are stuck with their strategic dependency on Win32? The wine project, despite its stupid patch rejection policy does meet ordinary quality standards in any part and is incapable in its managements to enable and encourage such contributions.

The same laws enforced on everyone else? Hmmmmm. Name one? Preferably a software company, please.

Here's a lisiting of hundreds of them. If you want a software case, look at Telfonica last year. It was a major one tying software and services.

I like the free market. Which implies the EU not getting involved in it... or the US, or whoever else.

Monopolies make it possible to easily undermine the free market. That's why it is illegal for trusts to take actions that will undermine the operation of the free market. Anarchy is not a free market as simpletons who have never picked up an economics text would assert.

Hehe, fixing notepad would be good... wait, no it wouldn't, because then there'd be another monopoly there. As it is, I'm forced to download a competitor. Bad notepad == good for competitor business. Why do you want them to fix it? :)

How is OEMs installing a variety of text editors and users realizing they have choices worse for competition than everyone being given one inferior one and people who can't stand it looking for more options? If you made a text editor would you seriously like to have no chance of licensing it to OEMs because MS already includes one and forces OEMs to pay their dev fees?

OEM installs other browsers... well, they can do that now, if they want to, can't they?

Sure, but MS has undermined the market in such a way that it is no longer in their best financial interest to include the best browser because all browsers other than IE are artificially broken. Antitrust abuse isn't about holding a gun to people's heads and forcing them to take an action. We already have other laws against that. It is about abusing a monopoly to make the best choice one that is detrimental to society and end users and no longer fosters innovation and efficiency.

"No, because then Microsoft won't let them use Windows."

Nice strawman,

Great, then maybe they'll start using Linux.

Maybe you're not understanding monopoly influence.

Unless Linux isn't as good as we like to think it is, and people actually can't use it as well?

Linux is not usable by the average person partly because companies are not motivated to make it so because the market is undermined and innovation is slowed and partly because it is artificially broken by MS's dominance and illegal actions... but all that is beside the point. This is about the browser market being broken by an illegal action, not the OS market.

. Regardless, if THAT was the lawsuit

Please educate yourself or RTFA. There is no lawsuit here. This is a criminal court case, not a civil suit.

All of them that want to be included? Great, my computer will now ship with 50 browsers. :)

Could be, but maybe you might want to wait until a remedy is actually proposed before critiquing it. What's the point in your complaining about guesses as to what you think the EU might propose?

End users deserve better and can have better if we restore the free market ... by what?

Enforcing the law we've been enforcing for a hundred years.

By telling Microsoft, by court-ordering/government-mandating them to shape up and produce better products or leave?

Please give up the strawman arguments already.

By forcing Microsoft to compete on even ground with every other browser developer so the best product can gain share in a free market. I really don't see why you are so opposed to MS having to compete with others fairly. If their browser is the best it will win. If it isn't it will lose. How can you object to that?

Maybe bad MS products

"The European Commission has concluded, after a five-year investigation, that Microsoft Corporation broke European Union competition law by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems (OS) onto the markets for work group server operating systems(1) and for media players(2). Because the illegal behaviour is still ongoing, the Commission has ordered Microsoft to disclose to competitors, within 120 days, the interfaces(3) required for their products to be able to 'talk' with the ubiquitous Windows OS. Microsoft is also required, within 90 days, to offer a version of its Windows OS without Windows Media Player to PC manufacturers (or when selling directly to end users). In addition, Microsoft is fined 497 million for abusing its market power in the EU. " from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/382&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

You mean that? How about the part at the bottom where they were fined and forced to release APIs? The rest of the release mentions they must also offer a version of Windows without WMP. That was the punishment. It appears the EU took it one step farther then the US did by including fines. This decision does not stretch to the current dilemma.

So, once more, how does this relate to the current topic? In fact, the wording specifically mentions "near monopoly" not an actual monopoly. What that means in the EU legal speak I do not know, but in the US that means you are not a monopoly and as such you will not be treated as one. (Which, usually means you are broken up into smaller companies or are under government control until you can be.)

And since when does legal = fair? Have you seen some of the garbage that gets passed into law?

As you can see even now this product is sold by others, not MS.

And ill-informed as you are you didn't realise the vast majority of MS OS products are sold under an OEM re branding, meaning you can't even call MS for support...

