Slashdot Mirror
China Launches Antitrust Probe Vs. Microsoft
snydeq writes "China has launched an investigation into whether Microsoft unfairly dominates its software market, according to a state media report. A working committee of China's State Intellectual Property Office is investigating whether Microsoft engaged in discriminatory pricing and will also look at Microsoft's practice of bundling other software programs within its Windows operating system, according to the report. The probe is part of a greater sweep of operating systems and other software developed by multinational companies that cost much more in China than in the U.S. 'On the one hand, global software firms, taking advantage of their monopoly position, set unreasonably high prices for genuine software while on the other hand, they criticise Chinese for poor copyright awareness. This is abnormal,' a source said."
... car makers bundling radios, gps, air bags and brakes within vehicles. More at 11.
This is lost.
... $20 copies. To maximize their profits. So they have to manage perceptions. Folks are already balking at their quality/prices.
If they show that they can sell Windows for a profit at $20 a copy in China, it's the beginning of the end for charging $300 a copy elsewhere. The fact is that an extra copy at $1 is profitable for them.
So they want to sell all the $300 copies, then all the $200 copies, then all the
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Agreed 100%, and it is an absolute farce that they were awarded the Summer Olympic Games. Tens of thousands of people were displaced in order to build facilities and erase "unsightly" slums.
I'm interested in seeing what the Tibetans get up to during the Games though - my guess is shenanigans will ensue, with the predictably heavy-handed military response. These Games could (hopefully will) end up being the biggest clusterfuck in the history of the Olympics.
You see, that's where I get really foggy on this whole MS anti-trust issue. I'm pretty sure it's considered "unfair practice" to sell your product to one area (State?) for less or more than another at base cost. (making one market pay more to cover the cost of underselling your product in another market ... ahem $3 per license Windows in Africa(?)) Shipping and taxes would influence the end price. This is what confuses me about how Microsoft does business and how it's still considered legal. The cost of Windows should only be influenced by taxes since digital transfers really cost nothing. (I guess you could add in the shipping cost of CDs though...)
Isn't it global anti-trust to sell a product for less in one country than you do another? Is there such a thing? Who would bring down the hammer on such things?
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Local corruption is blatant but you negotiate with the corrupt party directly openly discussing the quids for the pro quos. Higher you go, complex it gets. Often you deal with intermediaries, and you are not sure if they really represent the official they claim to represent, what is given and what is expected gets lost in translation.
And of course, I don't have any evidence. That is par for the course in slashdot. Announcements like this is a typical way to authenticate the official bribe taker. The bribee would have already contacted the other side, hinted that an announcement is coming to show that he in the loop. The comminique would include subtle pointers to show that this is not a low level typist who is trying to make a fast buck. Like a escape clause or way out suggested by the potential briber. Now that the bribee has been authenticated the negotiations can proceed. Usually if it has escalated to press release level, it means the stakes have been raised and they are playing hard ball.
And I don't have any evidence. That is par for the course in slashdot.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
That sounds vaguely familiar of the "Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog" law and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" in Atlas Shrugged. You can't do something that will hurt the little guy! Of course the little guy can do that thing that hurts the big guy. After all, they never even got a chance! It isn't fair!
"Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"
U.S
* Banker makes loan to whoever they damn well please.
* Loan doesn't get re-paid
* Other bank takes over banks assets and screws depositors over 100k.
China:
* Banker makes loan to favored state owned company or other entity.
* Loan doesn't get re-paid.
* Government recapitalizes bank.
U.S
* Banker makes a bunch of questionable bad loans
* Retires with golden parachute package
China
* Banker makes a bunch of questionable bad loans
* Banker is executed by government
U.S
* Bankers en masse make loans to fund housing/stock bubble
* Government runs to see how they can loosen regulations to help the banks make exponentially more money and profit
* Bubble bursts, banks are bailed out by government discount window loans, TAF, TSLF,etc
China
* Bankers en masse make loans to fund housing/stock bubble
* About 1 year after it gets going government raises real estate transfer tax or stock trading taxes and bank reserve requirements to purpousefully punish the speculators.
* Bankers who make ridiculous corrupt loans are executed. Some banks who didn't get swept up in the bubble keep operating as usual
Long story short. In China, unlike in America, the politicians actually have far more control of the economic activity in their country than the bankers do.
