Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the is-software-a-service-or-a-product? dept.
Element5 writes "In an interesting story featured on Netscape's Netcenter Tech News, Microsoft is apparently trying to keep the WTO from imposing a duty fee for international online transactions."
microsoft, actually RIGHT about something?!
by
apocalypse_now
·
· Score: 3
Probably not. But a continuation of the temporary ban could actually be beneficial for developing countries (who, remember, the WTO is supposed to benefit the most) by allowing them more unrestricted access to items - items with heavy duties tend not to make their way into countries with poor distribution networks or a small demand. However, in the end, the ban should be lifted, and the items should be taxed in the same manner as all international trades are. -- Matt Singerman
--
Matt Singerman
http://matt.vegan.net/
Finally, something good coming out of Redmond...
by
awkwardone
·
· Score: 3
It's about time that Microsoft came up with a good proposal for the World Trade Organisation (WTO) summit in Seattle this week.
Regulating international commerce via the Internet would be a rather tricky endeavour anyways. Sometimes, a company is based in one nation while that company's Web host is in another country. Attempting to impose import/export duties on online transactions would pose a great difficulty because the transaction takes place in a different country from the company's home country, and it must be shipped to yet *another* country (whew!). Microsoft's idea is a very good one, and I hope that the delegates at the summit will be open to it despite the legal troubles Microsoft is dealing with now.
So, Microsoft (the company) isn't all bad (excepting the fact that it's an abusive monopoly), but I still hate Windoze...
For more information about the World Trade Organisation (WTO) summit, visit oneworld.net for up-to-date news and views.
Knee-jerk reactions and more...
by
MostlyHarmless
·
· Score: 3
The immediate reaction to any e-commerce tax is "heck no!". Of course we don't want governmental interference with this great electronic world. However, the same people who believe this (usually) believe that eventually technology will progress to the point where the whole world spends their entire time wired directly into the Internet in a utopia of communication. I, myself, subscribe to this view.
But stop and think for a moment. If in a thousand years we will spend our life wired up, then surely in a hundred we will do all our shopping online! But at this point, the government won't be able to collect sales tax because of our silly "moratorium" on Internet taxes. So why now do we shout "keep the Internet tax-free" when in a hundred years the government will be mired in debt due to our shortsightedness?
-- Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
Do you people have any idea what this means?
by
evilad
·
· Score: 5
I am in favour of a global economy, but a moratorium on tariffs means one more nail in the coffin of governmental control over the hypercorps. Microsoft isn't asking that governments work towards eliminating unreasonable barriers to international trade. They are asking that elected governments be categorically forced to allow unrestricted trade. They are lobbying for an overruling of the democratic principle in this one specific case that happens to strongly favour -- you got it, the hypercorps.
This is precisely what makes it possible for third-world wage-slavery to exist. This is what makes it possible for unnamed chemical companies to dump as much shit as they want into the water, so long as they do it in countries too poor to say no to the business. Odd how those same countries also tend to be too poor to buy their products, too.
Here is an example of why tariffs can be good. Canada can't impose strict environmental protection laws, because to do so would be to force some companies to produce in Mexico, which cannot afford strong environment laws for exactly the same reason. Canada loses the business, Mexico's environment gets polluted. Canada is then prohibited from imposing an "environmental tariff" on those same goods. That tariff would keep the company in Canada, locally producing goods for local consumption. If the locals think the pollution is too bad to justify the product, then they get to legislate it out of existence. That is what government is for.
An electronic transaction is no different than a phone call. If there is no good reason for import restrictions then let free market do as it will! But when there is a good reason, then somebody should make it clear that I am doing the world a disservice by purchasing that product.
A tariff will do this perfectly well, without prohibiting a damned thing.
This has been an unsponsored and uneducated rant. Flame away.