When you're done with the chest hairs of the European Commissioner for Competition please report back :)

About restricting access to the British store from non-British customers, well I kind of doubt that's illegal. Do you (or someone on the Steam forums) have a source for this law?

Here you go: Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31997L0007:EN:HTML

(2) Whereas the free movement of goods and services affects not only the business sector but also private individuals; whereas it means that consumers should be able to have access to the goods and services of another Member State on the same terms as the population of that State;

I'm not sure what happens if you don't. 'Nothing at all' is quite likely, though I wouldn't wish to bet on not being arrested whilst travelling in the EU if you evade a really huge amount. The EC doesn't seem to have realised they're being a complete arse.

There are 27 EU countries and they all have different rules on what is subject to VAT and what rate to charge. You're supposed to apply the correct rate for each sale - depending where your customer is - and account for each country separately.

This is the simplified system, BTW. The complicated version means submitting up to 27 VAT returns to 27 governments, in 22 languages.

Reference: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/traders/e-commerce/article_1610_en.htm

The interesting aspect here is the domino effect and the platform building. If one government does it more governments will follow. Microsoft is aware of that. I can also point you to the European Software Strategy speech of Reding:

These advantages are ones that give Europe its window of opportunity to develop a leadership position in software. But this window is small and it will soon be closed if we don't act. I can illustrate this already. Even if 70% of open source developers are European, 90% of the economic benefits are being won by US companies. My view is: If we have the brains, we should also get the gains! That is why we need a European Strategy for Software.

The Committee on Legal Affairs says in the report labeled "REPORT on the outlook for copyright in the EU":

48. Approves the action taken by various national judicial systems against internet sites that
illegally disseminate works on line (e.g. "The Pirate Bay");

This is from (PDF-warning) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2009-0017+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

Which in my view is equivalent to judge The Pirate Bay without any legal trial. It's not some hippie committee on agriculture or whatever. Writing like this just shows they've already made up their mind before trial. Mind you, I realize this is an EU committee, but in case you haven't noticed, Sweden has been following the EU's advice quite throroughly lately.

McGann is the lobbyist of EICTA. You don't expect members of the administration to work for a lobby organisation. The question is who defines what they do. And here ENISA does mostly awareness raising efforts for imaginative audiences.

http://www.enisa.europa.eu/pages/05_01.htm

The point is not what ENISA is but what it is not! Ask European IT security experts what they think about ENISA and their consultant puppets.

Funny, according to their website (which is not what you linked, BTW) none of their members seem to be part of any lobby, much less representatives of entities such as Symantec, Microsoft and so on. I could be wrong, but I'll have to ask you to please back up your statements with evidence...

Ok, so this /. article links to an article that already is a bad summary of this press release, which sounds a little more enlightened:

To help parents choose, MEPs would like to see more public awareness of the content of video games, parental control options and instruments such as the Pan-European Game Information (PEGI) age rating system.

Sounds to me like they're doing the exact right thing: Making parents responsible and asking game companies to give them options.

Now the actual "red button" part reads like this in the press release:

the report proposes fitting consoles, computers or other game devices with a "red button" to give parents the chance to disable a game or control access at certain times.

That does not sound like an emergency "off" switch to me. It sounds more like a timer thing, where a parent can tell the computer "no online games for my son after 22:00". Unfortunately, I couldn't find a source beyond the press release, so what exactly they have in mind remains a mystery. It does sound a lot less exciting than TFA makes it to be. Selective quoting, anyone?

From the EU Parliament Press release:

Until PEGI on-line is up and running, the report proposes fitting consoles, computers or other game devices with a "red button" to give parents the chance to disable a game or control access at certain times.

Furthermore in the actual draft report, the word "button" never appears. As such, the red button doesn't seem to be a literal red button, rather a figurative term used in the press release as a euphemism for parental controls. I'm not sure how this is any different from how the current-gen consoles implement parental controls though.

From the EU Parliament Press release:

Until PEGI on-line is up and running, the report proposes fitting consoles, computers or other game devices with a "red button" to give parents the chance to disable a game or control access at certain times.

Furthermore in the actual draft report, the word "button" never appears. As such, the red button doesn't seem to be a literal red button, rather a figurative term used in the press release as a euphemism for parental controls. I'm not sure how this is any different from how the current-gen consoles implement parental controls though.

Laws which are only enforced against Microsoft (not EU companies).

