Slashdot Mirror
Should Microsoft Be Excluded From EU Government Sales?
David Gerard writes "From Groklaw: Heidi Rühle, a Green Party MEP, has presented a question regarding whether or not Microsoft should be considered as having failed to fulfill the conditions to participate in public procurement procedures in Europe, as laid out in Article 93(b) and (c) of Financial Regulation — '(b) they have been convicted of an offense concerning their professional conduct by a judgment which has the force of res judicata; (c) they have been guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which the contracting authority can justify' — and the Commission anti-trust penalty just happens to fulfill both of those conditions." The EU Commission is required to respond within 6 weeks to such a question from a member of Parliament.
The real question here is, how much would the necessary bribe be, and who is corrupt enough in the EU Commission to push this through for MSFT?
Also, will the next big US war be in the UK?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
They're basically a criminal organisation according to EU law. I don't want to deal with an organisation that habitually breaks the law.
-- Cheers!
Wait, what are we talking about ?
...
I heard "Microsoft" and "exclude from"
Lets suppose MS is "banned" from selling to the EU. Expect
1) MS to sell it's products through "resellers".
2) Thousands of EU ministries and departments applying for waivers because the ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE Powerpoint for them to continue in their vital work.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
If Microsoft wasn't the best choice, why elminate them from the process?
Who is going to benifit the most from this, and what is the connection to this group?
Is there an eu msft that they are trying to shepard to the big time, or is it simple corruption?
Who wins with MS out of the picture?
I wonder who Heidi Rühle's campaign contributors are. (Follow the money.) If I were a Green party supporter, I'd be pissed: my leadership ought to be focused on (duh) the environment and human health, not which way software contracts are steered down in IT.
According to TFA, the ban would only last five years. That's an apt punishment for Microsoft- other vendors and possibly open source contributers gain five years of experience supporting an "exclusive" market. As well, Microsoft might actually learn how to play nicely with the rest of the software world, and to compete fairly and deal honestly- competing more with innovation and excellence, rather than trying to subvert and corrupt everything around them.
(/me crossing fingers)
Yes. They should be barred. For Ever.
Next Question.
(Otherwise we won't have a Star-Trek future. If MSFT keeps going that guy will never get off the face of the planet to meet the Vulcans)
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
How are they going to sue them in the future if they don't buy the stuff now? They can't tax their citizens anymore, who's going to fund the EU otherwise?
...or are most people blind to the fact that just about every corporation out there today (and yesterday) had participated in monopolistic behavior at some point. I can name off quite a bit, so do all these too need to be banned from doing business?? Lol, Let who is without Sin be the first to throw a Stone!
Unlike some they are questioning it the EU needs more MEP and less commissioners.
1. Candidates or tenderers shall be excluded from participation in a procurement procedure if:
(a) they are bankrupt or being wound up, are having their affairs administered by the courts, have entered into an arrangement with creditors, have suspended business activities, are the subject of proceedings concerning those matters, or are in any analogous situation arising from a similar procedure provided for in national legislation or regulations;
(b) they have been convicted of an offence concerning their professional conduct by a judgment which has the force of res judicata;
(c) they have been guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which the contracting authority can justify;
(d) they have not fulfilled obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions or the payment of taxes in accordance with the legal provisions of the country in which they are established or with those of the country of the contracting authority or those of the country where the contract is to be performed;
(e) they have been the subject of a judgment which has the force of res judicata for fraud, corruption, involvement in a criminal organisation or any other illegal activity detrimental to the Communities' financial interests;
(f) following another procurement procedure or grant award procedure financed by the Community budget, they have been declared to be in serious breach of contract for failure to comply with their contractual obligations.
2. Candidates or tenderers must certify that they are not in one of the situations listed in paragraph 1. But that is not a mandatory for all EU states, it is only mandatory for EU institutions and some member states. But even that is a pretty massive lump of the EU market and would sting like hell (the ban would be for 5 years). Not only that but imagine the resources turned onto moving from MS to Open source solutions. It could end MS as a major player in the EU institutions and that would knock on into the private sector.
Not to mention the added bonus of all that cash heading into European projects like KDE and linux instead of overseas.