Taxes? from where to where?
by
DaveHowe
·
· Score: 5
I can't see how you could possibly keep track - for example, say bigsoftwarecorp.com sells a copy of superware V3 (tm) to an aol user at aol.com. ALL the following could be true:
bigsoftwarecorp.com is in the.com domain
bigsoftwarecorp.com's host is in New Zealand
bigsoftwarecorp.com has a download server in england that the software actually comes from (download.bigsoftware.com)
bigsoftwarecorp.com is actually an english company
john@aol.com is in the.com domain
john@aol.com registered in japan
john@aol.com is actually in england, and will be downloading and using the software there. so, which of the countries are entitled to duty? we are downloading from england to england, but the data is going to AOL's US server enroute... --
Disclaimer: These are just things to think about. The whole matter confuses me thoroughly, so I could be 100% wrong.
We discussed the WTO in my political science class last week. If I got the jist of it straight, the WTO is basically supposed to give underdeveloped countries the chance to develope.
Suppose that you've got a few big industrial nations that import raw materials from smaller, poorer countries. They take those materials and turn them into much more expensive goods. This way, they get lots of profit. The poor countries are stuck selling their cheap raw materials and importing expensive manufactured goods (created with the same materials they sold.) Thus they don't make enough money to start industrializing themselves, and it becomes a cycle.
The WTO is supposed to let the poor countries impose high tariffs on the manufactured goods from foreign nations. This way demand will be created for domestic industry to produce cheaper goods. With demand comes capital, and with capital comes industry. With industry comes being able to compete in the global marketplace.
But this is dealing with raw materials, like metals and food, etc. Does the same logic hold for non-material-based goods like software? After all, there is no "raw material" to create software, other than a compiler and good mind. I suppose this is what Microsoft, and many other software companies think. They think that the WTO does not need to impose tariffs to help the smaller countries, because there is nothing stopping the smaller countries from buying a few computers and creating there own software.. it's a lot cheaper and easier than building a factory to start an industry.
This is a reasonable argument, but it can also be said that countries underdeveloped in the electronics industry resign themselves to importing superior products from their more technological neighbors. Some could argue that by imposing (at least temporary) tariffs on software imports it would spur domestic interest in software development. As soon as the domestic software industry in these smaller countries gets on it's feet, the tariffs can gradually decrease as they become more competitive in the global software marketplace. So maybe tariffs wouldn't be that bad.
I'm not taking a stand either way. I'm Just thinking about it.
We need less taxes and less stupid waste, not more taxes.
As Bob Dole, one-time Presidential candidate and now poster boy for Erectile Dysfunction and Viagra once said, "It's time for the government to pinch pennies instead of the American citizens!"
Our money goes towards some of the dumbest things. I heard something about government-sponsored studies to see what causes male sexual arousal or something like that... kind of a segue with the whole Bob Dole thing;o)
oneworld.net - for all the latest WTO summit news.
Does any of you know the power the WTO wields? They have this awesome power to pretty much shut down any economy they want to, and override any government they want to.
One little country decided to not import some goods that would be bad for a couple of reasons, and the WTO stepped right around it because it "hurt" their business.
The WTO shut down a law in New Jersey for the same reasons. The law conflicted with what the WTO wanted to do, and so it got rid of the law.
It has happened to the EU as well, concerning the decision not to import beef from the US. The WTO stepped in, and now Europe is importing beef from the US.
The reason for those governments giving in is simple. If they didn't, the WTO and all the supporting corporations, and possibly countries could, and probably would, boycott the "offending" nation, sending that nation into total economic ruin, and that isn't cool.
This means that the WTO takes what little voice you do have in your government, and throws it all out the window, and it could be on the whim of some large corporation, such as Microsoft. So be wary of what the WTO can do.
MS is leading you into a trap!
by
cpt+kangarooski
·
· Score: 5
This is _important_. MS is once again on the WRONG SIDE here. While what they propose seems to be a good idea to many of us here (who are fed up with governmental interference with the net), things would be much, much worse if MS succeeds.
The WTO has an abominable amount of power. Far too much, IMHO. Though it is not their original purpose, they basically exist now to overturn the sovereignty of the various (many) nations which are members in favor of international corporations.
If the WTO rules that US antitrust law, for instance, somehow harmed international trade and was in violation of the treaty, the US would have _no option_ but to revoke the law and submit to the WTO.
