Slashdot Mirror


China Plans Domestic Software Quotas

October_30th writes "In order to fight the alleged Microsoft monopoly, the Chinese government is establishing quotas for foreign software. While the details are still unclear, the government may require that up to 70% of software on Chinese computers is produced domestically. Regulations like this are, of course, expected to come under fierce criticism from the WTO."

131 of 473 comments (clear)

  1. In other news... by blackwizard · · Score: 4, Funny

    In order to fight the alleged monopoly on Chinese clothing in America, the United States government is establishing quotas for foreign clothing. While the details are still unclear, the government may require that up to 70% of clothing worn by North Americans be produced domestically. Regulations like this are, of course, expected to come under fierce criticism from the WTO.

    1. Re:In other news... by Da+Fokka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not being able to use sweatshops as much would greatly reduce the profit for companies that sell clothing :)

    2. Re:In other news... by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a bullshit argument.

      You really have to put yourself into a Chinese man's shoes to understand. If a company goes overseas and offers you a job that pays $0.70/h, 12 hours a day, in a tiny little hot room, there's no way you would do it, right?
      Not necessarily. Getting $0.70/h may be a blessing if the alternative is making $0.40/h for a domestic company, or more likely not working at all. We can only assume that because this Chinese man freely accepts the job that no other better alternatives exist. To remove this job opportunity for him may make us feel morally superior, but it won't help him put food on the table.

      --

      Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
    3. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      then why do you USians whine so much when IT-jobs move to india? I'm sure they'd stay if you lazy bastards did them for $0.70/h.

    4. Re:In other news... by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I heavily doubt this claim, but even if it were true China also has record GDP growth. They may lose a million manufacturer jobs, but if they gain 2 million service jobs they're sitting pretty.

      --

      Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
    5. Re:In other news... by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is an explanation, not a suggested course of action. It may seem an 'unfair' disparity, but any attempt to legislate against such 'unfairness' will ultimately make things even more unfair.

      One such 'suggestion' is tarrifs. This will undoubtedly put millions of Chinese laborers out of work, and will also drive up the price of the good that consumers pay. The only 'benefit' is allowing a domestic competetitor to overcharge their customers. That is what I would call unfair. Even if x number of Americans become unemployed I can guarantee they will be infinitely better off than if 100x Chinese are unemployed.

      --

      Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
    6. Re:In other news... by AresTheImpaler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't have any doubts.. I live in the border town of McAllen, TX (actually we are not really on theborder, but about 10 min. from it). Reynosa (which is the city on the Mexican side of the border) was losing a lot of works because the "maquiladoras" were leaving. Since about a year, maybe more maybe less, a lot of companies are coming back. Some cities on this side of the river, like Mcallen, Pharr, etc. are helping Reynosa, because lots of money comes also their way.

    7. Re:In other news... by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The monopoly is not alleged. In the US the monopoly has been proven in the court of law. This means that those that respect law and order, and those that use law and order to justify other actions, must take the definition as proven and not alleged. Whether it is a monopoly by other definitions is open to discussion, but alleged is typically used only with respect to an entity that has not have the full process of law, i.e. alleged draft dodger.

      If the Chinese were doing something illegal wrt to clothing, the most likely of which would be dumping products in US markets, then the US would likely appeal to the appropriate trade organization and ask the practice to stop. This might result in tariffs placed on China and theoretically increase sales of US domestic products in that category.

      The interesting thing is that MS claims it is not a monopoly, and the prices it charges are determined by a competitive market and are generally the cheapest it can sell the products for and still make a profit. If we accept this as fact, and look at the deep discounts offered to in certain US and non-US markets, it appears that in fact MS is dumping product, a practice that is defined as unacceptable under many treatise.

      We therefore have a situation in which MS is a monopoly and charges arbitrary prices not controlled by the free market, or it is the habit of dumping product onto certain markets, with the assumed intention of destroying competition. In either case, the action warrants defensive measures to protect those markets.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    8. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      would greatly reduce the profit

      This is a classic cop-out, naive argument that is all too common in globalization/offshoring discussions -- it's all simplified down to the man doing this to fatten his wallet on the backs of poor foreigners. It's never about the customer selecting the made-in-china $5 item over the comparable $7 made-in-usa item, or about the company that starts manufacturing overseas when the only other option is bankruptcy. It's never about the rapid ascent of material-quality-of-living that we've enjoyed in the Western world as a result of globalization (hell DVD players are like $49 CDN now).

      Get a more realistic perspective -- know thy enemy. This naive nonsense spouted about globalization only makes the speaker look like another clueless WTO protester just latching onto a cause.

    9. Re:In other news... by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Quite often on UK television, a reporter will say "these coffee pickers earn only 1 dollar a day", with no reference to how much 1 dollar buys you in that country.

      I'm not saying that standards of living aren't lower, and yes, I'm glad I live in the UK and not Kenya, but perspective is required.

    10. Re:In other news... by Erwos · · Score: 4, Informative

      IIRC:
      Americans work the most hours on average, but are NOT the most productive on average per hour worked - they rank 3rd there, I think. The researchers explained it with some relatively simple logic: after X number of hours, you start to lose some productivity. Sounds reasonable to me. They still win the overall productivity per worker prize, which isn't too shabby.

      And, BTW, you look like a fool when you say "USian" (I am NOT calling you a fool, only saying you appear as one to someone who doesn't know you, such as myself). People who live in the USA are "Americans". People who live in North Americans are called "North Americans". People who live in South America are called "South Americans". There is no continent called "America", last time I checked, and thus there is no reason to get confused unless you're a total moron. By the same token, calling Mexicans "Americans" is idiotic, too, because they're not. They're "North Americans".

      Sorry about that, but it's a pet peeve. Just refer to residents of the United States as that ("residents of the US"), if you can't bear to bring yourself to say the hated term "American" (which, you know, is accurate: "United States of America". Hence, "American", for the last word).

      -Erwos

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    11. Re:In other news... by gaijin99 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      We can only assume that because this Chinese man freely accepts the job that no other better alternatives exist. To remove this job opportunity for him may make us feel morally superior, but it won't help him put food on the table.
      Because China is a communist dictatorship I think its safe to assume that no one in China is doing anything freely. They've relaxed away from "true" communism (whatever that is), but the government of the PRC is still one of the nastier dictatorships around. I personally find the US government's attitude towards Cuba darkly humorous. Fidel is a nasty little dictator, no doubt, but you can't tell me that somehow he's worse than Wen Jiabao (Premier of the PRC). Cuba exists as a communist whipping boy so the various Senators and Congressmen can feel virtuious and anti-Communist, then cut fantastic trade deals with China.

      At any rate, the economics of sweat shops don't make sense. In the US the typical garment worker earns around $.25 per T-Shirt manufactured. That means we could double that person's salary by increasing the cost per T-Shirt by another $.25. Somehow I don't think that an extra quarter per T-Shirt is going to be a crippling economic disadvantage to you and me. Hell, we could double your example Chinese worker's salary at a cost of much less than $.25 per T-Shirt. How would this be a bad thing?

      My point here is that there is no real economic reason for garment workers to be so economicly screwed. For those who are interested, here in the US a company called SweatX is producing quite nice clothing at prices comparable (maybe $.25 more per item) to other manufactureres. Look at their website here: SweatX

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    12. Re:In other news... by ShonFerg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree that in the short term, globalization drops prices and thereby increases the standard of living... however, in the long term the labor force moves inexorably toward the area of least resistance... the lowest wages, the worst conditions, the least regulations. The idea is that unfettered capitalism will find a balance on its own, and in a way it will... maximizing profit by minimizing expensess... including the standard of living of those in its employee.

      In other words, when people locally can't find work because it's legal for someone else to do it for seven cents an hour in another country under sweat-shop conditions, that $49 DVD player is even more out of reach to them than it was a few years ago when it was $299 and they were making 20K.

      Still, the original speaker was talking about labor practices, not quotas and terrifs. I believe these 'solutions' may be too heavy-handed... by cutting out the opportunity for domestic companies to exploit cheap labor, they will find themselves at a large disadvantage to international companies who can. Either way, the rich westernized nations will lose because their standard of living is simply too far above the rest of the world to maintain without complete isolationism if these practices are allowed to continue.

      Perhaps there is no way to keep a line in the sand between the haves and have-nots of today on an international scale. Still, this mass-employment of slave labor and sweat shop workers doesn't seem to bode well for the eventual average global standard of living that will emerge. I would argue that it would be in the international community's best interest to ban, not globalization, but these these practices of exploitation. Cheap labor is great for CEOs who want to squeeze a few more bucks out of their companies and make their investors happy at the same time, but it will only serve to internationally reduce the value of human labor itself.

    13. Re:In other news... by gaijin99 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Crying about a bad situation won't make the situation any better, nor will implementing some government policy.
      I would say that as free people we have an ethical obligation to help those oppressed by dictators escape that oppression.

      From a more practical standpoint dictatorships are simply incompatiable with free nations. The free nation may be willing to suffer the existance of a dictatorship; but the existance of any free nation anywhere is a threat to the dictatorship. If a free nation exists the dictator's people can hope to escape there, can see that there really is an alternative. Simply by existing freedom is a threat to dictators. Naturally they will do whatever is in their power to destroy the free nation(s) if they can.