Not sure what the American Gov would think of it though...
After all it's a political party, and they must have more on their agenda than environmental and health issues.
Not every green party member can be minister for environment and/or health.
Using GNU/Linux on older hardware is more than feasible.
Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.
Differently than in the U.S. most EU parlamentarians don't have an individual mandate, but are sent to the parliament by their party, which has to win the necessary seats in the parliament in the elections (so called list mandates).
So, Heidi Ruehle (if you don't have Umlauts, use 'ue' instead) doesn't have individual campaign contributors, more to the contrary, the rules of the Green Party demand a strict differentiation between "being in office" and "having a mandate".
I'm guessing she's probably trying to 'head them off at the pass', so the EU doesn't have to take Microsoft to court in the coming years....
We all know that Microsoft only plays by the rules, once they've been slapped on the wrist several times. Don't we? There's no chance of them ignoring a governing bodies order, right?
It's called forethought and knowledge of the law. Something that the Green Party MEP apparently has. Good on her.
I think the Green parties in Europe are a little more progressive than simply shouting like a bunch of green peace protesters that the environment is dying and such. No one gets elected on a single policy therefore they have learned to diversify and adopt policies in other areas, other than just the environment and health, that will possibly indirectly affect the environment, or at least allow the government more resources to help it. Plus, any political party that refuses to ignore any issues that aren't considered their central policy would be shooting themselves in the foot. They need to be aware of what the public wants, and more importantly what the laws are and their effects, especially if they want to be a real contender in parliament.
try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
I think you miss the point of the Green party. Their goals have always been about forcing governments and companies alike to recognise social justice, whether environmental, economic or otherwise. True their foundations were the environment, but that was one of the greatest social injustices of the time (and unfortunately it still is to a large extent).
they are not talking of banning ALL Microsoft products! They are talking about barring Microsoft from Future tenders. The current contracts will be fulfilled, just no new ones will be accepted. Which I think is a good thing. It would provide a slow change over from Closed source OS to an Open source OS. As for the "Green" Aspect: how much of the worlds carabon foot print is caused by Tech support running around trying to Fix Windows BSoD's? and general buggines?
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
So you think that politicians should only focus on the issues that were the main focus during their campaign and STFU regarding all other matters? Environmental issues are only a small part of EU politics and obviously every politician must have a stance in other issues as well. Not that I know precisely what issues she brought up in her campaign but it could be that she's like one member of parliament in my country (Finland) that is focusing intensively on IT matters but is a member of the Green Party simply because it's easier to get elected by being a member of a party rather than running independently (the election campaign is obviously easier that way and other party members will usually vote for your proposals in parliament).
The green party is never concerned about bringing high paying jobs to EU (new programming possibilities), to replace the lower jobs that will go to China. Keep in mind, that back in the early 90's, many DOS and apple based companies did not make the jump to windows. They are LONG gone because their competitors jumped. I am guessing that many American companies will fight moving to Linux and will see competitors spring up elsewhere.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If Microsoft does end up getting barred, it's going to show just how dependent the government's IT infrastructure is on proprietary Microsoft products. If they've already started making the switch to open and interoperable standards then there should not be any problem switching to other applications and platforms. If not they may actually need to violate their own restrictions at least long enough to get everything converted over.
The law should be the same for all.
Whether a small company or a megacorporation.
Should MSFT be barred, they would think twice before engaging again in illegal activities in the EU.
Which is the intent of the law.
Regardless of the merits of the proposed EU exclusion of Microsoft sales, I can guarantee that the moment the EU said that Microsoft was barred, the US Congress would immediately find a way to scuttle the proposed USAF purchase of tankers from Airbus, no matter how good they are.
It's an election year, and trade is an enormously demagogued subject in America right now, and, with Presidential candidates even, stupidly, throwing a good trade partnership with Canada up for review, there's no doubt that Europeans would fair well.
Paradoxically, the best hope for Europeans, Canadians, and transatlantic sanity, would in fact be a Republican victory. You Europeans may not like the tone of we Republicans, but it is under us that trillions of dollars in trade flows freely across North America and across the Atlantic between our two parts of the world. I mean, you might like Obama better, but when you start losing jobs in Ottawa, Paris, London and Berlin because of a foolish trade war, then, would you at least miss Bush for his stance on free trade?
