Slashdot Mirror

I think the whole sphere of politics and regulation needs more coverage. There are many opportunities to raise your voice in lobbying, consultations etc.

You cannot rescue the world alone but like an steering and hacking an Open Source Project you can adopt a special issue such as rfid, compile information ressources with a wiki, compile arguments and expertise. And then: Don't talk with your friends, talk to decision makers, politicians and the like.

By the way:
* RFID consultation

* Your Voice in Europe - EU consultations

* Edri.org - a civil rights organisation

So the DOJ was pleased with baseless committments which did not change anything. Didn't they want to break the company up? It was a horrible defeat of US competition policy due to political change.

I recommend to report abuses to your responsible antitrust agency in the future. The reason is that this is an instrument which educates them. Small steps.

Find your national competition authority here
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/other_sites/

The EU Commission is proceeding to an Open Consultation on RFID. From the PR: "We need to build a society-wide consensus on the future of RFID. We need to ensure that RFID technology delivers on its economic potential and to create the right opportunities for its use for the wider public good, while ensuring that citizens remain in control of their data."

Article 81 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 85)

      1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market, and in particular those which:

            (a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;

            (b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;

            (c) share markets or sources of supply;

            (d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

            (e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
      2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.
      3. The provisions of paragraph 1 may, however, be declared inapplicable in the case of:

            - any agreement or category of agreements between undertakings;

            - any decision or category of decisions by associations of undertakings;

            - any concerted practice or category of concerted practices,

            which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:

            (a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;

            (b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.

Article 82 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 86)

Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market insofar as it may affect trade between Member States.

Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:

(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;

(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;

(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

European Commission
Competition DG
Antitrust Registry
B-1049 Bruxelles

This has to be seen in the context of anti-interoperability action of Microsoft and orders from the competition authorities e.g. in the European Union. Still Microsoft fails to comply with the documentation orders of the European Union.

Now Microsoft takes over tools which enable interoperability with its plattform and puts them under their licensing control. What we will see next is a restrictive Microsoft EULA for it which discourages use for reengineering or interoperability for Ms competitors etc.

Worth to file a complaint at the responsible EU competition consumer liason office.

Let's don't forget the upcoming European IPRED2:

Article 3 Offences

Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences. ...

Article 7 Joint investigation teams

The Member States must ensure that the holders of intellectual property rights concerned, or their representatives, and experts, are allowed to assist the investigations carried out by joint investigation teams into the offences referred to in Article 3.

Article 8: Initiation of criminal proceedings

Member States shall ensure that the possibility of initiating investigations into, or prosecution of, offences covered by Article 3 are not dependent on a report or accusation made by a person subjected to the offence, at least if the acts were committed in the territory of the Member State.

Here you find the list of responsible rapporteurs in parliament. If you think the formula infringement==crime is wrong it would be appropriate to take action now.

The source of IPRED2 is Jacqueline Minor from DG Internal Market, who also started the software patents directive project. Here she want to mess up criminal law of the member states.

Let's don't forget the upcoming European IPRED2:

Article 3 Offences

Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences. ...

Article 7 Joint investigation teams

The Member States must ensure that the holders of intellectual property rights concerned, or their representatives, and experts, are allowed to assist the investigations carried out by joint investigation teams into the offences referred to in Article 3.

Article 8: Initiation of criminal proceedings

Member States shall ensure that the possibility of initiating investigations into, or prosecution of, offences covered by Article 3 are not dependent on a report or accusation made by a person subjected to the offence, at least if the acts were committed in the territory of the Member State.

Here you find the list of responsible rapporteurs in parliament. If you think the formula infringement==crime is wrong it would be appropriate to take action now.

The source of IPRED2 is Jacqueline Minor from DG Internal Market, who also started the software patents directive project. Here she want to mess up criminal law of the member states.