      Additionally it is a historic fact that dictatorships are inherently unstable forms of government. The "funeral games" immediately following the death of the dictator can easily turn into war against neighboring nations. From a standpoint of simple self preservation free nations should do whatever they can to help pro-democracy movements in dictatorships overthrow the dictator. The fact that US policy (under presidents and congresses of all parties since around 1860) has been one of encouraging dictatorships is one of the most amazing examples of stupidity that I have seen in a very long time.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    14. Re:In other news... by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are forgetting that Chinese laborers are grossly more inefficient than American ones. It can take 10 times as many third world laborers to accomplish what 1 American can. So really, even $0.25/h quickly becomes $2.50/h, or even greater depending on the circumstance.

      And if you don't think an increase of $0.25 is a big increase just ask a grocery store, who make pennies per profit on each sale, even on higher priced items.

      An aside: Milton Friedman was one of the heavest proponents of laissez-faire economics. You have left this quote out of its context. Friedman and Smith were very aware of greed and profit, which is one of the reasons the free market performs so well. Henry Ford, and Sam Walton didn't get reach by gouging their consumers, but by charging as little as possible. Only when these companies ask the government for 'protection' does the greed really become damaging to consumers

      --

      Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
    15. Re:In other news... by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree with you regarding our obligations as free citizens. But what are you proposing? Most of the greatest work done in third world countries is conducted by charity organizations, not by foreign 'aid.'
      You are also correct regarding dictatorships and free nations. But I wasn't talking about voter rights or religious rights in my example. That Chinese person is free to choose the jobs he is offered. The government can step in and disrupt this (and they used to) but it perpetuated China's lingering poverty. Despite living under a dictatorship, the choice of jobs still remains (but not political ones of course).

      I also suspect that over the long run, as Chinese people become more and more prosperous, they will become more intelligence, which is the true sword again depotism. The US should play no part in this overthrow. At best, it draws massive international scrutiny. At worst, it results in horrific warfare and thousdans of deaths, which will no doubt happen if the US went to war with China.
      The best course of action is to just keep trading with China. As they become more prosperous they will find their own ways of undermining the regime.

      --

      Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
    16. Re:In other news... by sangsun · · Score: 2, Informative

      China is not a "communist dictatorship." Take a trip over there and see for your own eyes. America is far more restrictive than China - in everyday life. There is a lot of freedom in China. Yes, it's one party, yet people come to consensus and make a decision. It's not one dude making all of the decisions. My fiance is a Chinese Communist Party Member and she has lots of say. Tell her she's in a dictatorship and she will roll her eyes. Enlighten yourself. Thanks. P

    17. Re:In other news... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, I just got back from teaching in China. It's a lot closer to Fascism than Communism right now. People are separating into classes, and the notion seems to be 'exploit labor to accumulate capital so that we can buy machines and weapons, and so the political brass can get their BMWs.'

      I think America dislikes Cuba a lot more than China because there was a lot of American investment in Cuba when Batista was dictator and Castro nationalized, i.e. stole, that capital. It's a matter of revenge. We can't have foreign countries stealing our investments, ya know? And Cuba was setting itself up as an example, so we went and made an example of it. That, and a lot of the folks in Florida are from the former Cuban upper class and they hate Castro and they're very politically active.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    18. Re:In other news... by Enoch+Root · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, I just got back from teaching in China. It's a lot closer to Fascism than Communism right now. People are separating into classes, and the notion seems to be 'exploit labor to accumulate capital so that we can buy machines and weapons, and so the political brass can get their BMWs.'

      My god... I can't believe you lived in China and you call what you saw Fascism.

      The profound changes you saw in China iwhere I live as an expat, btw) are the effects of rampant Capitalism, not Fascism. The classes divide, the poor are insanely poor, and the rich drive around in Ferraris. Freedom of speech spreads, free entrepreneurship takes root, and people turn from the collectivity to think for themselves.

      Take a hard look at America, and you'll see it's not Fascism that the Chinese are emulating.

    19. Re:In other news... by InfiniteZero · · Score: 2, Insightful
      'exploit labor to accumulate capital so that we can buy machines and weapons, and so the political brass can get their BMWs.'
      How is that any different from America?
    20. Re:In other news... by SphynxSR · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you look at the post before mine I was responding to someone else who said USian. I know the difference as I am an American who is North Amercian, meaning the United Sates, Canada, and I believe New Foundland.

      --

      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
    21. Re:In other news... by de+la+mettrie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's a backgrounder on the pertinent trade law on clothing and software (I don't believe it: something on Slashdot that falls into my area of competence!):

      According to the WTO Agreement governing trade in Textiles and Clothing must be made subject to GATT disciplines until Jan 1, 2005, at the latest. That is, all textile import quotas that were legal unter the 1973 Multifibre Agreement must be abolished, and WTO Members must afford textile imports full most-favoured-nation treatment (i.e. you can't discriminate between imports of different countries any more) and national treatment (i.e. you can't treat imported textiles less favourable than those of national origin, such as by taxing them higher).

      This was the principal concession made to developing countries during the Uruguay Round that gave birth to the WTO, liberalizing the clothing sector where developing countries tend to have the competitive advantage. This caused them to accept other WTO packages such as GATS, TRIPs and TRIMs, liberalizing areas where developed counties tend to have competitive advantages. (Never mind that the EU and US in particular have since resorted to all kind of dirty tricks to delay and circumvene the liberalizing provisions of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing...)

      However, the US-PRC situation is peculiar: As a condition to agreeing to China's WTO accession - which had to be OK'd, as everything in the WTO, by consensus of all Members - the PRC Accession Protocol provides that the U.S. may legally maintain import quotas on Chinese clothing up to 2009. After that, China can sue the US in the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (a kind of World Trade Court system) if quotas are maintained.

      As to the Chinese software quota, this seems to be a clear-cut violation of the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, in particular Article III thereof. It's possible, though, that the Chinese may invoke exceptions, such as the security exception of Article XXIII. The same provision was, incidentally, used (or abused, IMHO) by the U.S. to deny Iraq reconstruction contracts to the countries opposed to the war. At any rate, given the interests at stake, expect legal action by the U.S. soonest if this measure is not abolished immediately.

    22. Re:In other news... by de+la+mettrie · · Score: 2, Informative
      The "free trade costs jobs" and "free trade creates jobs" arguments have already been juxtaposed ad nauseam. However,
      To an economist, both sides of the debate ring hollow. Supply and demand in the labour market may be expected to balance in the long run just as it does in any other market, although transitory periods of disequilibrium may occur. The number of jobs in an economy will be determined by the labour supply and by the reservation wages of workers. ... Incremental trade liberalization (such as that associated with NAFTA or the recent Uruguay Round) should not have much effect on real wages on average. To be sure, workers with specific human capital investments in import-competing industries can anticipate that their wages will fall with increased import competition, and the number of jobs in those industries will thus tend to decline. But workers in the export side of the economy will see increasing wages and employment opportunities as production shifts toward areas of greater comparative advantage. As a first order approximation, these effects may be expected to cancel out on average. Trade-related changes in the number of jobs, therefore, if any, are likely to be vastly smaller than other forces affecting job growth or loss such as the business cycle.

      (ALAN O. SYKES, Comparative Advantage and the Normative Economics of International Trade Policy, in: JIEL 1 (1998), pp. 49-82)

      This only applies to one particular country on a reduced time scale, however. As global economic integration progresses, the amount of additional net wealth produced by free trade is bound to "trickle down" to the global (but not necessarily every local) labour market again in the form of increased economic growth, which means more jobs overall.
    23. Re:In other news... by de+la+mettrie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hell, we could double your example Chinese worker's salary at a cost of much less than $.25 per T-Shirt. How would this be a bad thing? My point here is that there is no real economic reason for garment workers to be so economicly screwed.

      You are engaging in wishful-thinking-economics. Since one white cotton T-shirt can basically be substituted for any other white cotton T-shirt, the T-Shirt market is extremely elastic, that is, suppliers that can provide a shipload of T-shirts for just $10 less than their competitor will get the contract from the supermarket chain, no matter whether or not the individual customer would have been ready to pay $0.25 more or not. If the supermarket chain would indeed add, as a bonus, $0.25 per shirt to benefit the labourers, it would quickly be outperformed by other, not-so-generous supermarket chains, retail margins being extremely low as they are. Suppliers would, as well, underbid each other by approximately $0.25/shirt to get the contract that is now worth $0.25/shirt more to them.

      This is called "market economy". Its mechanics have been well understood ever since Smith and Riccardo, and there is indeed a rational reason why trade flows are what they are. To change the equilibrium result, e.g. to raise Chinese worker's salaries, some form of government intervention would be required, which by definition would destroy some measure of wealth by disrupting the equilibrium.

      Consider, though, that every single Chinese worker works at $0.25/shirt not because the State forces her to (China is now capitalist in all but name), but because she considers herself better off in that position than in any other (e.g. unemployed, other job). If any social engineering remains to be done, then, it's up to the Chinese government to institute it (e.g. with minimum wage laws), and not the U.S. or European taxpayer.

    24. Re:In other news... by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not a professional economist, but here's what I can summarize from that:
      1. Trade doesn't effect wages - Wages depend on supply and demand curves. But trade isn't really about wages, trade is about goods. And with trade, both parties have more goods than they would have without goods. This is the only case in economics where a 'free lunch' exists. Standard of Living isn't how much money you make, but how much stuff you can buy with it. Free trade makes things much cheaper for everyone.

      2. Because free trade both destroys some jobs (from importing), and creates others (from exporting), the net effect is 0. From what I read I can disagree with this most strongly. By preventing imports, and thus increasing prices, consumers have less money with which to spend on other goods or to invest in other businesses. This means that while the protected industry retains their jobs, other businesses will be unable to create new jobs. Now the question is whether the amount of new jobs created will be greater than the amount of jobs that would be lost. From what I've read, the net effect is usually positive (at least in the long run, and maybe this is where the discrepency resides), contrary to what Dr. Sykes reports.