This is my sig.
Environment? It's commonly accepted knowledge around here that later versions of MS operating systems require beefier hardware and upgrades than certain darling competitors. (I'm running modern versions of Ubuntu on computers my workplace was throwing out.)
That's increased power, more equipment that has to be recycled (lest it be landfilled), and more goverment money that could be spent on an environmental or human health program that instead goes into the pockets of an American Corporation.
To be honest, it's actually a rule that should be followed, not some stupid play for power and media attention. Those convicted of abusing their power aren't eligible for government contracts.
**Every** company in the contracts procurement game would probably run afoul of these and numerous other rules. In gov't contracting the rules are there to ensure contracts go to the largest contractors.
SmallContractor wins? Fine.
Step 1. BigContractor appeals the award on technicalities like this.
Step 2. While the appeal is on, BigContractor uses the appeal as a stick to extract some of the awarded value from the SmallContractor.
Step 3. Profit! When they get their vig, BigContractor drops appeal.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
What did OSS have to do with his flight, though?
Stagnation of Japan? Not really if you consider population factor.
Looks can be deceiving. I think excluding a source of solutions (as bad as we claim it is, regardless) could have a negative impact on the market and competitive. Of course Microsoft could be engaged in underhanded tactics (vis ISO standardization of Office Open XML..). I'd like to think that Microsoft's ubiquity may very well have raised the bar/baseline for many different software products.
Ubiquity of the (somewhat decent, I guess) baseline bundled Windows Mediaplayer results in raising the bar in competing media players (iTunes, Winamp?, etc.) Ubiquity of Internet Explorer results in stronger browser competition (Firefox, Opera, etc.). Microsoft makes noises like it's going to compete in other areas like web design products and you see companies like Adobe (attempt to) shore up their products to stay ahead of the baseline (Microsoft). I suppose you could throw office products in there as well, but Microsoft has that market so well cornered like that with its OS...and standards are an issue..
My point is this, Microsoft may be the devil, but the ubiquity of its (sometimes bad) products has resulted in a marketplace with competing products that are better than Microsoft products because they MUST be in order to compete. I'm not saying this is entirely due to Microsoft's presence, but it has definitely been a key factor in application progression over the past ~10-20 years.
For these reasons, I think removing Microsoft from this position could result in stagnation in some areas of application progression and improvement. Then again maybe it won't. Maybe other solutions are to the point that removing Microsoft from the picture completely won't affect much of anything. Regardless, I don't think that this is a decision that needs to be taken lightly in order to pander to constituents (politicians are amazing at pandering).
Everybody has umlauts on slashdot. They're called "html-entities" and are quite nifty. (They're actually very logical) For the u-umlaut, simply use ü
Of course you're right: at least the Germans have an alternate system. Try writing French without accents :-/
Yes, that's precisely why I said "future".
As for the "Green" Aspect: how much of the worlds carabon foot print is caused by Tech support running around trying to Fix Windows BSoD's? and general buggines?
Given the gut on the typical Unix administrator, I think you'd really have to cut back on support calls to reduce total energy use if they're waddling down the hall instead of a Windows admin. It's an interesting theory, though.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Those techs better stop eating burritos! ;-)
So, what is the government capable of doing? I mean honestly, what has the US government done that hasn't resulted in at least 25% of the funds budgeted for a department ending up as waste, fraud or corruption?
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Which of them is? Microsoft or the EU?
If I had to name anyone as being less accountable and more corrupt than MS it would probably be the EU. Not only that, reporters following on the trail of EU corruption have been known to be arrested before now.
Microsoft or the EU. It's a tough choice.
But let's put the EU on one side (if only those of us who labour under it's ambitions could!) and rephrase the question. Let's make it "government" in general not just the EU.
"Should Microsoft Be Excluded From Government Sales?"