Bullshit. I mean, seriously, where do you get this inane drivel from? Microsoft campus?

The conditions imposed on MS fairly obviously violate the Berne Convention.

In what way?

These "crimes" are the results of complaints by European and other companies that they're were losing money to MS.

No, Microsoft broke the law. That much is clear. They illegally abused their dominant position in the desktop market to ruin competition in the browser market.

Yeah, that crazy EU government and their enforcing the laws... the same laws we enforced against MS for the same crime which they still haven't stopped committing.

Laws which are only enforced against Microsoft (not EU companies).

Ever bother to actually look for facts instead of making idiotic assumptions? The EU has repeatedly enforced antitrust law against European companies, including cases for bundling like the high profile Telfonica case last year.

And you can't create laws which violate your treaty obligations.

Sure you can, countries do it all the time; not that it matters in this case.

The conditions imposed on MS fairly obviously violate the Berne Convention. If I was MS I would take this to the WTO.

Yeah right. It's not even close to violating the Berne Convention and the US and EU have both already convicted them of very similar antitrust abuse in the past. The EU laws being enforced are almost identical to the US ones.

If they don't think the law is just, the right way to solve it is to change public opinion and get the law changed by the democratic process.

How is lobbying "changing the law by democratic process"?

Do you see "lobbying" in my post? You quoted it, and did not notice I said they should change public opinion and never mentioned lobbying? This is a terrible strawman.

These "crimes" are the results of complaints by European and other companies that they're were losing money to MS.

Reporting a crime that is illegally costing you money now makes it your fault? Blame the victim much?

It's those companies (which I'm sure do their own lobbying), that are the problem here.

Oh yeah, breaking the law isn't a problem, reporting it is. Are you an astroturfer or just an idiot?

do you think the public would accept the idea of a taxpayer-financed but privately-operated school

Public grants for private schools been accepted in the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and Finland. At least private school operating costs are granted by the govenment to some private schools in the UK and France.

Of course abolishing the publicly run schools has not happened anywhere yet.

Antitrust: Commission confirms sending a Statement of Objections to Microsoft on the tying of Internet Explorer to Windows

So the text you quote, "the Commission is considering ordering Microsoft and OEMs to obligate users to choose a particular browser when setting up a new PC" is IMHO NOT evident from the Commission's press release. Maybe it's in the actual Statement of Objections, otherwise.. sounds like Microsoft lying to the SEC and putting words in the Commissioner's mouth.

If you'd change "a particular browser" to "any browser of their choice" the sentence would probably be correct (IANAL btw).

If that "Statement of Objections" is public I'll try to find a link to that, too. The level of ignorance and FUD here today is a bit worrying, otherwise :-)

The musing about IE is off topic but why don't you actually read the Commission's press release:

the Commission sets out evidence and outlines its preliminary conclusion that Microsoftâ(TM)s tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice.

The SO is based on the legal and economic principles established in the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2007 (case T-201/04), in which the Court of First Instance upheld the Commission's decision of March 2004 (see IP/04/382), finding that Microsoft had abused its dominant position in the PC operating system market by tying Windows Media Player to its Windows PC operating system (see MEMO/07/359).

The evidence gathered during the investigation leads the Commission to believe that the tying of Internet Explorer with Windows, which makes Internet Explorer available on 90% of the world's PCs, distorts competition on the merits between competing web browsers insofar as it provides Internet Explorer with an artificial distribution advantage which other web browsers are unable to match. The Commission is concerned that through the tying, Microsoft shields Internet Explorer from head to head competition with other browsers which is detrimental to the pace of product innovation and to the quality of products which consumers ultimately obtain. In addition, the Commission is concerned that the ubiquity of Internet Explorer creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers.

Microsoft has 8 weeks to reply the SO, and will then have the right to be heard in an Oral Hearing should it wish to do so. If the preliminary views expressed in the SO are confirmed, the Commission may impose a fine on Microsoft, require Microsoft to cease the abuse and impose a remedy that would restore genuine consumer choice and enable competition on the merits.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

I did, the article is wrong and idiotic. Here's the EU press release:

Member States approve the phasing-out of incan-descent bulbs by 2012

100w blubs are not banned, they are to be phased out by 2012, with the details of the phase-out to be determined by member states as they choose.

Why not? What's happened to Hans-Gert PÃttering?