      But the true benefit of trade is less about jobs and wages, and more about getting stuff for cheaper. That is, the benefit of trade is exemplified in that $3 T-shirt you got at Wal-mart.

      --

      Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
    25. Re:In other news... by gaijin99 · · Score: 2, Informative
      My fiance is a Chinese Communist Party Member and she has lots of say. Tell her she's in a dictatorship and she will roll her eyes. Enlighten yourself.
      Communism is one of those systems that sounds really good on paper and doesn't work in the real world at all. To an idealistic person who is caught and educated early on the ideals of Communism I'm quite sure that it sounds good and that any criticism of the Party will result in eye rolling. However as a person who has a non-Party Approved knowledge of history and knows quite a bit about the history of the PRC and its horrors, I'm afraid that I cannot agree with your brainwashed girlfriend. Tell the victims of Tian'anmen Square that China's government is not evil. Tell the murdered, tortured, and falsely imprisoned members of Falun Gong about the wonderful nature of the Chinese government. Tell the millions murdered by Mao's insanity that China is not a dictatorship.

      I saw what China's government stood for when I saw the footage of the pro-democracy protesters at Tian'anmen Square being shot in the back of the head. I need no "enlightenment" to recognize a government dedicated to the opposite of freedom. I use the term "dictatorship" even though it is not perfectly accurate for China. Wen Jiabao is not actually a true autocrat. Currently it appears that the Chinese government is changing from a dictatorship to a Facism. I said "dictatorship" in a rather broad sense because there is no better term that I'm aware of.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    26. Re:In other news... by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let's take a look at your points, summarized below (if I've made an egregious error in my interpretation please correct me):
      1. Workers should be paid more and have better conditions because then they are more efficient - I'm going to take the role of a greedy Nike executive here. If I can make more money by investing in better conditions, which would increase efficiency, and increase output, then I most certainly will do it. Look how profitable it is! A great catharsis for my greedy whims! In short, while your claim is sound, the investment in better conditions is probably not offset by the increase in worker output, otherwise these companies would employ such a tactic. Now this leads me to the next point, "why don't they just pay them more regardless?"

      2. Corporations make 800% profit margins and can afford to dip into those margins to satisfy worker needs - First off, Nike doesn't make this kind of profit on their products. If you look at their annual report, they generated $10 billion in sales, but the just the goods themselves cost $6 billion to make. Adminstrative expenses, such as marketing, made up 3 billion dollars. And after income taxes, they are left with $500 million. This is a return on investment of 5%. Not the kind of corporate-dreamland-800% that you claim. And surely even a paltry increase in the worker-wages would be significant. Even paying 1 million workers $100 more a year more will put a large dent into their earnings. The best thing Nike can do is offer a workplace over and above the local standard, which indeed they do.
      Fortunately even if they try to bump up the price of their goods, Wal-mart is the great equalizer. For years retailers have put up with 'high' profit margins of their suppliers, but no longer. Commpanies like Levis are getting trumped by bargain-brand competetitors that don't have the atrocious profit-margins that Levis enjoys. All thanks to competetion from companies like Wal-mart.

      More on the aside: Well like I said, it's this constant 'greed' that actually makes us better off. When competetitors get destroyed, that is usually a good thing. The inefficiencies of that competetitor have been eliminated in a pure, darwinistic fashion. But just because competetitors don't exist, doesn't mean competetiton doesn't exist either. As soon as that company tries to increase their prices, another competetitor rises up to get a piece of that pie. This is why anti-dumping tariffs are so misguided.

      And mergers don't necessarily mean greater control or profits. AOL-Time-Warner had the greatest single earnings loss in the history of civilization.

      --

      Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
  2. Heh. by Freston+Youseff · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bloody brilliant. Maybe the state banks will be able to pick up the slack on this one. Probably not.

    --

  3. Alleged? by Flingles · · Score: 3, Funny

    In order to fight the alleged Microsoft monopoly

    Maybe they should make some alleged quotas if it's only an alleged monopoly?

    --
    Karma: -2^0.5 . Mainly due to the imbibing of dihydrogen monoxide
  4. Nothing 'alleged' about Microsoft's monopoly by ddbsa · · Score: 4, Insightful
    1. Re:Nothing 'alleged' about Microsoft's monopoly by athakur999 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Although the lengthy statement--called a "finding of fact"--was not a verdict


      The article doesn't mean that MS had been convicted of being monopoly (hence the "alleged").

      --
      "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    2. Re:Nothing 'alleged' about Microsoft's monopoly by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The *US* federal judge's judgement only applies to the US. MS may or may not have a monopoly in China or anywhere ele. That is for them to decide.

      I wonder if MS actually got paid for the operating systems that comprise their "monopoly" in China...

    3. Re:Nothing 'alleged' about Microsoft's monopoly by TheLinuxSRC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Granted M$ is a convicted monopolist, but karma whoring with a 5 year old article is ridiculous. Whoever it was that modded this Insightful needs to RTFL (Read The Fine Link). This is ancient history.

    4. Re:Nothing 'alleged' about Microsoft's monopoly by Osrin · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can't convict somebody of being a monopolist, there is legally nothing wrong with having a monopoly in any given market. You can however convict a company of not acting responsibly with the monopoly that they hold.

  5. Silly china by anphilip · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Silly China, when will they learn that protectionist trade barriers cause depressions

    1. Re:Silly china by Lord+Haha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well they have their 5 year plans now don't they. (As in the plan that will govern their internal/external policy for that period of time, similar to how the USSR did back in their heyday)

      So chances are 5 years from now, they might learn the lesson, then again Microsoft might suddenly start selling Linux tommorow too...

      Thing is the Chinese market should be robust enough to handle using mostly domestically made software, they manage quite well with their P1 like processors in the hardware market, who says that they aren't big enough to handle such a protectionist barrier in the short term at least.

      Besides that, as for being completely domestic, isn't the Chinese Linux, still underneath it all Linux so they are still importing software...

  6. Where is Free Software produced? by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The wording looks flawed. Free Software respects their independence, although it's not "produced" in China. (After the IIS backdoors were discovered, every government in the world should have moved to free software - give it 10 years.)

  7. IANAL ... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But, they can limit Comercial (Don't confuse, i didn't say propietary, i said comercial) software, since it is actually "imported", but can they limit the use of non-comercial Free Software?, I mean, you can put a limit on how much someone can sell or buy, but _not_ in how much he thinks or listens.
    If this doesn't apply to Free Non-Comercial software, that will be an amazing incentive for people to start using, or at least looking at, GNU.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    1. Re:IANAL ... by leerpm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They can do anything they want to. But then they cannot really complain when the US reacts against this policy, and introduces a corresponding quota limiting the importation of China made software.

    2. Re:IANAL ... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every Government treats people as beasts of burden; The USA government too, they just hide it under labels like those talking about the land of freedom and false patriotism. The first Matrix movie could be understood as a really not so subtle metaphor of our reality, the machines/governments/companys are big monsters that we fed, and they keep us worm and enchanted with virtual crap like tv, confort and hotmail. Then they transformed the movie into a virtual crap that they used to feed what is left of our controlled mind ...

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    3. Re:IANAL ... by Bull999999 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I got a tinfoil hat for sale.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  8. Quotas are generally a bad idea... by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Like tariffs, quotas are used to protect domestic industry at the expense of foreign industries and more importantly consumers. They usually require this protection because they either have a poor product or a product that costs much more than their competetitor's. Preventing imports forces consumers to spend more than they normally would on the same good.

    However in terms of software this may be a blessing for China. Linux's problem isn't price so much as it is marketing. However the real question is whether China will be able to use Linux or must they code their own O/S?

    --

    Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
    1. Re:Quotas are generally a bad idea... by BroncoInCalifornia · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Very often protectionism works to help a domestic industry reach critical mass. I know this runs counter to current economic theology. But there are examples.

      One example documented in Michael Pollan's book The Botany of Desire is the U. S. marijuana industry. U. S. grown pot used to be of rather poor quality. Law enforcement cut off the supply from foreign competators. Under this unintentional protectionist program, U. S. grown pot became some of the best in the world.

      Alternatives to the Microsoft desktop will reach critical mass a lot faster with some protectionism. Short term, the people in the Chinese goverment will be using software they find unfamiliar, and a little harder to configure, and perhaps a bit awkward to use. But this shall pass. They are obviously willing to take short term hit to come out ahead in the long run.

      --

      Religion is the main cause of atheism.

    2. Re:Quotas are generally a bad idea... by SmilingBoy · · Score: 3, Informative
      Very often protectionism works to help a domestic industry reach critical mass.
      Make that a very rarely. Millions of people in South America were impoverished by the proctectionism that prevailed for some decades. It did not grow the domestic industries. It prevented the inefficient domestic industries from becoming competitive with the rest of the world, while at the same time keeping prices artificially high for South American consumers.

      You may or may not have a point about software. The difference to other industries are the extreme network effects. This requires some more thought than can be put in this /. post.

  9. They already do produce 70+% domestically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you count all the software copied within China as "domestically produced", that is. Maybe their goal should be a little less domestic software production...

  10. offshoring ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Software developed locally in the US vs that which is shipped off to India ? Congress critters trying to change legislation on H1B? Am I trolling ? They're both quotas, one on workers and the other on software (their product).

    How exactly is demanding American workers be given preferential treatment for IT jobs different from a market in a country putting a quota on foreign software?

    Neither one of those is right, but some people in those countries want both to happen. Having said that, this could be the shot in the arm that the Chinese need to boost their own development of software. Just hope that it won't become an inefficient beast due to lack of competition from outside their own country.

  11. Hmm -- where do Linux and *BSD fit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is pretty hard to pin a country on Linux (or *BSD) these days. They are pretty much children of the world (including China). I wonder if the Chinese Goverment will take this into consideration when establishing its quotas...

    1. Re:Hmm -- where do Linux and *BSD fit? by Endive4Ever · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can see little impetus for China to enforce the GPL against it's own interests, however. We can expect China to be a 'black hole' of source code. Source comes in, but it doesn't necessarily make it's way back out. Commercial ventures in China will fork OSS projects and sell binaries.

      Anybody who sees the problem Microsoft faces with piracy in China would have to be out of their mind to pretend the Chinese will respect anybody else's IP laws. Particularly anything as unenforcable as the GPL.

      --
      ---
  12. While they may have good intentions.. by leerpm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This will just backfire on them. Irregardless of whether this is designed to reduce Microsoft's monopoly, a quota that restricts the use of ALL foreign software is going to have a negative impact on China's ability to advance their economy.

    It will help local software companies, but there will probably be no net gain to the nation as a whole. When you restrict the ability for domestic companies to use foreign software (especially when it is the best tool for the job) you are handicapping economic growth.

    1. Re:While they may have good intentions.. by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This will just backfire on them. Irregardless of whether this is designed to reduce Microsoft's monopoly, a quota that restricts the use of ALL foreign software is going to have a negative impact on China's ability to advance their economy.
      I should think that this will in fact improve China's ability, rather than backfire.

      Most of China's IT requirements are local, ie they don't sell a lot of software overseas. So their IT products 1) don't have to be world class, and 2) are better adapted to the local economy.

      On the other hand, by creating even sub-world class standard software locally, they are training and building up their ability. If they do this for a generation, their subsequent products may well be world class the same way Japan's are.

      It will help local software companies, but there will probably be no net gain to the nation as a whole. When you restrict the ability for domestic companies to use foreign software (especially when it is the best tool for the job) you are handicapping economic growth.

      China's economy (and therefore its IT usage) is different from more developed countries', so why should they use foreign technology which is adapted to more advanced nations? It would be like using an enterprise CRM system to manage the local garage sale.

      IMHO, they're doing the right thing for their economy as a whole.

  13. Excellent News! by Open+$ource+Advocate · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Quoted from the article:

    "I believe the era of exorbitant profit for software should end," said Li, the science ministry's deputy director in charge of new technology. "Basic software services should be cheap, just like water, electricity and gas."

    This is great news for Open Source, whose goal is to make software cheap and affordable for everybody. Microsoft has been making exorbitant profits from their products for way too long, and I'm glad that China is embracing the new way of Open Source where software is a basic social right of all citizens.

    This move isn't solely in support of Linux, because China wants its own software industry to have a chance to grow and flourish before Microsoft gains total dominance there. Once the Chinese software industry has grown, the largest software companies there can be socialized and given to the People of China.

    --
    Have you read the GNU Manifesto lately?
    1. Re:Excellent News! by jonman_d · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Software cannot be a "basic social right." By definition, software must be created by someone. Someone must do work to create software. Therefore, software is a product for a consumer.

      Free speech is a right. Software is a commodity.

    2. Re:Excellent News! by foolip · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Water cannot be a "basic social right." By definition, water must be purified by someone. Someone must do work to produce drinkable water. Therefore, water is a product for a consumer.

      Although water costs money to clean and transport it is a basic social right to have access to it. It does not follow that something is a product for a consumer just because it takes work to be produced. We can commoditise things that cost money, examples would be water, public transportation and health care. Although all three cost money they have been commoditised to the point where they are free or affordable by all, and it's viewed as a social right to have them. The same can be true for software. Although it will take resources to produce and someone will have to pay, we can make it a commodity item, available to all regardless of social status. A precondition would of course be shelter, electricity and maybe internet, so perhaps that should a higher priority right now.

    3. Re:Excellent News! by RoLi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      By definition, software must be created by someone.

      Yes, but it must only be created once and can be used millions of times afterwards.

      Which is exactly the reason why software is not just another product that can be treated by the same laws like other products. It's fundamentally different and models that would fail miserably for most other products can turn out to be the best for software.

  14. goverment computers by Espectr0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    this may work for goverment-issued computers, but i dont think the Illuminati has to worry about the home systems

  15. A Crippling Decision... by Aphrika · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd wager that their domestic software industry will do well, but their domestic industry as a whole will not.

    Why?

    Ok, limiting software that people can use limits people's choices (obvious), but it also removes the ability for people to choose the absolute, best software they need to do their job. Consequently, you'd have to make some purchasing decisions which might actually affect the ability of your company to do work. Imagine how a video post production house trying to get by without AfterEffects, Flame, 3D Max, Maya - you get the picture.

    The only way they could possibly circumvent this is by loading their machines up with 70% worth of crap they don't want - hey ho, I think I've found the solution!!

    1. Re:A Crippling Decision... by Brian+Dennehy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The only way they could possibly circumvent this is by loading their machines up with 70% worth of crap they don't want - hey ho, I think I've found the solution!!

      Kind of sounds like the "cancon" here in Canada: The Canadian content quota requirement placed on the media to ensure local artists get airtime (as opposed to hearing only American artists).

  16. This is not good in anyway by metlin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Before someone screams "Yay! Another victory for the anti-Microsoft lobby", its worth noting that this is not good.

    From the article -

    China says it is merely trying to level the playing field for its own software companies.

    Bah! If every country were to level the "playing fields" - there is no point in such things as patents and WTO laws.

    Why does the US still buy Japanese and Chinese products? Maybe the US should "level" the playing fields too. Why does any other country have to respect any other country's patent or trade laws?

    As much as I like the fact that this means widespread adoptation of Linux - just remember that they are essentially violating even the basic trade law premises of free and fair trade.

    The article's ending makes it worse -

    So far, Linux has not made big inroads. IDC software analyst Jenny Jin estimates it has "a very small percentage" of the operating system market, probably less than 4 percent.

    I wonder what this means. Homegrown Windows like OS? Whatever it is, this is plain wrong.

    While other countries respect trade laws at the expense of their workers, industry and economy, why should China be allowed to be any different?

    1. Re:This is not good in anyway by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with much of what you said except:
      "While other countries respect trade laws at the expense of their workers, industry and economy, why should China be allowed to be any different?"

      The whole point of trade is that it isn't an expense. It's the only 'free lunch' there is in economics. If Japan were to put up big barriers to US imports, the US would be MUCH worse off by putting up barriers to Japanese imports.
      Protectionist policies hurt everybody, except for a minority of grossly inefficient competetitors interested in keeping their profits high by exploiting consumers through tariff legislation.

      --

      Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
    2. Re:This is not good in anyway by xtort17 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's interesting since the US has one of the most liberal trade policies and,"ironically," the highest real GDP in the world. And, GDP has grown as trade has been futher liberalized.

      And, your analysis about the WTO is interesting, since most economists would argue that smaller, poorer countries benefit the LEAST from the WTO (mostly because they can't fully take advantage of it, not because it's bad, but that's another argument...) For an empirical example, look at NAFTA - the US has benefited the most, meanwhile Mexico has benefited the least...

      Saying that protectionism helps the economy is misinformed and violates the essence of capitalism. As someone else mentioned, go read up on comparative advantage. I can even give you a list of some good books on trade, if you're interested.

      Oh, and those contries that "take our work?" We do get the advantage of cheaper costs of living - or rather, we would if the tariffs and other protectionist policies you advocate didn't drive prices up... The policies you advocate create the problems you whine about.

  17. 70%? by lightspawn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the government may require that up to 70% of software on Chinese computers is produced domestically.

    So how do they plan to calculate the percentage? Number of software packages? Size in megabytes? Lines of source code? Weight of documentation?

    Chinese programmers: Please make lots of free, useless little utilities so for every foreign software package your people need, they can install two of yours to balance them.

    1. Re:70%? by thepoch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sorry but this sounds too condescending. Why should Chinese programmers make lots of free, useless little utilities, when they can make perfectly good, if not better, software?

      If there's one thing I understand, it's that Chinese people have a lot of discipline and pride in themselves. If given the chance, they will produce the best software.

      This seems to me simply an incentive for Chinese software to catch up. Whether it is right or wrong, that is not my argument. My argument is simply that Chinese can produce good software. The question is... given a few years, will they need foreign software as much as they do now?

  18. Copied it from laws for US auto industry. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Back during the "Japanese Invasion" of the auto industry (when the Japanese got their quality up and held their price low, resulting in a major market shift among consumers) the US passed similar legislation, requiring a percentage of "US content" in any company's cars sold in the US. I think the number was also 70%.

    Interestingly, the Japanese did this by opening assembly plants in the US. And employed US auto workers.

    The US auto companies had claimed that there was a cultural gap, that the reason US car manufacturing had such a hard time with product quality was the US union auto workers. (Union reps said it was management techniques.)

    The Japanese hired UAW members. And got better quality than in Japan. B-)

    A friend of mine, a union organizer, put it this way:

    "The US auto workers will give you what you ask. If you ask for quantity they'll give you quantity. If you ask for quality they'll give you quality. And if you ask for trouble they'll give you trouble."

    B-)

    What had ACTUALLY happened is that the Japanese had wholeheartedly adopted a management style promoted by a US theoritician, with major worker involvement and worker-to-management information and idea flow. Meanwhile, spured by the McCarthy-era anti-Communism witch hunts, the US executives eliminated anything that looked socialist or communist ideas from their own workflow, cutting themselves off from information and ideas from their blue-collar workers - who knew the actual processes and factory goings-on the best.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Copied it from laws for US auto industry. by tealover · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bullshit.