• Erasmus University, Rotterdam: Doctoraal Examen Economie (Masters of Science in Economics) 1965
  
• Chairman Supervisory Board MeyerMonitor
  
• Chairman Nederlands Luchtvaart Overleg (Dutch Aviation Platform)
  
• Non Executive Board Member MM02
  
• Member Supervisory Board Corio
  
• Member Supervisory Board Royal P&O Nedlloyd NV
  
• Member Supervisory Board Ballast Nedam
  
• Member Supervisory Board of New Skies Satellites
  
• Member Supervisory Board Lucent Technologies BV the Netherlands
  
• Member Supervisory Board Nederlandse Spoorwegen NV (Dutch Railways)
  
• Member Supervisory Board Volvo Group
  
• Member Supervisory Board Thales Group
  
• Member Board of Trustees ProLogis International
  
• Advisor to the European Transport Commissioner
  
• Cabinet Minister of Transport, Public Works and Telecommunication
  
• Assistant Professor Transport Economics, Erasmus University
  

For a company in which just one member of it is worth at least 100 times that, how is this going to do anything?

Look at as a shot across the bow. Maximum anti-competetive fines are 10% of worldwide turnover. And as "aggrevating circumstances" they give examples like:

- repeated infringement of the same type by the same undertaking(s);

- refusal to cooperate with or attempts to obstruct the Commission in carrying out its investigations;

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/leg islation/98c9_en.html

Competition: Commission Decision of 12 July 2006 to impose penalty payments on Microsoft - frequently asked questions

What is Microsoft required to do?
The European Commission's Decision of March 2004 required that Microsoft take various steps to put an end to its illegal and anti-competitive conduct (see IP/04/382 and MEMO/04/70). These included obligations to:

1. supply complete and accurate interface information which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers; and
2. make that information available on reasonable terms.

On 10 November 2005, the Commission warned Microsoft, pursuant to Article 24(1) of Regulation 1/2003, that should Microsoft not comply with these obligations by 15 December 2005, it would face a daily penalty payment of up to 2 million (see IP/05/1695). Article 24 of Regulation 1/2003 entitles the Commission to impose such penalty payments not exceeding 5% of average daily turnover in the preceding business year per calendar day to compel companies to put an end to infringements of EC Treaty anti-trust rules, where an infringement has been established by a previous Commission anti-trust decision.

Why has the Commission levied a penalty payment for non-compliance on only the failure to provide interoperability information, and not the terms on which that information is provided (i.e. the first and not the second of the two points from the 10th November 2005 Article 24(1) Decision)?
As regards the provision of information on reasonable terms, Microsoft has announced that it will review the pricing of its protocols once revised technical documentation has been submitted. Furthermore, a final assessment on the degree of innovation, if any, that is contained in the interoperability information, and hence the reasonableness of the royalties that Microsoft charges, can only be made once the technical documentation embodying that interoperability information is complete and accurate.

Why has the Commission decided that the fine levied should be 1.5 million per day?
Of the two elements of non-compliance identified in the Article 24(1) Decision, complete and accurate interoperability information is a prerequisite for interoperable work group server operating systems to be developed. Microsoft's non-compliance in this regard has eliminated the effectiveness of the remedy. Consequently, the Commission has taken the view that failure to comply in this respect should at this stage constitute a larger part of the daily penalty payment identified in the Article 24(1) Decision of 10 November 2005.

Why has the Commission taken today's Decision given that Microsoft is in the process of preparing revised technical documentation?
Microsoft's obligation was to comply with the March 2004 decision's requirement to make available the relevant technical documentation as of June 2004. As of 20th June 2006, Microsoft had not done that, and the Commission decided that it was appropriate to levy a fine on Microsoft for its non-compliance so far.
More than two years after the 2004 Decision, the Commission has therefore been obliged to resort to formal measures to ensure compliance. If any revised documentation that Microsoft submits proved to be complete and accurate, then Microsoft would not be subject to further daily penalty payments from the date on which complete and accurate technical documentation was provided. This would be the best outcome. However, if Microsoft continued t

Competition: Commission Decision of 12 July 2006 to impose penalty payments on Microsoft - frequently asked questions

What is Microsoft required to do?
The European Commission's Decision of March 2004 required that Microsoft take various steps to put an end to its illegal and anti-competitive conduct (see IP/04/382 and MEMO/04/70). These included obligations to:

1. supply complete and accurate interface information which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers; and
2. make that information available on reasonable terms.