Maybe pure politicians don't, but somebody at least at the EU is trying to do something about it, look, they have released their own Free/Open Source Software Licence (sic): http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7774
Anyway, I think they could have just used gpl or whatever other copyleft license, but i guess at least they are indeed promoting an EU-wide open-source policy ;)

When energy efficiency comes into play, EU usually does not "ban" something, but it tries to inform people so they can make beter choice (=support "free market at play" argument). The second method is to establish some minimum/maximum value (such as for emissions from vehicles) to push manufacturers research better options. EU own wording is:

The energy demand in households accounts for 25% of the final energy needs in the EU. Electricity used for domestic appliances in households show the sharpest increase. Higher standards of living and comfort, multiple purchases of electric appliances and the growing need for air-conditioning are main reasons for this trend to prevail. Energy consumption by consumer electronics and new media as Internet is also steadily growing.

The response is to act in two complementary ways:
      * Energy Labelling of household appliances: Seen that the market of household appliances such as washing machines, dishwasher, oven, air-conditioning systems etc. are highly visible to the consumer, the intention is to increase consumer's awareness on the real energy use of household appliances through a liable and clear labelling in their sales points.
      * Minimum Efficiency Requirements: Compulsory minimum efficiency requirements will encourage producers of household appliances to improve the product design in view to lower the energy consumption at their use.

Electric appliances in EU are labelled according to their energy consumption. When you go to buy refrigerator or washer, you will find such standardized label on the device. Many people use these labels (or in effect device energy efficiency class) to choose better. Following page shows such label:
http://www.greenlabelspurchase.net/ha-eu-energy-labelling.html

Actual EU legislation is here:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/legislation/domestic_en.htm

Now, to put things in perspective: average electricity usage per year is 4000..16000kWh in US (source: Wikipedia), ~3000kWh in UK (source: electricity company), ~1600..2200kWH in PL (source: electricity company). In Poland this would calculate to 300-500USD (depending on exchange rate, which varies wildly).

According to studies done in Poland, TV is the fourth largest household electricity consumer. The first is refrigerator (33%), 2nd lighting and small appliances (25%), 3rd washing machine (10%). This assumes that you use gas for cooking.

Classic 21" TV (max ~55W) uses about 7-8% of energy consumed per year (in UK/US this might be much more), so you end up paying around 30-50USD per year just for TV electricity. Using large LCD (42", max ~200W) almost quadruples that number (yes, I know that depending on settings LCD might use less energy). Using Plasma (max ~400W) makes the situation even worse (yes, there are some optimization techniques claimed by manufacturers). You end up paying 4-7x as much for new TV as you used to.
Given these calculations it is clear that EU has started to do something about TV efficiency, as more and more people buy LCD/Plasma.

And computer? it's under 3%. Less than an electric kettle.

it's able to use no power while in standby mode -- but this is a feature that will be required from 2010 for new PCs released across Europe.

This is not true. The EU will allow 1 W from 2010 in standby mode and off mode and 0.5 W from 2014. There is an exception for devices that have an "information or status display" which allows for a power consumption of 2 W (2014: 1 W) in standby mode.
See commission regulation 1275/2008 Annex II.

[...] when IE is taken out of the windows install and the new user is provided with discs containing Opera, Firefox, Chrome and IE [...] 3rd party apps which suck don't have the right to try and poach users from the OS manufacturer's apps. [...] If your app is good people will use it anyway. [...] I hear no-one screaming that linux should adhere to the same standards. [etc etc ...]

If MS wrenched IE out of Windows and put it on a disc that came with the retail package, Opera wouldn't be satisfied. They would be satisfied only if IE were put on a seperate disc which didn't have 'Microsoft' written on it anywhere, (and wasn't in packaging too pretty incase it lured users that way,) and included along with a selection of other browsers (should that just be a free-for-all as to who gets included?), with the IE disc certainly not higher in the pile than the Opera disc.

Based on a misleading headline, no less, you're making baseless statements about intentions, and on the whole arguing out your ass. The issue on hand is that Microsoft has allegedly used its monopoly status to block out other browsers. Microsoft should be (potentially) punished, yes or no?

The headline as well as TFA is misleading, because no-one's actually talking about removing IE as fas as I can see. That depends on how the punishment would be implemented, if implemented, and we haven't quite gotten that far yet, as you may realise.