      There were no such laws passed in the US. There were a whole lot of "Buy American" calls from workers and some politicians but there were no laws passed because it is illegal under the WTO and it anti-competitive behaviour and most people who understand the free-market knows that it would be counterproductive.

      Japanese auto-makers opened American plants because during much it was much cheaper to produce the vehicles and sell them locally rather than import them from Japan (or elsewhere) where you are subject to import duties and the vagaries of fiscal economics where the fluctation of currencies can erode profits.

      People, please mod the parent post down appropiately.

      --
      -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    2. Re:Copied it from laws for US auto industry. by the+arbiter · · Score: 2, Informative

      The parent poster was not wrong. Legal standards to claim a vehicle is "US made" mandate a 70% domestic parts content. Read the post carefully before asking for it to be censored.

      --
      Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
  19. 70% of software blah blah by Osrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So I guess they won't be using Linux or OpenOffice then.

  20. possible way around it? by nuckin+futs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    so, if Microsoft (or any foreign software company) decides to outsource some software development to China, will it be considered a domestic product, since it would technically be made in China?

    1. Re:possible way around it? by 2Bits · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bah, you don't have to.

      [Disclaimer: I've founded and am running a software company developing security-related software in Shanghai.]

      In security-related softwares/hardwares, there are requirements that the systems be developed in China. But that does not prevent foreign companies to get thru the backdoor anyways. Consider RSA, Entrust, Verisign, Norton, those firewall vendors, ... are all selling in China.

      All they have to do is find someone here (and preferably someone with good relationship) to start an empty shell company, and sell their stuff thru that company. They don't even have to change the name of the product. Those shell companies actually brag about it, because the product is a brand name. This is the usual way for foreign companies that are just water-testing.

      ps: No, I don't like any stupid quota, requirements, legislation, and whatever, that restrict any foreign competition.

  21. You'd never be able to install Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    As soon as you get your welcome screen up, your PC's 100% US software... then you get a knock at the door...

    "I was just about to install Feng Shui 5.1, honest!!"

    Hmmm... come to think of it, you wouldn't be able to install any OS...

  22. Dragonball Z by t0qer · · Score: 4, Funny

    China has an evil invader from space, Bill Frieza, who is seemingly unbeatable. China can either not fight Bill Frieza, in which case he will enslave them to fight smaller battles around the universe, or china can try and fight Bill Frieza and end up being anhiliated.

    China's only hope is to gather together the 8 magical Dragonball CPU's to summon the Eternal OS, who will grant them one wish so they can defeat the evil Bill Frieza.

    Will China be able to find all 8 Dragonball CPU's in time? Will Bill Frieza anhillate the earth? Find out next time on Dragonball Z!

  23. Do you think? by boudie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This could be one of those rare cases where the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

  24. Ah the WTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    China has violated so many of the promises it made when it entered the WTO(while still enjoying all the benefits) this really will not matter. So far, China has been making a lot of influential WTO members very rich so they look the other way. Basically China has immasculated the WTO, and I for one am sick of it. They want all the benefits but none of the costs of free trade. Every time America tries to protect one of its own industries, China raises a huge hissy fit and threatens the US with a trade war, although the amount of exports to China are so small we really could do without them.
    Either get the WTO to grow some balls and challenge China or scrap the organization. I am tired of Chinas constant protectionist bs while forcing free trade on other countries. And before the China supporters flame me I know that there overall trade deficit is not that high, but if you take a look at there trade policies(namely demanding technology transfer, and destroying any standards that are foriegn and turning around and forcing companies to use Chinas standards if they want to do business) you can tell that they do not plan to trade with these other nations very long. Trade with China is a very bad idea, maybe once the WTO actually enforces its rules, it might not be so bad, but for the time being it really pisses me off..

    1. Re:Ah the WTO by Nebrie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is this different from every other WTO member including the US?

    2. Re:Ah the WTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Funny, every other country says the exact same things about the US and its adherence (or lack thereof) to the spirit of the WTO. Basically the US has emasculated the WTO. Take a look at their creative interpretations in regards to steel, electronics, patents, grain, trucking regulations, etc.. The US can't have it both ways and lots of countries resent the US (maybe undeservedly in some cases) for condemning others but having thousands of its own protectionist policies itself. Slamming China for the exact same things the US is doing is at best ignorant and at worse hypocritical.

    3. Re:Ah the WTO by Froomb · · Score: 2, Informative
      Basically China has immasculated the WTO, and I for one am sick of it. They want all the benefits but none of the costs of free trade. Every time America tries to protect one of its own industries, China raises a huge hissy fit and threatens the US with a trade war, although the amount of exports to China are so small we really could do without them.

      I'm not sure why such vague flamebaiting by an AC was modded up so highly, but if anyone wants to examine the issues beyond nationalistic ranting, you might take a look at what the US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said on the issue U.S.-China Trade Relations in a recent speech at the Asia Society.

      China is a vast nation with great diversity matched by a turbulent history. If current trends continue, sometime in the 2030s China will become the world's largest economy. Trade with China is crucial to the economic well-being of both the U.S. and the planet.

    4. Re:Ah the WTO by bakes · · Score: 3, Informative
      According to projectcensored.org, the US has either violated or subverted:
      • the Conprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
      • the Treaty Banning Antipersonnel Mines
      • the Rome Statue of the Internaitonal Criminal Court (ICC)
      • a protocol to create a compliance regime for the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)
      • the Kyoto Protocol
      • the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
      The report continues: "The U.S. is also not complying with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Chemical Weapons Commission (CWC), the BWC, and the UN framework Convention on Climate Change". And as the parent comment mentions, there are plenty of violations of the WTO as well.

      Dear Mr Bush: It's not your 'FREEDOM' that the terrorists don't like...
      --
      Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
    5. Re:Ah the WTO by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Basically China has immasculated the WTO, and I for one am sick of it. They want all the benefits but none of the costs of free trade.

      You spelled "USA" wrong. The first letter isn't "C" and the middle part isn't "hin".

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    6. Re:Ah the WTO by de+la+mettrie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is true that the USA (as well as the EU) tends to lose many WTO legal cases for violating the WTO agreements. This is, of course, due to the same public-choice-considerations that influence all national economic policymakers: the political benefit for the policymakers for engaging in protectionism is almost always higher than the benefit from engaging in free trade, since import-sensitive interest groups exert great influence on politics, while the general public, who stand to benefit from free trade, generally don't care.

      More to the point, though, the WTO legal system is not effective enough: countries that win a WTO case gain the right to "withdraw concessions", that is, to retaliate with protectionism of their own against the losing party. This is supposed to dissuade would-be offenders from violating the agreements in the first place. However, if a small country such as, say, Cuba, wins in a WTO court against the USA, the volume of retaliatory action Cuba can take is so small compared to U.S. overall trade streams that U.S. exporters won't notice at all.

      Past cases show that only the Big Three (USA, EU and Japan) have the economic clout to actually force other countries into WTO compliance. This has been demonstrated in the US-Steel case, where President Bush was forced to abolish illegal steel tariffs in order to avoid EU retaliation against products from U.S. states Bush needs to win in the presidential elections.

  25. Re:Article Text, Site Slow by Bobdoer · · Score: 2, Funny

    CEO Steve Ballmer visited last November and fondled donkeys with the Ministry of Education to provide $10 million to promote computer use in schools.
    Should read:
    CEO Steve Ballmer visited last November and signed an agreement with the Ministry of Education to provide $10 million to promote computer use in schools.
    But what's the difference?

  26. Affirmative Action in...erm...action! by penginkun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yessir, I love it when people discriminate like that. Nobody screams about enforced quotas for US Government jobs and contracts, but let a foreign government demand a quota on something as simple as software, and look out! Love double standards! Love 'em to death!

  27. Memo Balmer : political party contribution failed. by openmtl · · Score: 2, Funny
    From: billg

    To: balmer

    Subject: political party contribution failed.

    i thought my last bribe^H^H^H^H^H contribution to the glorious chinese democratic goverment to help censor^H^H^H^H^H^H provide balance media coverage and universal civilian access to this newfangled internet thing should have worked.

    looks like they need further detailed explainations about the total cost of ownership of windows compared to that finnish thing err whats it called now, sco openunix or something.

    keep me posted

    Sir William

    stop edit shit how to i stop this word recognition software stop err exit quit help

    .............. Faulting application outlook.exe, version 8.5.20040225, faulting module wordrec.dll, version 0.3, fault address 0x0000b1119.

    NO CARRIER

    --

  28. Re:bullshit argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the average US citizen made $0.70/hr, they wouldn't be able to afford the products made by companies that would be forced to produce them at below-cost to meet the buying potential of their customers. Therefore, these companies go out of business, further adding to the ranks of the unemployed, who can now no longer afford to purchase products by the surviving companies, who now are forced to cut prices again to meet the buying potential of their customers.

    Now all that's left is Wal-Mart, and nobody can afford a basket of radishes there anymore.

    Wages aren't the only costs involved in production.

  29. China and the WTO by tealover · · Score: 2, Insightful

    China has to be very careful about proposing legislation that will get knocked down by the WTO. The Chinese are very sensitive to reproachment by other countries and international organizations. I don't know how they will react if the WTO finds them guilty of violating WTO agreements and fines them billions of dollars.

    If China believes it has the capacity to create a powerful software industry, it should get out of its way rather than remove incentive for them to compete.