I think any government anywhere in the world ought to think very hard about this one. I'm disgusted at what when on at ISO. However, I don't think I would ban Microsoft outright now. If I were making policy for any governmental body I would be saying: "We will only consider tenders from vendors whose software will save into open formats" -- and by open formats I would not mean OOXML. And if MS wanted to offer a version of Office that would save -- natively -- into ODF, I'd accept tenders from them, and have those tenders considered on their merits. However, if I found anyone from Microsoft had attempted to influence buying decisions in any underhand way -- say by offering sweeteners to government officials -- I'd ban them for that, and not for a short period either. It would be for years.
As you imply, the best hope for the American economy relative to the Euro economy is for republicans to lose power.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
What country officially entered a recession, recently? Of course, you're gonna take us with you down too....
Your complaint makes no sense. Elected officials should be enforcing *ALL* the rules, not just a few that helped get them elected.
No sig for you!!
/start offtopic rant
/end offtopic rant
While I don't label myself as Republican or Democrat (mainly because I share views that exist in both the extreme left and the extreme right), I do NOT want McCain getting into the white house. Too many ties to current politicians, to many years of "experience" to get corrupted. Reduced education budget (which is a big concern for me since my girlfriend is a teacher), excitement about continuing to pump billions into a country most of us will never even see while our own country is falling apart...basically having many of the same opinions and plans as what we have had for the past 8 years.
We do NOT need to give Bush another term under a different name. Likewise, we don't need someone like Hillary Clinton occupying the white house...she shares many of the same views as Obama, but she is dangerous...I think she would do us more harm then good, if for nothing else other than because of her pride and sense of entitlement.
We need Obama in the White House. It kind of pains me to say that, because I disagree with most of his opinions on the big issues, but he is the right one.
1. He has the LEAST amount of experience, meaning he would be more willing to take risks and try things others wouldn't. He would also likely be more willing to take advice from others.
2. When he speaks you feel as if he is speaking directly to you. Some of the stuff he says may be cliche, but being able to connect to the citizens of the country that way is vital.
3. He is a complete opposite of what we have had.. I don't know about you, but I am EXTREMELY pissed off at what has happened to my country recently. In the past 20 years or so, we have gone from being the worlds strongest, richest, and one of the most respected nations out there to being the annoying friend everyone else in the world wants to go away...but we have a sweet car and buy free drinks for everyone, so we are allowed to stick around.
Screw that. Like I said, I don't agree with many of his policies and opinions, but I still think Obama is the right one for the job because he lacks experience, can connect to the common middle-classer, and is a far step away from who we have had recently.
Living With a Nerd
Consider this. If Microsoft had not been such a bad boy, we would not be in this mess, now would we?
Have you looked at the current USD/EUR rate? I don't think that politicians can hurt sales into the US from the EU worse than this exchange rate.
yacc
Microsoft has repeatedly shown that they really don't give a damn about rules. They are for everybody except Microsoft. Laws... The same thing.
Regarding Ethics, Morals, etc. Those are for wimps. These are not in the Microsoft vocabulary.
Microsoft expects to violate every norm of civilized society in order to maintain their market position. The world be damned.
It appears that only the EU has the balls to stand up to Microsoft and try and make them behave. Will it work? I doubt it but, it is making Microsoft stand up and notice. I see that MS has just released well over 50,000 pages of secret programming info to the EU so maybe (very small maybe) something good may come of this.
I really don't understand why any company needs to corrupt society as much as Microsoft does to maintain their position. Wouldn't it be cheaper to do provide a superior product honestly?
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
Weren't Microsoft supposedly responsible for the recent trouble IBM had?
Good on big blue if that's the case, Microsoft can't stand the taste of their own medicine.
Even here in the U.S., Microsoft is a criminally convicted monopolist. G.W.Bush would probably "pardon" them if that were the case, but still.
who is for microsoft, is for the terrorists.
But I'd love to see them try! That said, I can't see productivity levels dropping far from current EU government levels...
> Of course you're right: at least the Germans have an alternate system. Try writing French without accents :-/
;-) ).
No problem, just write in all-uppercase (at least last time I checked you were not supposed to put any accents then - obviously that makes it only formally correct not very readable but that might be enough for some
They're not suggesting that they can't carry on using existing software (ie. migrating away from MS), merely that they can't buy NEW software from MS.