On 10 November 2005, the Commission warned Microsoft, pursuant to Article 24(1) of Regulation 1/2003, that should Microsoft not comply with these obligations by 15 December 2005, it would face a daily penalty payment of up to 2 million (see IP/05/1695). Article 24 of Regulation 1/2003 entitles the Commission to impose such penalty payments not exceeding 5% of average daily turnover in the preceding business year per calendar day to compel companies to put an end to infringements of EC Treaty anti-trust rules, where an infringement has been established by a previous Commission anti-trust decision.

Why has the Commission levied a penalty payment for non-compliance on only the failure to provide interoperability information, and not the terms on which that information is provided (i.e. the first and not the second of the two points from the 10th November 2005 Article 24(1) Decision)?
As regards the provision of information on reasonable terms, Microsoft has announced that it will review the pricing of its protocols once revised technical documentation has been submitted. Furthermore, a final assessment on the degree of innovation, if any, that is contained in the interoperability information, and hence the reasonableness of the royalties that Microsoft charges, can only be made once the technical documentation embodying that interoperability information is complete and accurate.

Why has the Commission decided that the fine levied should be 1.5 million per day?
Of the two elements of non-compliance identified in the Article 24(1) Decision, complete and accurate interoperability information is a prerequisite for interoperable work group server operating systems to be developed. Microsoft's non-compliance in this regard has eliminated the effectiveness of the remedy. Consequently, the Commission has taken the view that failure to comply in this respect should at this stage constitute a larger part of the daily penalty payment identified in the Article 24(1) Decision of 10 November 2005.

Why has the Commission taken today's Decision given that Microsoft is in the process of preparing revised technical documentation?
Microsoft's obligation was to comply with the March 2004 decision's requirement to make available the relevant technical documentation as of June 2004. As of 20th June 2006, Microsoft had not done that, and the Commission decided that it was appropriate to levy a fine on Microsoft for its non-compliance so far.
More than two years after the 2004 Decision, the Commission has therefore been obliged to resort to formal measures to ensure compliance. If any revised documentation that Microsoft submits proved to be complete and accurate, then Microsoft would not be subject to further daily penalty payments from the date on which complete and accurate technical documentation was provided. This would be the best outcome. However, if Microsoft continued t

What is worse for Microsoft is the loss of reputation. They sent their lobbying cowboys to Brussels and these guys got it all wrong. Astroturf is not suited as a longterm strategy. Recently the European Parliament passed a resolution which "urges the Commission to promote a socially inclusive knowledge-based society by supporting, for example, free and open source software and licensing concepts like the General Public License (GPL) and the Public Documentation Licence (PDL);" This is no love letter to Richard Stallman but a clear indication how fed up they are with MS lobbyists. I think the Microsoft staff which handled the case needs to get fired. They made every mistake that what possible and were totally ignorant to diplomatic messages by DG Competition. Now media is quoted that Kroes said "no companies may act above law". It is intresting to see that the asperger community in MS legal department does not get these messages. They still think they could play their tricks. Btw: When you have a problem with Microsoft's anticompetitive action (Ms does not let you execute Foxpro runtimes etc.) why not report it to the Commission?

from the FAQ:

Where does the money go?

The penalty payment is paid into the EU Budget. It does not increase the Budget, but reduces the contribution from Member States. The fines therefore reduce the overall tax burden on individuals.

>This is simply NOT TRUE. While we do not have a concept in British law that goes
>by the name of "fair use", this does NOT mean that you are not allowed to make
>private copies under any circumstances.

My comment was based on the information in the link I gave in a post a bit up (a document by the Director General of the internal market amd services) in the EU. It states that in the UK there is very limited rooms for private copying compare to most other countries. They gave examples of when it is allowed, such as time shifting. My writing of "no legal copying allowed for private use" was of course a simplification which should be seen in the context of the thread. It was meant to show why there would be a good reason to not have levies in countries were the room for privat copying is very small.