The WTO is a jillion times worse than our governments, because at least we have some hope of changing the way that our governments work. We have no such hope wrt the WTO; they serve the best intrests of real people in name but not in deed.
Sure it sucks to have trade regulations on the net. But did you support embargoes as protests against apartheid? Human rights violations? Environmental, health and safety concerns? Not only could a moritorium prevent cessession of trade with nations which had such practices or harmful effects on the planet or even yourself, but they have already done so in the past.
If you don't like the behavior of your government, fine. But for God's sake, wouldn't you rather have YOUR government listen to you and not to some faceless corporation-serving committee.
So let's not only encourage the WTO to take no action whatsoever, but encourage it's dissolution or at least an extreme change to a body which is founded on not just money but ethics as well.
-- --
This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably not. But a continuation of the temporary ban could actually be beneficial for developing countries (who, remember, the WTO is supposed to benefit the most) by allowing them more unrestricted access to items - items with heavy duties tend not to make their way into countries with poor distribution networks or a small demand. However, in the end, the ban should be lifted, and the items should be taxed in the same manner as all international trades are.
--
Matt Singerman
Matt Singerman
http://matt.vegan.net/
It's about time that Microsoft came up with a good proposal for the World Trade Organisation (WTO) summit in Seattle this week.
Regulating international commerce via the Internet would be a rather tricky endeavour anyways. Sometimes, a company is based in one nation while that company's Web host is in another country. Attempting to impose import/export duties on online transactions would pose a great difficulty because the transaction takes place in a different country from the company's home country, and it must be shipped to yet *another* country (whew!). Microsoft's idea is a very good one, and I hope that the delegates at the summit will be open to it despite the legal troubles Microsoft is dealing with now.
So, Microsoft (the company) isn't all bad (excepting the fact that it's an abusive monopoly), but I still hate Windoze...
For more information about the World Trade Organisation (WTO) summit, visit oneworld.net for up-to-date news and views.
awkwardone
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -
The immediate reaction to any e-commerce tax is "heck no!". Of course we don't want governmental interference with this great electronic world. However, the same people who believe this (usually) believe that eventually technology will progress to the point where the whole world spends their entire time wired directly into the Internet in a utopia of communication. I, myself, subscribe to this view.
But stop and think for a moment. If in a thousand years we will spend our life wired up, then surely in a hundred we will do all our shopping online! But at this point, the government won't be able to collect sales tax because of our silly "moratorium" on Internet taxes. So why now do we shout "keep the Internet tax-free" when in a hundred years the government will be mired in debt due to our shortsightedness?
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
I am in favour of a global economy, but a moratorium on tariffs means one more nail in the coffin of governmental control over the hypercorps. Microsoft isn't asking that governments work towards eliminating unreasonable barriers to international trade. They are asking that elected governments be categorically forced to allow unrestricted trade. They are lobbying for an overruling of the democratic principle in this one specific case that happens to strongly favour -- you got it, the hypercorps.
This is precisely what makes it possible for third-world wage-slavery to exist. This is what makes it possible for unnamed chemical companies to dump as much shit as they want into the water, so long as they do it in countries too poor to say no to the business. Odd how those same countries also tend to be too poor to buy their products, too.
Here is an example of why tariffs can be good. Canada can't impose strict environmental protection laws, because to do so would be to force some companies to produce in Mexico, which cannot afford strong environment laws for exactly the same reason. Canada loses the business, Mexico's environment gets polluted. Canada is then prohibited from imposing an "environmental tariff" on those same goods. That tariff would keep the company in Canada, locally producing goods for local consumption. If the locals think the pollution is too bad to justify the product, then they get to legislate it out of existence. That is what government is for.
An electronic transaction is no different than a phone call. If there is no good reason for import restrictions then let free market do as it will! But when there is a good reason, then somebody should make it clear that I am doing the world a disservice by purchasing that product.
A tariff will do this perfectly well, without prohibiting a damned thing.
This has been an unsponsored and uneducated rant. Flame away.
--
-=DaveHowe=-
Disclaimer: These are just things to think about. The whole matter confuses me thoroughly, so I could be 100% wrong.