    --
    -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
  30. Uh, NO. by Svartalf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they're importing stuff, their economy suffers if they're not exporting more than they're importing. Currently this is the case with things, but to say that you're handicapping economic growth by not importing things, implies you know very little about how economics works.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:Uh, NO. by kfg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most people these days only understand economics in the sense of competition of essentially equal parties, such as American auto manufacturers vs. Japanese manufacturers, which is actually little different at street level then competition between two domestic manufacterers.

      This is the world of "market forces" that the average person in a rich western nation lives in. As a "consumer" you chose between two products that are essentially similar and purchase the one that's made better/cheaper.

      This sort of limited version of economics has nothing to do with assymetrical trade between unequal participants such as, oh, say, the US and Mexico or India.

      Perhaps one needs to spend some time living in a poor section of India or Mexico to understand how even a fairly trivial amount of importing can completely devestate a local economy that could otherwise be happily selfsustaining.

      KFG

    2. Re:Uh, NO. by Brandybuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Like the labor theory of value, this is another economic myth that just isn't true. A unbalanced level of trade may indicate a problem, but the symptom is not the problem.

      A though experiment illustrates this. Take the case of a single pair of shoes worth 50 dollars. If the shoes are exported, the nation loses one pair of shoes, but gains 50 dollars. If it imports the shoes, it gains one pair of shoes, but loses 50 dollars. Whether a nation imports or exports shoes depends on how much it values a pair of shoes over 50 dollars.

      Currencies are goods as well, but they are goods all too often ignored by the politicians and media. They are a particularly useful good, in that they are the best good suited for buying foreign goods. If the US (as an example) imports more than it exports, then the other nations are going to have a surplus of US dollars usable only in the US (or the currency markets). Currency fluctuations lead to this kind of imbalance. If you see a trade imbalance, take a look around and you'll probably also see a recent fluctuation in currency values.

      There are other causes to a trade imbalance symptom, however. The point is, the trade balance in an of itself is not a problem. At most it's a symptom of another problem.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  31. Wipeout for WIPO by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hopefully this Chinese action will destroy the WIPO. The entire reason we in America are sacrificing our jobs/environment/politics/freedom here is to create a stable WTO, in which China is an open market for those higher value goods we produce for them as they grow. If they get away with this protectionism, we should trash this slavish WTO devotion, and just practice fair trade (not the neoliberal "free" trade), negotiating to protect our consumers and labor market from their predatory capitalism.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  32. Re:Article Text, Site Slow by Quobobo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are you trying to deny that Ballmer fondled donkeys? Sheesh, Microsoft apologists some days...

  33. The US goverment should do this to by beforewisdom · · Score: 3, Funny
    That is, demand that 70% of the software used in the US be made from American programmers.

    That would sure help preserve the US IT industry.

    Then again, Bush would have to care first.

    Steve

  34. Define "percent", WRT software... by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the government may require that up to 70% of software on Chinese computers is produced domestically.

    I see a great opportunity here for some clever Chinese student to make a fortune...

    Write and sell a fairly cheap (whatever would compare to USD$20?) set of a few thousand "utility" programs, that do basically nothing (such as "print-a", which "inserts the ASCII character 0x41 into the standard output stream, for use in automated scripting requiring the letter 'A'", as an example of what I mean), but absolutely guarantee that a company can remain in compliane with this quota no matter how much imported US software they use.

    The only problem involves the definition of "percent" as relating to software - Does it mean "per 100 packages" or "per 100 bytes"? If the latter, a similar approach would work (such as "lib-a", which fills exactly 70% of your hard-drive with readily-accessible "A" characters), but would certainly seem a lot more wasteful of a large HDD...

  35. Not such a big deal. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The statement from the summary:

    While the details are still unclear, the government may require that up to 70% of software on Chinese computers is produced domestically.

    implies that they plan to issue a general nationwide ban on too much foreign software. However, that's not what the article says. It actually says:

    Officials say a new law will be announced by this summer requiring a minimum percentage of software purchased by the government be produced in China.

    So we see that this policy would only apply to government purchases. Thus, this is little different from when a corporate IT department standardizes on choosing certain software products and not others.

    The U.S. federal and state governments also promote a variety of policies by placing extra conditions on their procurements and contractors.

    So, while this is somewhat interesting, this doesn't look to me like as big a trade issue as a lot of posts seem to be making of it.

  36. Let them fall into the stone age! by mkucic · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know, this is typical we want think we are better than the rest of the world China. Let them go off on their own and when the rest of the world is using Monopoly Office 2010 and cursing at Clippy who in 2010 accounts for 20% of the MO distribution they will be using their own hacked out version of Government BackDoor Repressive Office 2010 that is equivalent to MO 2005! GBRO's touted features will be a spell checker that removes government "NO-NO" words. Best use of resources is to not reinvent the wheel twice!

  37. Re:bullshit argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    America is the continent dipshit.

    And Americans are the people who live in the United States of America.

    Try telling a Canadian or a Mexican that he's American.

  38. oh really by segment · · Score: 4, Informative
    No company in the United States would truly want to do that because they wouldn't be able to compete with the pricing. So what they would do is buy from a chinese sweatshop and have them relabel the tags with "Made in America" ones.

    Wal-Mart and Sweatshops

    Many Americans believe the clothing purchased in U.S. Wal-Mart stores is manufactured in America. In fact, the majority of its private label clothing is manufactured in at least 48 countries around the world, but not in the U.S.

    In his autobiography, Made in America: My Story founding Wal-Mart President, Sam Walton, proselytized "Buy American." USA Today, August 14, 2001, reported that, "Wal-Mart has more than 1,107 international operations." The newspaper also reports that, "Bangladesh workers earn as little as nine cents an hour making shirts for Wal-Mart.

    Hypocritically, Wal-Mart ran a "Buy American" and "Buy Mexican" marketing campaigns simultaneously, all the while reinvesting its all-American dollars overseas.

    Wal-Mart is the largest importer of Chinese goods. 10% of all Chinese imports are imported by Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart even established its own global procurement division this year, abandoning the pretense to its traditional "buy American" campaign. This team searches the globe for the cheapest raw materials, manufacturers and shipping routes. They allow Wal-Mart to relocate factories from one country to the next in its endless quest to squeeze countries for lower wages and cheaper goods. (LA Times 12/03) (source)

    It may all look good on paper, but this is nothing short of typical politics: "You pressure us, we pressure you" and with an economy like China which is still immature, someone is going to bend, and I don't think it would be China
    1. Re:oh really by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Commenting upon the quoted material:

      Many Americans believe the clothing purchased in U.S. Wal-Mart stores is manufactured in America

      I find this very difficult to believe, and I'd find it more credible if it were supported by some sort of factual statistic rather than the largely meaningless "many". I mean, it really isn't that difficult to look at the tags (which are accurate). I think a fairer statement is "Most Americans don't work in textiles, so they care more that their new bath robe is less expensive at WalMart than it is at Robetectionism".

      Hypocritically, Wal-Mart ran a "Buy American" and "Buy Mexican" marketing campaigns simultaneously

      How is this hypocritical? In Mexico it caters to the Mexican sense of protectionism, while in the US it caters to the US sense of protectionism. I don't think a "Buy American" campaign would go over as well in a foreign Walmart.

  39. Why doesn't the US file a complaint with the WTO? by andy1307 · · Score: 2, Informative
    For this and the Chinese tax on imported chips?

    China applies a 17% value-added tax (VAT) on all semiconductor sales. In an attempt to encourage local production, China is granting rebates to products made domestically. Semiconductors manufactured in China are eligible for an 11% VAT rebate (resulting in an applied rate of 6%), and semiconductors designed and manufactured in China receive a 14% VAT rebate (resulting in an applied rate of only 3%). According to some reports, the company must use the refunds to do research and development in China.
  40. Possible bad things by evilWurst · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can see several ways in which this could be bad for all the rest of us (while not being all that good for China, either).

    1 - mass civil disobedience, encouraged by the Chinese government looking the other way: China writes some code, and makes up the slack by pirating everything else. Everyone justifies the piracy by pointing at the government and saying "well, I'm not allowed to BUY it". The rest of the world ends up feeding China's growth but doesn't actually get any money.

    2 - GPL black hole: code goes into China but code doesn't come out. What's to stop a desperate Chinese coder from "borrowing" a pile of downloaded source, making a few changes, and selling binaries within China? Nothing. The rest of the world ends up feeding China's growth with free code, and gets nothing in return. The Great Firewall of China might aggravate that even further - maybe insiders *want* to share their code with the rest of the world, but aren't allowed to?

    3 - hmm. China's also making custom processors. What's to stop there from being a positive feedback loop here of Chinese code for Chinese chips driving Chinese chip sales in China, which drives Chinese code in China? Nothing - that may even be by design. This'd close off sales of both hardware and software to China even more. Good for China, bad for everyone else.

    Like many other posters, though, I don't think China could get away with this, because of the WTO. They'd get hammered not only by the US, but also the EU, India, Japan, and anyone else who makes software that I'm forgetting.

  41. said Li Wuqiang of the Ministry of Science and ... by krusadr · · Score: 4, Funny

    "If a software program is dominant for a long time, it's harmful for the development of the software industry," said Li Wuqiang of the Ministry of Science and Technology.

    You my friend get +5 Insightful from me.

    --
    while sco {
    wget -O /dev/null http://www.sco.com?sco=litigious%20bastards
    }
  42. US moving from capitalism to mild socialism? by cyberjessy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its interesting to note how slashdot user opinions change overtime. A few years back, capitalism and freedom were reigning supreme. Such protectionist policies werent really appreciated anywhere.