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
This is the same Bush who imposed crippling tariffs on European steel firms to protect American firms? And who suddenly saw the importance of free trade once the EU imposed sanctions on the products of several swing states just before the election?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
And you'd be wrong.... I thought this too, up until I talked about it with a real Frenchman. This rule had been introduced in the times of the typewriter where it wasn't possible to make uppercase accentuated letters. The académie française changed that later because nobody uses typewriters anymore and computers can actually do it. You're now supposed to use accents, even in the uppercase form.
Forgot the reference, but it's obviously in French
Leave the big ones, like Great Britain, for the US to buy.
Have gnu, will travel.
Its not as though anyone is suggesting that current installations would need to be migrated. Rather, that no new contracts are accepted. This means that the EU will be following the practice of American Government (and business, for that matter) in ignoring Vista. They would probably do this anyway. Now it serves a dual purpose.
The fact is that MS is the King of vendor lock-in. Agreed that migrating from MS is harder than migrating to MS. However, this fact alone might be reason to discontinue increasing reliance on their platform.
Are you *not* aware of the global changes that are taking place that are eroding the U.S.'s trade relevance in the world? While the U.S. still holds more than 50% of Saudi oil interests, China, India and much of the EU holds almost 50% and they are growing. This means U.S. influence on that market alone is decreasing. But it's going like that all over, not just oil.
In fact, this particular move could likely be just another symptom of the much wider situation of the U.S.'s trade influence being eroded.
The U.S. is being voted out as relevant to the global economy. That's a very bad thing for the people of the U.S. These efforts are in response to the crap games that U.S. leadership has been pulling all these years. No one can just "drop" the U.S. any more than anyone can just "drop" Microsoft. But when taken in smaller steps such as these, making an offensive player less relevant or even irrelevant seems more possible.
Well a company that uses forced labour is far more profitable and can therefore undercut the competition. However, you will NOT find governments employing child labour sweatshops.
So they DO exclude organisations for moral reasons (at least as far as morality=obeying the laws).
And that is irrespective of whether they would be the #1 choice.
Well if less money is spent on Microsoft licenses, more can be spent on the environment and health ;)
Ze's l'Academie Francaise est tres tricky, no?
Ah, the EU at it protectionist best - most evidence that the US should pull out of the WTO and negotiate seperate deals.
What part of "instant" isn't mutually exclusive with "all future"? Seems like the contradiction is inherent. Can anyone "instantly" deal with "all future" anything? Can you instantly deal with all future MS rollouts? Did you instantly deal with all future rollouts when Win2k was introduced? So you already dealt with WinXP, Vista, and Win7 at that time? Didn't think so...
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
I think the EU would be setting a good example by imposing the ban. Microsoft is NOT the only company that breaks laws and other companies like IBM have been punished for their actions. If they made an exception for Microsoft it would be unjust to other companies which have been held accountable for their actions. And besides Microsoft software is not exactly mission critical with Linux running Apache, MySQL, etc. I imagine the security benefits would be quite significant as well.
Sounds like you are describing MS and the USA there, bubba, more than the EU. The EU is currently in a state of ascendancy.
It this proposition passes, other big companies will think twice before doing "bad things". Those "other companies" could be any kind of company not just software companies. This will hopefully be good for everyone in the long run.
Face it folks, this charade is nothing more than a formalized way to eliminate an American company from the European market.
The US already has a large trade deficit with Europe, what more do they want???
Don't be fooled.
Has anyone noticed that the EU seems to go after Microsoft, but ignores Apple when they do things just as bad?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If Heidi had been a member of a German conservative party and had been asking whether or not it was right for the EU to use Open Source Software, then I would indeed wonder who her campaign contributers were, seeing as these days it's mainly Microsoft that would stand to gain from such a measure.
However, seeing as she is actually a member of a more left wing party and her proposal only stands to disadvantage the software market's 800-pound gorilla, I seriously doubt that she's receiving any extraordinary monetary compensation for her efforts in this case.
So, you seem understand the principle of how campaign contributions can influence politicians, but have succeeded in applying it in exactly the wrong way; kind of like putting the left shoe on the right foot.
The U.S. is being voted out as relevant to the global economy
Hey, how are those new Airbus gas guzzlers selling? Hmmm, do you have -any- orders yet?
Just checking.
There's plenty of Europeans that want to sell to the USA and if your company doesn't want to do it, there are ten companies from around the world willing to takes it place.
As you crow about how Europe does not need the USA, do not forget, that there is not a single that Europe does that America actually needs. Every technology and cultural item Europe can export to the USA is more than matched by technology and culture that Asia can export.
If you ask any American kid who makes the hot car, they will say Honda, Toyota, GM (Camaro), Ford (Mustang), and they won't even think about Europe. If you ask any American kid who has the best food, they will probably say the Mexico or China. If you ask any American kid who has the best movies, it will probably be America, but you'll also hear a lot about Japanese Anime. Who has the best singing, you might hear about Africa....
Do you notice a pattern here?
Americans are a world wide people, and have been choosing the best from around the world and even when it is at their own perceived expense. Europeans are about Europe first, but Americans live in a world economy, and you Europeans are so stuck on yourselves, you haven't even noticed that everyone thinks all of your stuff sucks. At least we Americans know it about ours, and that is why the USA will succeed while Europe will ultimately fail.
This is my sig.
"Where you have entire IT departments .. doing 90% of their work .. on Microsoft products"
.. :)
.. :)
Don't you meant when they buy a 'computer' and then spend the same again on software licenses to get it to do anything
I'm was contracted in a multi-national Employment Agency, it's XP on the desktop, Internet Explorer/msOffice/Exchange and Citrix into a SQL database. That and a stack of shared folders into the main office. You also have to drill down ten folders to find anything. Browsing is slow as molasses as they have Websense/AntiVirus installed to protect us from the Internet. To be quite honest, if we changed over, no-one would even notice.
"ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE Powerpoint"
Where's that quote from, you're kidding, who said that
davecb5620@gmail.com
I wonder who Heidi RÃf¼hle's campaign contributors are.
Probably someone that lives in the EU...unlike Bill Gates, et.al.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
"or is it simple corruption?"
Jesus CHRIST you've been brainwashed to the "Business! money! AMURICA!" way of thinking.
Plainly put, it's the opposite of corruption. This MP is pointing out that continuing to allow a convicted and unreformed monopolist access to the EU government software tendering procedure is itself in contravention of the rules.
He's attempting to get the rules observed. They are in place for a reason and are not solely aimed at US companies or MS. This is a good thing.
You forget that the USA population is growing, while Europe's population is in decline.
USA - 2050 - 518,903,000
EUR - 2050 - 450,000,000
By the end of the century, the world will have three major population centers - India, China, and the USA, and the rest will be also rans.
What this means though, is that Europeans are going to be struggling through the next century to pay for an aweful lot of old people.
This is my sig.
The part of "instant" where you bar all future purchases, effective today, as opposed to effective on some date in the future.
Honestly, if I'd known I was going to land a -1 while the "carabon foot print" guy gets a +5 for "correcting" me, I would have been less circumspect about how utterly moronic you morons would have to be to believe this could happen.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
We need Obama in the White House. It kind of pains me to say that, because I disagree with most of his opinions on the big issues, but he is the right one.
If Obama does what he says on trade, the result will be an economic disaster far larger than anything that happened under Bush, guaranteed. Free trade works, closed trade doesn't, and Obama is on course to try and lead America back to the same proven failures that caused the Great Depression. No one around the world is going to care if Obama says the right things about the UN or doesn't say bad things about Europe, when he tells all of those people that he is unplugging their livelihoods in trade with the USA. In the cold calculus of world economics, the world would rather not have the USA invade Iraq or torture people, but, can live with it. But, if the USA f--- with the world's money, that would be unforgivable.
This is my sig.
This is the same Bush who imposed crippling tariffs on European steel firms to protect American firms?
Yeah, that was considered a mistake even in Republican circles, and the thing is, it wasn't the cutoff of American exports to Europe that drove Bush to change his mind - it was that it turned out that there were more consumers of imported steel in the state PA (where steel is an issue), then there were producers, so he went with what benefited the most workers, and that was free trade.