If you disagree with the statment of the document I quoted, you might want to give it an answer though since appearantly they are wrong according to you. Here is the lin again if you can't find it:

http://www.ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/ docs/levy_reform/stakeholder_consultation_en.pdf

>Having seen my and some other peoples phone, internet and other (usually Direct
>Debit) service contracts, they usually have a clause that states something along
>the lines of "We withold the right to terminate the service/contract at any
>point". The principle being that if they want, they can stop providing the
>service and the contract ends at that point, if you have already paid for a
>period after that time then your going to have trouble getting you money back.

Considering the UK is part of the EU, no, such contractual terms are not allowd. If you want more information, check this out about "Unfair Contract Trems" (click on link in second paragraph or chose another language if you want). Note that the list of examples is just that, examples and not at all conclusive:

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/u nf_cont_terms/index_en.htm

Just because they try to put such terms into the contract doesn't make them valid or enforcable.

The other countries in EU that doesn't have any such tax or levy are Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Luxembourg. On the other hand, in UK, Ireland and Malta there is really no allowance for private copies at all with the exception of things such as time shifting. Which means Luxembourg and Cyprus is about the only place in EU were you are both free to make various private copying and avoid paying such taxes or levys on media or equipments.

Here is a link to a document I found the information above, it holds quite a lot of information:

(Stakeholder Consultation on Copyright Levies in a Convergin World)
http://www.ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/ docs/levy_reform/stakeholder_consultation_en.pdf

Now, why UK citizens should be accountable to US law is a different question. The obvious answer is that computer crime is apparently regarded as breaking the local law, even if you are physically in another country. If that's the case then it is a no-brainer. He committed a crime in the US and was extradited.

As for getting locked up in Guantanamo Bay, not likely. You see, one of the basic elements of EU membership is following the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and signing the European Convention on Human Rights. And these judges sitting in Brussels have ruled that extradition of a person to a foreign state if they are likely to be subjected there to torture, if they risk execution or if there are questions about getting a fair trial and sentencing. So there's no chance he'll be deported to Gitmo as has that been a possibility, he would have not been extradited.

The Americans are perfectly aware of all this and at each extradition they are required to give official assurances that the human rights, as defined by the ECHR, of the person extradited won't be violated. Of course, they could lie, but then they wouldn't get any more extraditions from Europe.

I realize you are trying to make a point, so I'm not going to comment much on your outrageous claims. There are a few more countries in Europe that are not members of the EU: http://europa.eu/abc/governments/index_en.htm, and Belarus and Turkey are hardly Western Europe. Geographically Norway is pretty far to the east as well.

I'm not sure why you consider all norwegian investments bad though. The national pension fund (of which the previous norwegian oil fund is part) was valued at around USD 200 billion at the end of 2005, an increase of 37.7% from the previous year. Of course much of this is from oil being pumped up during the year, but well over a quarter of this is money made from investments. (Numbers are from http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statens_pensjonsfond, in norwegian.)

In fact, I believe the vast majority of people on slashdot have no idea of what the EU is all about, and I would go so far as to say that the majority of UK citizens do not fully understand the system.

If you want to know, check out Europa

Karem

Perhaps you should do some research before making insinuations that the EU's decision was based on anti-Americanism or protectionism.

First of all there was not scientific consensus for any of those straw-man arguments you mention. Science has know the world wasn't flat for thousands of years and any confusion over that is due to religion and stupidity; just check the wikipedia article. Religion and stupidity also were the culprits in blacks being supposedly 'inferior' (as opposed to the more accurate 'slightly different'). And it's religion and stupidity that said Iraq had WMDs.

Second, get your facts straight. It's 1 degree celsius... just look at the damned graph... from -0.5 to .5 celsius is 1 degree. You reasoning is sound, but your conclusions are wrong because the so-called facts you are starting from are wrong. When this happens to an otherwise smart person there is one word for it: denial.

>That said, if Norway was part of the EU this would not be a problem for Apple as I think that
>they would be able to choose any particular EU member states laws (in this case England) to
>apply

Not completely true, you can't chose law at will inside EU, especially if both the seller and buyer is in the same country. Even if you are buying from another country than your own inside EU, the seller can't chose arbitrary laws of a country of choise, at most you can end up with the laws of the country in which the seller is doing his bussiness, however, there are still restrictions in the unfair terms used so that they can't be worse than in the buyers country. Here is a good link to an EU directive on the issue:

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/u nf_cont_terms/index_en.htm
Click on link in second paragraph, or chose another language if you like.