    The US was the champion of capitalism, sometimes even arm twisting countries into opening their markets. Those that did so were endowed lavishly with grants and loans. Of course, opening markets and free economies lead to more social freedom too which would be better in the longer term.

    But then, perhaps the US forgot the implications of free competition on their own economy. Suddenly americans want protectionist legislations. Outsourcing is the top-demon.

    Ahh .... wouldnt it be better if americans would be courageous to just compete with the best of the rest and take head on their strengths?
    Well .. that is the freedom that 'you' championed.

    Now when you look at what is happening in america, china and maybe what will happen in many other countries, are we going back to a milder version of socialism?

    Disclaimer: I would have never been against protectionism for the sake of protecting jobs in any country. But then you worked so hard at doing away with that system. You promoted competition. Good. But dont get scared when it comes back at you!

    --
    Life is just a conviction.
  43. Re:I'm sick of hearing about "losing U.S. jobs" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    nothing but anecdotal "evidence"

    Evidence for dramatic decline in labor force participation:


    St. Louis Federal Reserve Data"

    This the real "unemployment" measure. It's down
    to the rate in 1980s; after a decade of mass immigration and as the echo-baby boom enters the work force. The Bush administration does not count "contractors" who can't get new contracts and people who haven't found a job in more than 6 months.

    Uh. 2 other points: Dukakis was a governor.
    How is his voting record comparable with Senator Kerry? Also, It's John Edwards who's gonna kick draft-dodger Bush/Cheney's ass.

  44. Re:bullshit argument by Saganaga · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, no, the continents are North America and South America. There is no continent called America.

    Secondly, the idea that Americans can be stuck with the term USians doesn't make sense. After all, that term could just as easily apply to people from the United States of Mexico, or probably a dozen other countries with United States in their name.

    Finally, I think I'm going to start calling people from the U.K. "UKians", and I'm also going to start calling people from the E.U. "EUians". After all, someone from the E.U. can't call themselves a "European", since that is the name of the continent and the E.U. does not comprise all the European nations.

    In short, all you jokers who think it's fun to tweak Americans with the stupid name "USians", get a life. We're Americans; deal with it.

  45. Re:bullshit argument by be-fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, you're the dipshit. Money has no intrinsic value. If the average American made $0.70 an hour, yet remained as productive as they are now, the value of a doller would be much higher, so the *real* cost of living would be the same.

    And yes, we had a depression in the 1930s. Such cycles are a natural part of any capitalist economy. What's your point?

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  46. voluntary by kayen_telva · · Score: 2, Informative

    Japan placed voluntary restrictions on exports to the
    United States of cotton goods (1957), steel (1969),
    wool and synthetic fibers (1972), color televisions (1977),
    and automobiles (1981).

    http://www.jinjapan.org/access/trade/friction.html
    http://www.cpas.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cis/asia/eng/85-H7 81-32.html

  47. Re:I'm sick of hearing about "losing U.S. jobs" by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Between Nov 03 and Dec 03, the participation rate went from 66.2% to 66.0%, unemployment rate thus went from 5.9% to 5.7% and everyone hooted and hollered over it. The reason for the drop in unemployment was a net of ~538,000 people dropping out of the work force. The size of the work force and thus the enemployment rate grew between Dec 03 and Jan 04.

    The scenario pointed out does happen.

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

  48. Water, Electricity, Gas ... Not Cheap by handy_vandal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Basic software services should be cheap, just like water, electricity and gas.

    Water is not cheap -- neither is gas, nor electricity. Just ask the tens of millions of people who can't afford them.

    Furthermore, ditto food -- not cheap, for the starving.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  49. Re:Communism + Outside Monopoly = by reub2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    China isn't really communist anymore.

  50. Same as 1970s Steel Produce by Hao+Wu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    China tried same result in 1970s. Each small village and rural family had to produce X steel amount to meet national goal. Result was pathological disaster.

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
  51. That's quite different... by AtomicBomb · · Score: 2

    I would like to serious challenge the neutrality of the article.

    It sounds like the Chinese government is going to ban most of the foreign software. But, all the facts quoted by the articles only indicates the Chinese wants more Linux in government desktops.... It is *not* a violation of WTO. Just like US government can say it wants a bigger share of MS/linux/BSD/Macs for the government desktop due to security/stability/easy-to-use or whatever. In any case, Linux is more like an "international" product...

    In addition, the article is neither from a reputable international news agent nor from the offical Chinese government announcement. It is very speculative in nature. All the quotes are old paste-and-cuts not directly related to this... It has 3-4 quotes from various Chinese goverment officers talked about "it is not the best interest for anyone is there is a software monopoly". A couple of analysts indicates further changes will benefit Linux, while the adoption of it at this moment is not great....

  52. Protectionism != Socialism by Elf-friend · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're confusing a single economic policy with an entire socio-economic political philosophy there. The governments of most countries were protectionist prior to the mid-XIX century (for instance, England had the infamous "Corn Laws" and "Navigation Acts"; and, in the U.S., the New England States nearly seceded in the late 1820's over tariffs), but that didn't make these governments socialist in the least. It was classical liberalism (today's conservatism, at least in economics) that proposed free trade. Quite the contrary, as modern socialism didn't even exist then.

    In fact, IIRC, isn't Marxism opposed to tariffs, at least in theory? Aren't they mostly used to become economicly self-sustaining, so socialist states don't need to rely on their capitalist opponents? I could be wrong on that, it's been a long time since I delved very deep into the subject.

  53. Re:bullshit argument: CLARIFICATIONS by Lobachevsky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The parent and grandparent are both right, with more elaboration:

    The parent is correct that if everyone earned 70c/hr, yet remained as product as they are now, the value of the dollar would be much higher, so the purchasing-power-parity in 2003 dollars would remain the same, and hence the "real" cost of living (in PPP 2003 USDs).

    The grandparent is correct that if everyone *WERE* to earn 70c/hr, we would have a depression.

    How can the parent and grandparent be correct? The fourth-dimension, time, the axis Mardy (Michael J Fox) wasn't very good at in Back to the Future, needs to be remembered. When experienced with RAPID deflation, which implies the power of the dollar increases rapidly, we enter an economy which is reluctant to make investments. The best investment, in a deflating curency, is to hold on to your bank notes or bonds, not to lend loans on houses that this year will cost $100k but if the owner forecloses five years from now will only fetch $20k of a much stronger greenback.

    Thus, if we have rapid deflation, or sustained deflation, we will enter a depression where the financial elite close their purses and reap the rewards of monetary growth without making loans to those paupers we commonly refer to as ourselves.

  54. Let's Get Real Here by weijiao · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I live in China. We can buy almost any MS product (or Adobe, or Symantec) on the street for less tham USD 2. (Not quite, but almost free, as in beer). Locally written software is also routinely pirated. The government may have some control over what goes on their own computers, but that is hardly certain. It is, put at its highest, a statement of policy that should not be ignored, but it is not going to impact on US jobs all that much.

  55. WTO and Microsoft by i1984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right. I'll take this a lot more seriously when the WTO starts throwing fits about the well documented abuses of Microsoft's own monopoly power in the marketplace. Until then, it seems a bit hypocritical of the WTO to be barking about -- fundamentally -- Microsoft being victimized by a the presence of an uneven playing field.

    The Chinese appear to be acting unilaterally in what they perceive as their best interest. Maybe they're just following the U.S. lead.

    I honestly believe the rule of international law is an important value, but also believe the U.S. could stand some introspection on this very same point. And as for Microsoft, I can't tell that the company has learned anything from its run-in with the Justice Department, except for how to be sneakier in extending its monopoly, a reinforced appreciation for the power of public perception, and perhaps a clearer understanding of why it's worthwhile to donate generously to politicians who don't believe that the power of large businesses should in any way be restrained.

  56. Completely offtopic, but... by IANAAC · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ... the English laugh at how the North Americans like to invent "English" words on the fly.

    This isn't unique to North America. It happens all over the globe, England included. Such is the nature of living languages.

    1. Re:Completely offtopic, but... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but apparently it's more worthy of criticism when us USians do it.

      Seriously, what I find interesting is that when the U.S. government does something objectionable to those in {insert sovereign nation here} the response from many foreigners is, all too often, to criticize all Americans. "Ugly Americans" and so forth. For my part, if the government of, say, China, does something that I find disagreeable, any criticisms I may have for that action I reserve for those in power who made the decision to take it. I see no reason to insult all those of Chinese nationality or extraction by calling them "Chinesians" or "Chinks" or any other racial epithet because I personally happen to dislike their government or what it has done. That is particularly true given how little control most people in the world have over their respective governments. To all you non-USians out there that persist in identifying all Americans with the decisions made by our leaders I have two words: grow up.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  57. Re: Protection CAN BE Good by Lobachevsky · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think what China is doing is extremely bad for me and others alike in the US, but excellent for it. Protection makes sense when mixed with competition. I just hope it finds a suitable 'x' in the x% local-competition and 100%-x% aggressive-open-competition formula.

    The best example is my highschool, which had an idiot coach who reserved the tennis courts four and half of the five days to the Varsity team players, giving only 2 hours for JV players, many of whom had never played tennis before.

    The end result was that our varsity team improved dramatically, but our JV team was as bad at the end of the year as the start. What did this mean? Kids like me and a *select* few others with parents willing to pay for lessons were able to practice and get into varsity. Those without the money continued in JV and never made varsity. This resulted in our varsity team winning LESS than our varsity team of years past, because we were filled with the affluent JV players and not the talented-yet-latent JV players.