Quoting the real source:

The Commission is concerned that through the tying, Microsoft shields Internet Explorer from head to head competition with other browsers which is detrimental to the pace of product innovation and to the quality of products which consumers ultimately obtain. In addition, the Commission is concerned that the ubiquity of Internet Explorer creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers.

Well damn right!

Yes. But the browser wars are over. So the case is about the struggle for reparations and the unconditional surrender.

In fact Opera was just upset about Open XML in Norway and the fact that Microsoft attacked open standards policies in the EU, the W3C and Norway. So they made a simple complaint that found the heel of Achileus. And the Commission says thanks, let's go for it.

We have different outcomes. The most simple one is that Microsoft complies with unbundling for Windows7 and as a political gift abandons its open standards subversion. That is what a sane party would do and basically agree with the Commission to not dig into the past.

The insane, the Microsoft response will be to go ballistic, go political and blow the whole case up, campaign against the EU and annoy everyone once again. Then it will become quite interesting because the Commission is now far more experienced.

Whatever road they chose, it would be great, great fun and there is nothing to lose for Brussels.

The 'cooling-off period' is EU wide law, the Distance Selling Directive). Germany implemented this directive in 2002.

Right now governments push for open standards and Microsoft redefines open standards as patent-encumbered. Better aim higher.

That's why I said:

including surrendering the right to ever sue for patent infringement for implementing the standard.

The governmental definition of an "open standard" should, by law, include that anyone can implement it for free, legally, for any purpose. If that doesn't mean leaving out patented techniques or surrendering related patented techniques, then there should be an official procedure whereby they provide a blanket license to anyone using their patents in the implementation of that standard.

If Microsoft tries to backdoor some other restrictions that prevent people from using things freely, then you have to adjust the law.

Ultimately you could complain about the same thing with the government pushing open source-- Microsoft might screw with the definition of "open source", meeting the official definition but otherwise being useless. But that's how it goes with any laws. If you're not careful in how you write it, it'll get abused.

Right now governments push for open standards and Microsoft redefines open standards as patent-encumbered. Better aim higher.

That's why I said:

including surrendering the right to ever sue for patent infringement for implementing the standard.

The governmental definition of an "open standard" should, by law, include that anyone can implement it for free, legally, for any purpose. If that doesn't mean leaving out patented techniques or surrendering related patented techniques, then there should be an official procedure whereby they provide a blanket license to anyone using their patents in the implementation of that standard.

If Microsoft tries to backdoor some other restrictions that prevent people from using things freely, then you have to adjust the law.

Ultimately you could complain about the same thing with the government pushing open source-- Microsoft might screw with the definition of "open source", meeting the official definition but otherwise being useless. But that's how it goes with any laws. If you're not careful in how you write it, it'll get abused.

You have to ask for preferential treatment of open source in public procurement policies and linux migration and you will get open standard support and discounts offered for free by the Microsoft lobby. Right now governments push for open standards and Microsoft redefines open standards as patent-encumbered. Better aim higher.

Microsoft will escalate and burn when you come up with these proposals but the fuzz they make to combat your policies would trigger a domino effect. So they have to compromise.

You have to ask for preferential treatment of open source in public procurement policies and linux migration and you will get open standard support and discounts offered for free by the Microsoft lobby. Right now governments push for open standards and Microsoft redefines open standards as patent-encumbered. Better aim higher.

Microsoft will escalate and burn when you come up with these proposals but the fuzz they make to combat your policies would trigger a domino effect. So they have to compromise.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2009/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2009_MONTH_01/3-08012009-EN-AP.PDF

According to Eurostat in November the unemployment rate in Poland was 6,5%, in Ireland 7,9%.

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/sasunemprates.htm

According to Central Statistics Office of Ireland the unemployment rate in Ireland in November increased to 8,3%.

You are completely mistaken. The unemployment rate in Poland is lower than in the Ireland. According to Eurostat, the unemployment rate in Poland was 6.5% (and steadily declining), whereas it was 6.6% in Ireland (with an opposite trend). See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008_MONTH_10/3-31102008-EN-BP.PDF

They have to put the plant in the EU to avoid import duties.

Here's a chart of GDP per capita in 'PPS', not sure if that is the same as PPP

http://europa.eu/abc/keyfigures/qualityoflife/wealthy/index_en.htm

Bulgaria and Romania are poorer but they have more shall we say issues than Poland.

