The rule is that a member state needs to transpose the whole EU directive into local law within a set timeframe. So, either the UK transposes the whole directive in UK law or they will be taken before the European Court of Justice by the European Commission for lack of, or imperfect, transposition. Their choice.
This sounds more like a desperate effort by the tories to prevent UKIP from making a too high score in the next EU parliament elections happening over the next few days.
The case starts in Italy (=state law) and is passed up to the European court in Brussels (=federal law). Do not let a Europhile read those terms but that is what it is equivalent to. It does not matter what is decided at local level, if Brussels decides otherwise the local law is trumped.
It is not passed up to an "European court". It is a Belgian court seated in Brussels which will have to rule according to Belgian law. Both The Italian and Belgian courts have some common ground, because the national laws are based on EU directives. EU directives are legal frameworks, but leave it up to national laws to decide on fines, for example. The European court of justice is seated in Luxembourg, and has no business in the present case.
I watch French TV and read French newspapers every day. I should know. The fact is that this is still under discussion, and then only for those drivers who have had several times a positive alcohol test. Further, there is a presidential election coming next spring. It is not the time to take such measures.
The issue of "product tying" is covered by article 85 of the Treaty on the European Union. However, its implementation is left to national governments. I inquired about the Belgian authorities position on that matter. Their reply (in French) states that a computer and OS form one "logical unit". Product tying prohibition covers only unrelated products (eg. a mortage and a life insurance).
The real fraud is selling an OS with no decent support outside the US. I have been using SCO for nearly 10 years in my job. Support from SCO subsidiaries/affiliates/resellers in continental Europe is certainly not worth the price we pay for .
Actually, on this side of the Atlantic, any PC manufacturer including an OS that the customer did not explicitly request could be taken to court. Article 85 of the Treaty on the European Union clearly states :
" 1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market: [...]
e.make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts."
Clearly, the customer who buys computer hardware should be able to freely select which software is installed on it, prior to the conclusion of the sale.
Slashdot Mirror
The rule is that a member state needs to transpose the whole EU directive into local law within a set timeframe. So, either the UK transposes the whole directive in UK law or they will be taken before the European Court of Justice by the European Commission for lack of, or imperfect, transposition. Their choice.
This sounds more like a desperate effort by the tories to prevent UKIP from making a too high score in the next EU parliament elections happening over the next few days.
The case starts in Italy (=state law) and is passed up to the European court in Brussels (=federal law). Do not let a Europhile read those terms but that is what it is equivalent to. It does not matter what is decided at local level, if Brussels decides otherwise the local law is trumped.
It is not passed up to an "European court". It is a Belgian court seated in Brussels which will have to rule according to Belgian law. Both The Italian and Belgian courts have some common ground, because the national laws are based on EU directives. EU directives are legal frameworks, but leave it up to national laws to decide on fines, for example.
The European court of justice is seated in Luxembourg, and has no business in the present case.
I watch French TV and read French newspapers every day. I should know. The fact is that this is still under discussion, and then only for those drivers who have had several times a positive alcohol test. Further, there is a presidential election coming next spring. It is not the time to take such measures.
In short, this news report is BS.
The issue of "product tying" is covered by article 85 of the Treaty on the European Union. However, its implementation is left to national governments. I inquired about the Belgian authorities position on that matter. Their reply (in French) states that a computer and OS form one "logical unit". Product tying prohibition covers only unrelated products (eg. a mortage and a life insurance).
> Same happens here, someone has an idea, actually ...
;-)
> re-inventing the wheel, so-to-say, and "sells"
> it as "brand new"
> I said it before - Linux sucks
So do you, Doug Michels
The real fraud is selling an OS with no decent support outside the US. I have been using SCO for nearly 10 years in my job. Support from SCO subsidiaries/affiliates/resellers in continental Europe is certainly not worth the price we pay for .
Actually, on this side of the Atlantic, any PC manufacturer including an OS that the customer did not explicitly request could be taken to court.
Article 85 of the Treaty on the European Union clearly states :
" 1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market:
[...]
e.make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts."
Clearly, the customer who buys computer hardware should be able to freely select which software is installed on it, prior to the conclusion of the sale.