But that's a limited sanction and its a far, far cry from withdrawing from NAFTA, or saying no to free trade with Latin America, or not expanding trade with Europe, all of which Bush is pretty consistently on the opposite of.
This is my sig.
NAFTA is an agreement between Mexico, the US, and Canada though, correct? How do you get "the world's money" from three countries?
Living With a Nerd
I've posted on /. for a few years and have generally recieved pretty good mods. This is probably a case where I got what I deserved because of the tone of my post. Mea culpa. But I believe that more core point - however clumsily made - holds true. Bureaucrats provide valuable services. But managing the way markets work is not one of them. Setting up arbitrary rules to prevent any company from doing business is not going to work in the long run.
First of all, if you feel this is the case dont bother posting, you wont find objective reasoning here, only Slashdopes who tow the same old tired line despite the hypocrisy
Hey dickwads, why is it so fucking necessary to have a manufactuer of a product open their the book to their trade secrets or face banishment when no other manufacs are forced to do the same?
Does Airbus make aircraft that are OSS compliant with all aspects of its products designed to be universal and replaceable from any off the shelf parts, of course not.
Why should any organization be forced, via Govt and a corrupt one at that to do this?
Why, because its an American Company and its the EU's way to punish the US for electing Bush, Iraq etc. Fuck You, good luck with your little game.
Dont care about your concern with "vendor lock in" or any other stupid geek derived wisdom of which you build your logic on you dopes.
If your going to force MS to bend over, why not everyone. What dopey utopian delusion do you all live in?
But no, this is Slashdot, those annoying little "dweeks" who think they can "change the world" when they cant even change their underwear.
Fuck You and your anti-americanism
P.S. I dont really care about MS, I care about fair commerce and I know politics when I see it
NAFTA is an agreement between Mexico, the US, and Canada though, correct? How do you get "the world's money" from three countries?
Canada and Mexico are countries bordering the USA and thus good relations with both are obviously vital. If Obama is willing to jeopardize trade agreements with those nations, particularly Canada (which, incidentally, landed on the Normandy Beaches along with the USA at D-Day), then it says that he is willing to trash trade agreements anywhere on the planet. Given that these trade agreements are, in fact, agreements that the USA pushed, one could only marvel at how the world will respond with a sudden American about face on trade. Really, what it boils down to is, that Obama would have the USA basically say that it only honors trade agreements when it benefits it, and that can only engender deep mistrust and hostility, far beyond anything Bush's antics could achieve.
This is my sig.
Don't worry that's not a problem, they just got all this cash from fining Microsoft so they'll use that to make any switches..
Sorry about that... I just put down my thoughts on the issue I was not "Correcting" you just trying to clear up the fact that there would be a semi-forced transition from MS products to OSS products. But I don't think it would not be as disastrous as you may think. Anyhoo i'm just bluffing my way through these comments :D:D (Does it show??)
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
Priority should be given to European software houses.
Americans would do the same with European software.
The Bush Administration claims to be the defender of capitalism, and the Lula government in Brazil is routinely described as "communist" or "radical leftist" in the US media, and yet Milton Friedman explicitly stated in 2003 or early 2004 that Lula's position on the FTAA was right and Bush's postion on the FTAA was wrong. Stick that in your Adam Smith and smoke it!
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
They've been punished enough already? Hello, did you miss the whole "shove down
iso's throat" the MS OOXML so called standard? Did you miss the whole stacking of NB memberships
and the shenanigans with the chair persons? The whole stacking of iso with
additional countries that only vote when Microsoft wiggles their fingers?
All this *after* being fined by the EU?
Get real! They need a whoopin' of epic proportions?
If so, then sure stop buying msft. Frankly, I am not imagine why anybody would you msft, unless they needed some specific application.
But, let's face it folks, a *lot* of apps only run on windows.
Really. I'm one of those people who do public procurement for a city. One of the documents we ask for is a official document that proves the company hasn't been convicted. Any candidates who can't provide such a document or have been convicted, can and most likely will be excluded from the procedure.
I think you missed a few dollar signs, you ridiculous psycho.