1. You call for preferential treatment of open source and Linux migration and massive funding.
2. Microsoft lobbies waters it down to open standards or platform independence and moderate coexistence.
3. Win

Or on the procurement side:
1. You make buzz about Linux migration
2. Microsoft offers discounts.
3. Win

For getting those discounts governments and larged customers have to invest in alternatives as Linux. It would be not wise to play nice with Microsoft.

Other scenario:
1. You call for open standards
2. Microsoft redefines open standards as RAND and invests massively in lobbying, long struggle.
3. ???

They did. In europe, both Fujitsu Siemens and MSI registered netbook trademarks of their own: amilo netbook and wind netbook. I'm sure they would have registered netbook if it wasn't already taken

However, many jurisdictions including Europe rule that a registered trademark has to be in genuine use. If it has not seen genuine use, it can be revoked (art 15 and 50 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

I suspect that is also the reason for the late C&D. This ground for revocation of a trademark can be repaired. However, there is usually a grace period (3 months for a Community Trademark, art. 50 CE 40/94). I would not be surprised to find that Psion started using the trademark again a little over three or six months ago. That would mean they had to wait until now to C&D without risk to their trademark.

NB: although I'm an IP lawyer in Europe, this is _not_ legal advise.

They did. In europe, both Fujitsu Siemens and MSI registered netbook trademarks of their own: amilo netbook and wind netbook. I'm sure they would have registered netbook if it wasn't already taken

However, many jurisdictions including Europe rule that a registered trademark has to be in genuine use. If it has not seen genuine use, it can be revoked (art 15 and 50 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

I suspect that is also the reason for the late C&D. This ground for revocation of a trademark can be repaired. However, there is usually a grace period (3 months for a Community Trademark, art. 50 CE 40/94). I would not be surprised to find that Psion started using the trademark again a little over three or six months ago. That would mean they had to wait until now to C&D without risk to their trademark.

NB: although I'm an IP lawyer in Europe, this is _not_ legal advise.

They did. In europe, both Fujitsu Siemens and MSI registered netbook trademarks of their own: amilo netbook and wind netbook. I'm sure they would have registered netbook if it wasn't already taken

However, many jurisdictions including Europe rule that a registered trademark has to be in genuine use. If it has not seen genuine use, it can be revoked (art 15 and 50 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

I suspect that is also the reason for the late C&D. This ground for revocation of a trademark can be repaired. However, there is usually a grace period (3 months for a Community Trademark, art. 50 CE 40/94). I would not be surprised to find that Psion started using the trademark again a little over three or six months ago. That would mean they had to wait until now to C&D without risk to their trademark.

NB: although I'm an IP lawyer in Europe, this is _not_ legal advise.

They did. In europe, both Fujitsu Siemens and MSI registered netbook trademarks of their own: amilo netbook and wind netbook. I'm sure they would have registered netbook if it wasn't already taken

However, many jurisdictions including Europe rule that a registered trademark has to be in genuine use. If it has not seen genuine use, it can be revoked (art 15 and 50 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

I suspect that is also the reason for the late C&D. This ground for revocation of a trademark can be repaired. However, there is usually a grace period (3 months for a Community Trademark, art. 50 CE 40/94). I would not be surprised to find that Psion started using the trademark again a little over three or six months ago. That would mean they had to wait until now to C&D without risk to their trademark.

NB: although I'm an IP lawyer in Europe, this is _not_ legal advise.

Personally I wonder why they want to abandon Windows XP support at all, Windows XP looks like a perfect cash cow for me, no need for further investments, most of the bugs are fixed and you can even skin it to look like Vista.

I don't understand why they want to abandon XP. I other word, they want to leave the Netbook market to Linux. Fine with me as long it is not Xandros. If you take LXDE instead of GNOME and KDE it still provides you with all you need. The Desktop is mature. It doesn't matter which operating system you run as long as it is fast and saves your battery.

Microsoft does not get it. The Desktop is mature. You don't need to provide Vista to your users. No one likes Vista. Instead they come up with Windows 7, in other words Vista++. Be sure Windows7 will eat even more memory. And users will again say: get us XP or we switch to Linux or we switch to Mac.

The real debacle for Microsoft is the merging business of software reselling. In other words, if Microsoft does not get you a Windows license, your used software vendor will, and you also have all the old machines and their licenses you can sell for cheap. Because Microsoft is going to get "cheap XP" and zero-cost Linux as competitors of "Windows Azurecloud".