We discussed the WTO in my political science class last week. If I got the jist of it straight, the WTO is basically supposed to give underdeveloped countries the chance to develope.
Suppose that you've got a few big industrial nations that import raw materials from smaller, poorer countries. They take those materials and turn them into much more expensive goods. This way, they get lots of profit. The poor countries are stuck selling their cheap raw materials and importing expensive manufactured goods (created with the same materials they sold.) Thus they don't make enough money to start industrializing themselves, and it becomes a cycle.
The WTO is supposed to let the poor countries impose high tariffs on the manufactured goods from foreign nations. This way demand will be created for domestic industry to produce cheaper goods. With demand comes capital, and with capital comes industry. With industry comes being able to compete in the global marketplace.
But this is dealing with raw materials, like metals and food, etc. Does the same logic hold for non-material-based goods like software? After all, there is no "raw material" to create software, other than a compiler and good mind. I suppose this is what Microsoft, and many other software companies think. They think that the WTO does not need to impose tariffs to help the smaller countries, because there is nothing stopping the smaller countries from buying a few computers and creating there own software.. it's a lot cheaper and easier than building a factory to start an industry.
This is a reasonable argument, but it can also be said that countries underdeveloped in the electronics industry resign themselves to importing superior products from their more technological neighbors. Some could argue that by imposing (at least temporary) tariffs on software imports it would spur domestic interest in software development. As soon as the domestic software industry in these smaller countries gets on it's feet, the tariffs can gradually decrease as they become more competitive in the global software marketplace. So maybe tariffs wouldn't be that bad.
I'm not taking a stand either way. I'm Just thinking about it.
As Bob Dole, one-time Presidential candidate and now poster boy for Erectile Dysfunction and Viagra once said, "It's time for the government to pinch pennies instead of the American citizens!"
Our money goes towards some of the dumbest things. I heard something about government-sponsored studies to see what causes male sexual arousal or something like that... kind of a segue with the whole Bob Dole thing ;o)
oneworld.net - for all the latest WTO summit news.
awkwardone
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -
Does any of you know the power the WTO wields? They have this awesome power to pretty much shut down any economy they want to, and override any government they want to.
One little country decided to not import some goods that would be bad for a couple of reasons, and the WTO stepped right around it because it "hurt" their business.
The WTO shut down a law in New Jersey for the same reasons. The law conflicted with what the WTO wanted to do, and so it got rid of the law.
It has happened to the EU as well, concerning the decision not to import beef from the US. The WTO stepped in, and now Europe is importing beef from the US.
The reason for those governments giving in is simple. If they didn't, the WTO and all the supporting corporations, and possibly countries could, and probably would, boycott the "offending" nation, sending that nation into total economic ruin, and that isn't cool.
This means that the WTO takes what little voice you do have in your government, and throws it all out the window, and it could be on the whim of some large corporation, such as Microsoft. So be wary of what the WTO can do.
This is _important_. MS is once again on the WRONG SIDE here. While what they propose seems to be a good idea to many of us here (who are fed up with governmental interference with the net), things would be much, much worse if MS succeeds.
The WTO has an abominable amount of power. Far too much, IMHO. Though it is not their original purpose, they basically exist now to overturn the sovereignty of the various (many) nations which are members in favor of international corporations.
If the WTO rules that US antitrust law, for instance, somehow harmed international trade and was in violation of the treaty, the US would have _no option_ but to revoke the law and submit to the WTO.
The WTO is a jillion times worse than our governments, because at least we have some hope of changing the way that our governments work. We have no such hope wrt the WTO; they serve the best intrests of real people in name but not in deed.
Sure it sucks to have trade regulations on the net. But did you support embargoes as protests against apartheid? Human rights violations? Environmental, health and safety concerns? Not only could a moritorium prevent cessession of trade with nations which had such practices or harmful effects on the planet or even yourself, but they have already done so in the past.
If you don't like the behavior of your government, fine. But for God's sake, wouldn't you rather have YOUR government listen to you and not to some faceless corporation-serving committee.
So let's not only encourage the WTO to take no action whatsoever, but encourage it's dissolution or at least an extreme change to a body which is founded on not just money but ethics as well.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.