    This ties in wonderfully well into economics. Those who have parents/foundations/communities etc. which let them *practice* are the ones who will succeed in a capitalistic, hyper-aggressive, winner-takes-all society (just watch our Reality Shows where all but the best leave in humilation and with $0).

    China realizes that the average chinese family cannot compete with "Varsity" teams and is letting their "JV" teams have court time, in the hope that they will one day become "Varsity." Kudos to the brilliant PRC! However, I really wish I could post more kudos to /my/ country ... I also wish the democratic populace would lessen their support for flagship varsity teams (MS, IBM, Oracle, etc.) and think of their JV team which may yield a future Varsity player better than any in existence, given the opportunity to train.

    This is not to say let -everyone- have equal time. Oh, not at all! Just let the JV have *some more* time than currently given. Dedicate resources to ANALYZE them, spot the rapid achievers, and send them up to the next grade where they're given some more resources. Let the dedicated resources mitigate the leverage affluence provides to the few.

    Please note, there's the even simpler matter of Dominos selling pizzas at $3.50 to kill competition in my homecity, locals unable to sell below $6, only to price it up to $22 once colonizing the area. Pizza Hut moved in and the "added competition" has reduced the price to $20. Yay... duopolies..

    Side-rant: I wish schools would teach kids who flunk classes Civics instead of that class again.. I rather they graduate knowing how to be a member of a democracy than memorize the A B B C E D A answers to the final they're retaking for the 5th time. The only Civics anyone learns these days is from Rap which teaches the alternative to the status quo is drugs and promiscuity or from advertisement which teaches you should revitalize your hair by giving patron to status-quo brands X, Y and Z. I doubt drugs, promiscuity, or giving patron to brands will improve our Civics.

  58. Brazil in the 80s by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 2, Informative

    Soemthing similar happened with hardware and software in Brazil in the 80s.

    Eventually, the exception system was widely abused. Some companies used the protection to develop, some companies suffered of the lack of competition.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  59. Horrible idea. How are they going to enforce it? by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Looking at this on a purely analytical level, this is a bad idea. I mean, how do they plan to enforce it? the 70% figure... how do they measure it? Bytes? Can you cheat the system by writing a 3 line VB script that includes 100 megs of high-res .tiff files?

    Obviously, they can't go by lines of code with closed source systems.

    Ultimately this could backfire and cause the computer industry there stagnate as

    A) companies spend time writing applications that they don't need to write in order to maintain quotas. It would be better for Chinese coders to spend time writing code that actually needs to be written and

    B) it means people actually need to worry about software was written. That requires a lot more information and checking. Chinese OEMs, VARs, etc, are going to have to spend a lot of time (read: money) on figuring out where all this code comes from.

    Any time you add an "unnatural" regulation, you're creating a lot of expenses beyond what it would cost simply to comply by forcing people to figure out if they're complying.

    A "natural" regulation is something like "don't drive over 75mph" or "you must add iodine to salt if you produce it". It's obvious if you're driving over 75, and it's obvious if you're adding iodine to your salt. Pretty much any taxation would be an example of an "unnatural" regulation. It's natural to simply give the person all the money for the job they do, and it takes a lot of work to figure out how much you owe in taxes. And it creates a huge infrastructure (and cost) in collecting and enforcing those taxes.

    Of course, it's a gradient, but I'd say this requirement is pretty unnatural. How do they figure OSS with or without some Chinese contributors? What about code from US companies with outsourcing operations in China? It seems like a big mess to me.

    One easy way to do it would be to require that 70% of licensing fees go to Chinese companies. It's pretty obvious who you're paying, and it would certainly accelerate the adoption of OSS in the middle kingdom :)

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  60. I hope we do too. by seanmcelroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well if China can get away with this under the WTO's side, I hope some non pro-BigBusiness types can bring similar legislation up in the US. I for one, an unemployed IT worker at the moment, would welcome some kinds of protections on jobs for citizens who are highly motivated and skilled, but shut out of a labor force that has been moved overseas who don't have to pay for the cost of living I do.

    --
    Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. -Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
  61. it dosn't work that way by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its a favorite argument of the anti-outsourcing crowd to claim that all these companies are murdering themselves because their customers are the same as their employers, and if they outsource, the economy will go bad, and the company will lose all the money they save through outsourcing, and then some.

    But what they forget is that the economy of the country they are outsourcing to is going to grow, and they can sell their products there. There's also the fact that A) not all their customers are going to lose their jobs, and B) Not all the people who lose their jobs are their customers. In most cases, income lost due to poor consumer confidence won't be more then the amount of money saved by outsourcing.

    It should be obvious with the "jobless economy" that it's possible to have a good economy without a strong job market.

    Don't like it? then vote for Kerry in November. I'm willing to put up with trade inequity if it means getting rid of bush. A good job market after I graduate collage is just a tasty bonus.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  62. As assumed. by stimpleton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As I assumed when reading original story, and as subsequent posts bear out.
    WTO(World Trade Organisation) = USA.

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
  63. The Continents by MikeCapone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, no, the continents are North America and South America. There is no continent called America.

    Actually, that's not quite right either.

    See this as reference, there is more than one way to divide up the continents.

    Your way, with both North and South Americas, isn't listen there, but it's usually used when one talks of political/social divisions instead of geographical, IIRC.

  64. Two Sides of the Coin... by SerpentMage · · Score: 2, Informative

    The long term is not entirely how you think it really is. My father worked as Plant President of one of these "sweat shops" in the car industry. His hardest decision was whether or not to employ child labor.

    The problem of child labor and the labor conditions is that what we consider right and what the people of the country consider right are two entirely different things. That is the entire problem in a nutshell.

    In the case of child labor my father could have not employed children and that would solve nothing as the child would get work elsewhere. Or he could employ child labor with a minium age of say 12 and make sure that they do work which they can, get a fair wage like other workers and if possible get the entire family to work there. At least under those circumstances child labor is least disruptive for all those concerned.

    Now about cheap labor? Well with time cheap becomes more expensive and people's standard of living improves. I have seen it happen in many countries and it will continue to happen.

    HOWEVER, and here is what I think the root of the problem is. Many "non civilised" countries are becoming very bright and adept at doing what we took for granted (eg software, design, hardware). And that hurts because it shows Western Civilization better wake and start smelling the coffee!

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
  65. EU has done this in 1989 by Karl-Friedrich+Lenz · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is precedent for this in the EU television Directive of 1989.

    That Directive requires that European broadcasters reserve a majority of broadcast time for European works.

    If China is attacked under WTO rules, they can point to this unfortunate precedent for cultural protectionism.

  66. Would FBI use foreign closed source sofware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do you keep whining about this? US goverment would pass similar law in the same situation required.

    Note that this doesn't affect ALL software sold in China, only software used by goverment. It isn't suprising that when goverment buys stuff it tries to buy homegrow stuff.

  67. Re:bullshit argument by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Secondly, the idea that Americans can be stuck with the term USians doesn't make sense. After all, that term could just as easily apply to people from the United States of Mexico..

    Then why do Mexicans calls us "Estunadu Unidunese", literally "United Statsian"

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  68. Please, RTFA! by B2382F29 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The problem with most of the replies here is that they didn't read the article.

    requiring a minimum percentage of software purchased by the government be produced in China

    So, please, don't cry about companies not being able to choose the best tool. They can. It's more like the decision of the Munich local government. But it seems most of the US-based commenters lose their ability of independent thoughts when it comes to China.

    --
    Move Sig. For great justice.
  69. I am not going to read these comments by Britz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because I would get sick and angry. The American govt. and many American institutions always talk in favour of free trade and try other nations to come into the WTO. But while talking like the biggest supporters of globalisation abroad (maybe because of jobs they talk different at home) the US has never been very supportive of free trade.

    They only allow free trade when it serves their interest. This is not to say they are the only ones, because the EU also protects their markets wherever they can.

    Only Americans seem to think that the US allows free trade, which it doesn't. The only countries that swallowed this load of crap and opened their boarders to foreign products were developing and least developed nations.

    While the EU and the US heavily protect their markets (mainly through subsidies, 'cause they can afford to) in some areas China is now doing the same in other areas.

    What China is doing is bad, but they are just following up on the example set by the US.

  70. To Compile Open Source = Produce? by danwiz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A few tweaks in an Open-Source piece and a simple re-compile may be all that's needed to qualify as "Made In China".

  71. Does this mean they will crack down on piracy? by cameronk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I suspect that China will be entirely unable to enforce any requirements that its software be Chinese-made. The streets of most Chinese cities are covered with small business people selling various qualities of pirated media ranging from burnt CDs, VCDs and DVDs with Hollywood's latest to pre-release versions of most popular programs. This disregard for software property rights, unsurprisingly, is mirrored in other products, the most incredible of which is a pirated car. This piracy problem is so pervasive, that I would be surprised if much software purchased by the government was legitimate. I suspect that this announcement is more of a political ploy than an actual policy statement.

    --
    "...What is good for General Motors is good for America." -Charles Wilson, Secretary of Defense and fmr President of GM
  72. WTO needs to be disbanded by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While slightly OT, he did bring up the issue.

    The WTO is running around acting like a sovereign nation, dictating what the entire world must do, at the least common denominator.

    China is a independent nation, they shouldn't bend over due some 'committee'.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  73. True, but still completely unethical. by Max+Threshold · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That may be true, but it's still wrong. It is morally wrong to pay workers in another country ANY amount of money and then take the profits and products they produce elsewhere. Free trade agreements that screw domestic workers out of their jobs aren't evil for that reason alone -- they're evil because they steal from the economy of other countries. Products and profits belong in a worker's community, not in another country!