If you run XP and your computer gets damaged then why do you have to get a new XP license with your new notebook? Bundling is a total ripoff! Time to complain. In some nations the courts made bundling illegal!

The day the bundling business dies we kiss Microsoft goodbye.

Borders and unions everywhere? Maybe in the US... but the EU has only one border when it comes to importing goods from abroad. Once the stuff has entered the EU the only charges should be handling/shipping.

There is no import duty on cellular telephones from the USA as you can see here in the TARIC database.

VAT in the EU varies between 15% (Luxembourg) and 25% (Sweden and Denmark) as can be seen in "VAT Rates Applied in the Member States of the European Community" (PDF).

So that UPS sum IS a ripoff: the EU adds between $60 and $99, the rest goes into the coffers of UPS. How much does it really cost to ship a 500g package? Shipped via USPS the bill would be no more than $10.30 (First Class International Mail Package, value < $400), double that if you want to send it as registered mail. An added advantage is that a) USPS is more reliable than UPS since b) they don't play football with their packages and c) those packages generally get delivered to the door or the nearest post office.

Borders and unions everywhere? Maybe in the US... but the EU has only one border when it comes to importing goods from abroad. Once the stuff has entered the EU the only charges should be handling/shipping.

There is no import duty on cellular telephones from the USA as you can see here in the TARIC database.

VAT in the EU varies between 15% (Luxembourg) and 25% (Sweden and Denmark) as can be seen in "VAT Rates Applied in the Member States of the European Community" (PDF).

So that UPS sum IS a ripoff: the EU adds between $60 and $99, the rest goes into the coffers of UPS. How much does it really cost to ship a 500g package? Shipped via USPS the bill would be no more than $10.30 (First Class International Mail Package, value < $400), double that if you want to send it as registered mail. An added advantage is that a) USPS is more reliable than UPS since b) they don't play football with their packages and c) those packages generally get delivered to the door or the nearest post office.

Borders and unions everywhere? Maybe in the US... but the EU has only one border when it comes to importing goods from abroad. Once the stuff has entered the EU the only charges should be handling/shipping.

There is no import duty on cellular telephones from the USA as you can see here in the TARIC database.

VAT in the EU varies between 15% (Luxembourg) and 25% (Sweden and Denmark) as can be seen in "VAT Rates Applied in the Member States of the European Community" (PDF).

So that UPS sum IS a ripoff: the EU adds between $60 and $99, the rest goes into the coffers of UPS. How much does it really cost to ship a 500g package? Shipped via USPS the bill would be no more than $10.30 (First Class International Mail Package, value < $400), double that if you want to send it as registered mail. An added advantage is that a) USPS is more reliable than UPS since b) they don't play football with their packages and c) those packages generally get delivered to the door or the nearest post office.

The person whose data are processed - the data subject - enjoys a number of enforceable rights. This includes, for instance, the right to be informed about the processing and the right to correct data.

Now how do you apply that to remote searches? Will they inform people they mistakenly "search" due to incorrect information?

The EU said controls were in place to ensure that data protection laws were not breached as this information was gathered and shared.

I'll go out on a limb here and say the controls aren't going to ensure this.

EU data protection laws

Well, if the council changes it, the new proposal has to pass through the parliament again (they cannot just change the directive and be done with it (they could in the 80s, but the world have changed since then and the EP have a lot more power)):

Look at: http://ec.europa.eu/codecision/stepbystep/diagram_en.htm

I think that they just finished point 9. This means that the EP must take the councils amendments and their common position into account and vote again, the parliament have all the rights to reintroduce the amendment that was dropped by the council.

If they do, they are putting a clear message to them that the amendment is critical and the directive will not pass without it.

This is why you have a bicameral system. You cannot just remove the points by the other camber and be done with it.

Although the EU legislative system has it's flaws, it is often criticized today for how it worked in the 80's at which point it was still an international organisation (and a lot of the critics believe it still works as in the 80s).

There are problems for sure, such as that the council is not appointed as a separate body, but it consists of the member states governments (i.e. it would be better with senators that do not have a foot in the member states' governments since the council would then be accountable to Europe and you could in theory fire the entire council, but any way... I am drifting of my main points now).

I do not like the council, but it is not really as bad as you think. Please write your parliamentarian and ask them what they will do for the second reading.