Physics tells us that the energy lost from transmitting electricity (as heat) is RI^2, and power is IV (I = Current, V = Voltage, R = Resistance). So to send lots of power without much heating, you use high voltages and low current. This is whats done currently, to the point where the wires can't really take much more voltage (well, not cheaply anyway).

There's only one proposed solution I'm aware of, which is using high temperature superconductors as wires. These have very low resistance (in some cases theoretically 0) so reduce the energy lost by ohmic heating (the RI^2 thing). Plus they can conduct around 10* the voltage of current wires. The only problem is there still very difficult to make at all, let alone into wires, having only been discovered in 1986. The link below has some more info,

It's not in YRO because in the UK we don't have rights, enshrined in a constitutional document

Yes you do, it's called the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (and often European Convention of Human Rights, although that means the acronym ECHR is overloaded with the European Court of Human Rights, which is charged by the Council of Europe with enforcing the Convention).

All Council of Europe countries must subscribe to the Convention. All European Union member states must also be members of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is not a body of the European Union -- it is a proper superset of the EU member-states.

The aquis communitaire (the common-law and regulations of the European Union) and the Convention treaty have obliged the UK to protect human and civil rights in the UK even where that conflicted with UK law or jurisprudence. The same has been true of the Council of Europe states since 1950.

The sets of treaties and rulings obliging the UK to adhere to the Convention are beyond the easy reach of Parliament, and are thus effectively part of the unconsolidated UK constitution.

Individual access to the Court has been available to all Council of Europe nationals since Protocol 11 came into force on 1 November 1988. The Court has regularly required Convention states to adjust national laws since then.

In the UK, the process was made simpler with the proclamation of the Human Rights Act (1988) which came into effect on 2 October 2000. The Human Rights Act makes it possible to seek remedy for breaches of Convention rights within the UK court system. In effect, it requires the various courts in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man to interpret local laws consistently with the Convention, and allows the appeals courts to issue declarations of incompatibility against Acts of Parliament. This is a back-handed way of instituting primacy of the Convention in UK law -- the Human Rights Act does not allow the appeals courts to strike down laws passed by Parliament, but the declaration of incompatibility effectively estops lower courts from enforcing them, and pretty much guarantees that a subsequent appeal to the European Court of Human Rights would oblige the UK to alter or repeal the law in question per its treaty obligations.

The English courts in particular have been looking more and more like those in Canada since the 1982 adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although the latter is more explicit about the teeth being given to the judiciary in protecting human rights. Among various statutes and practices declared incompatible were Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, and the ability of the Home Secretary (a politician) to participate in judicial sentencing.

Moreover, the current UK government has strangely been markedly positive in its support of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It has no legal weight at this time, but the proposed Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe incorporated the Chater and would have the EU and all its member-states formally subject itself and align its justice system (and those of its member-states) with the European Court of Human Rights. This would further strengthen the legal changes unleashed by the proclamation of the Human Rights Act (1998).

Unfortunately there is substantial split-personality disorder rampant in the UK government. In particular, the Home Office seems to do little other than produce proposed legislation and regulation which are obviously against the spirit (and sometimes the letter) of the Convention. The politicians put in charge of the Home Office apparently cave in to the militant authoritarians entrenched in the ministry itself.

Coincidentally, Liberty today published

Second, regarding access to the data:

"Member States shall adopt measures to ensure that data retained in accordance with this Directive are provided only to the competent national authorities in specific cases and in accordance with national law. The procedures to be followed and the conditions to be fulfilled in order to gain access to retained data in accordance with necessity and proportionality requirements shall be defined by each Member State in its national law, subject to the relevant provisions of European Union law or public international law, and in particular the ECHR as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights."

Cordless power tools are exempt from the cadmium restriction, so they can continue using NiCd cells. But if I read the article correctly, they must be removable and collected for recycling when you buy the replacement battery. More information and regulation history is available at the EU web site. On the whole, this is very much in line with the RoHS and WEEE directives. It's surprising they delayed implementation for as long they have.