It's because the the IOC like the secrecy of the Chinese Government better than any democracy. The worst games for the IOC were Lillehammer where everything was in the open - including the bribes paid to IOC officials to host the games.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
I think you have understood my point perfectly, thou you didn't attribute it to me. Claiming "the solution" is as simple as the parent of my post did is naive at best. It doesn't matter if you are arguing in favor of anti trust laws or against them, pretending that the issue is merely a matter of "if you don't like it, don't take part in it" is naive at best. This applies just as well to customers at the mercy of a supplier as it applies to companies that are at the mercy of the local laws. My point was simply that if you are going to expect customers to grin and bear it without complaining, then companies should expect the same treatment from the government. As any sane person would be able to rapidly deduce, this is not really a practical way to do things, and thus the "if you don't like it don't use it" argument is nonsense. There is no reason why customers should "just not use it" if they are unhappy with a product, the same way there is no reason why a company should "just not do business there" if they dislike the local laws. The important thing is to realize that you either accept both of these claims or neither. What Microsoft is doing is claiming they should be allowed to use whatever shady business practices they want, while simultaneously arguing that governments have some moral obligation to not interfere. They seem to have this idea that they are entitled to stronger legal protections than the customers that buy their software.
I have to wonder when China sues Boeing for trade secrets. Lot's of short-sighted profiteering. Boeing will have to buy parts soon from China and compete with aerospace technology that they helped develop.
I'm not a Microsoft fan -- but shouldn't China at least pretend to pay for all the copies they stole BEFORE they complain that Microsoft is a monopoly?
It's like someone who stole my car calling me up and complaining that I didn't pay the tag license on it so they'd like some money for they penalty they had to pay at Motor Vehicles.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
That should stand on all software boxes.
.... you can of course go out, buy it (even if you know it sucks) then complain and sue ....
If they bundle whatever with windows, it is their business, and the whole EU suing is a ridicule.
Am I a MS fanboy? Not. I do not use Windows (I have one machine with it that I turn on once a month or less for testing software).
Up to2 weeks ago, the only MS product I used was an xbox 360, which naturally died, and was my last ever MS product I purchased. (I love my new PS3 though, so thanks MS to open my eyes).
Yes, for servers it is Linux and BSD, and MAC on desktop.
So No. I do not like, or protect MS, but they should price their product as they like, and they should bundle it with whatever they want.
How comes no one says : hey you have MSN messenger in xbox, and so you are damaging google and AOL( AIM), and ICQ.......
Everyone should have the right to say to a customer : "I hate you, and now your price is 100, even though your neighbour's price is 40."
It is like I sue BMW for having an mp3 player bundled with my car, which is built in, and is a bit problematic to remove.
Stupid world, stupid people. Then again, if you do not like it, just buy something else.
Oh... yes I switched to MAC after Vista came out. One week of usage, and I saw that this was the end of me and MS.
just my 2c
National Socialism
... was, in power, as socialistic as the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is democratic. The original principles of the NSDAP could perhaps fit your description, but after Hitler took over the party any socialist trends were suppressed (you've heard of the Night of the Long Knives?). To quote my Grandmother (my translation) "THEY, stole our revolution." 'They' being BigBusiness(TM) and the Hitler (as opposed to Roehm) faction of the NSDAP.
So when the government controls business, i.e. "nationalizes" or "socializes" it, that is fascism. At least in the original definition.
This did not happen either in Fascist Italy, nor in Nazi Germany. In Italy Mussolini was basically a prisoner of large Industrial and Agrarian Interests. In Germany, of course, Hitler wasn't so easily manipulated, however Big Busisness was perhaps the only institution of German society that wasn't subjected to Gleichsschaltung.
As far as an original definition, it depends on whose original definition. The Italian Fascists originally definied themselves as a pro-war (ie. vs Germany in WWI) breakaway of the Italian Socialist Party amalgamated with left-Nationalist and Futurist elements. But they were swiftly coopted by two forces. 1) Funding from pro-war Industrialists, 2) the rapid and massive expansion of a membership base which joined the party for the sole reason of fighting the Socialsts. When Mussolini wanted to call off the war with the PSI he was even forced for a time to resign from the Party. As it became clear the Facsists were to be a puppet for business interests many of the orginal founders (including the Futurist Marinetti, the original instigator of violent attacks on Socialist party members) left. Mussolini, seduced by power, stayed on, the ulimate puppet dictator.
Because of this "fascism" is often used by educated people to indicate a kind of government which is seen to govern in the interest of (esp. large) business, but lacking the politcal freedoms usually associated with a market based economy (ie. the "liberal-democratic state" 'Liberal' here referring to free-markets, 'democratic' to representative government). Slightly less educated people focus purely on the authoritarian nature and draw up bogus lists like "10 indicators of a fascist state" and the like. Importantly there was also the 'Totalitarianism' Cold-War propaganda meme, which tried to paint fascism as the flip side of the coin to communism.
For myself (being more than merely 'educated' :P ) I prefer a stricter historical definition, which sees 'fascism' as an inter-bellum political phenomenon spanning a limited number of European countries and which arose as a response to the perceived threat of imminent socialist takeover. I disagree with the characterisation of China as 'fascist' on this account.
I'm afraid your naive "original definition" of fascism, cannot be sustained by anyone with even a passing familiarity with the historical realities involved.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke