Do you really think China produces cheaper goods because they skimp on software licenses?
Chinese wages are only a fraction of American ones. Forcing every Chinese company to use licensed software won't make a difference - they'll still produce much more cheaply than Americans.
No, we can't. Software companies are exempt from being sued under the new law. (And open source companies are exempt from suing anyone.) Read the Groklaw article.
The cost of software is negligible compared to the cost of labour. Chinese companies won't lose jobs to American ones just because they're forced to pay for their copies of Excel. If they cost was that big for them, they could just switch to free software like OpenOffice.
You're assuming the Hong Kong camcorder is cheaper because they pirated their copy of Excel, when in reality the reason is the much, much lower price of labour.
This law will create a huge amount of insecurity for all American firms which may be held liable for what a foreign company has done without their knowledge. It's practically impossible to ensure that no pirated software is being used. The licensing rules are so complicated, a large company can't even be sure they're not breaking the license agreement somewhere within their own company.
Because it's very hard for them to sue, for example, a Chinese company. Among other things, they're required by law to use a Chinese legal firm.
By making the American importer liable, Microsoft off-loads the responsibility to pursue software violatons to every American company that imports goods or services.
I have a hunch that this law is less about recovering loss from piracy, though, and more about getting a larger stick to threaten other American companies with.
The products being pirated most world-wide are Microsoft products, and it's Microsoft who keeps track of the licenses and usage. An American company that wants to sue their competitors for "unfair competition" under this law, will likely have to ask Microsoft for evidence. Being friends with Microsoft will be more important than ever. This law will give Microsoft a golden bargaining chip every time they want a favour from someone.
The law can also be used to squash Microsoft's own competition. For example, a manufacturer of Android phones uses a large number of parts from different suppliers in Asia. It's very likely that at least some of them uses at least some pirated software somewhere in their organisation. Microsoft can then release the evidence they have to their Windows Mobile Phone manufacturers, who proceed to sue the Android manufacturers for unfair competition.
The Windows Mobile Phone manufacturers are also very likely to use suppliers who use pirated software, but it's Microsoft's choice if they wish to to investigate those suppliers. If they choose not to, there's no evidence to hand over to the Android manufacturers when they want to counter-sue.
You don't have to track anyone else's licenses. All you need to do is write into your contract with the supplier that they are not to use pirated software, and if they do and you get sued for it, they are on the hook for the damages.
Then why can't the software company sue the company which uses the unlicensed software directly?
The difficulty of pursuing lawsuits in, for example, China, is the reason Microsoft needs this law in the first place. It relieves them of the responsibility to police their own software, and places the burden (and cost) on every American company that imports foreign goods or services.
I'm in Sweden, working at a Danish corporation, using an Indian call-center as the first line of IT support. I've always found the Indian staff to be polite and thorough, even if it's a little hard to understand the dialect. They've taken a long time to solve the problem, but they've done it right (and remotely).
I doubt this law will have any effect on the competitiveness of foreign suppliers. The cost of software licenses are negligible compared to the huge differences in labour costs between, for example, the USA and China, and if this law forces foreign suppliers to stop pirating (which I doubt), they can just switch to free software, like OpenOffice, and stay as competitive.
It will, however, affect the competitiveness of American companies. It will cause them a lot of extra costs by forcing them to do software audits of all their suppliers, and even then, they can't be sure some software license isn't breached somewhere. As soon as someone imports something, they'll open themselves up to potential lawsuits, creating an enormous amount of insecurity for business.
How do you figure you are going to sue your supplier in China? The reason Microsoft needs this law in the first place, is because they can't get at the Chinese supplier legally. So instead they let you bear the cost.
It's interesting how you shift the debate from software license compliance to child slave labour.
I think it makes sense to require large corporations to check their suppliers for things like child labour, because it's 1) abhorable, 2) uncommon, and 3) relatively easy to check.
The new law, however, doesn't make any sense, because copying software without paying is 1) merely a question of economy, 2) extremely common, and 3) impossible to check in practice.
We need to level the playing field so that US producers can compete. Otherwise we are just exporting our child labor, pollution and low wages.
And the best way to do this is to put pressure on the government in the country where the production is taking place, which has to be done on a national level, for example, through boycotts and import tariffs.
Laying over the responsibility on American companies will create an enormous amount of confusion and extra costs. Instead of having clear rules to follow ("it's not allowed to import these goods from these countries"), each American company will need to check each foreign company they buy from for license compliance, over and over again. You need to multiply the number of American companies by the number of foreign contractors to get an idea of how many checks need to be made.
That said, it's a fair point that software piracy could give overseas companies an advantage over US-based ones.
I'd also like to add that any advantage gained from piracy is very small. China produces cheaper goods because they have much cheaper labour, not because of lower software costs. If software were a large part of their expenses, they could just switch to free software for most of their needs.
That's why they made sure to exempt software companies from being sued under the new law.
Yep, you read it right. The law is designed so Microsoft itself can't be sued under it. It also specifically exempts open source, so some of Microsoft's largest competitors, like RedHat, can't sue anyone under it.
I don't think they would take it so lightly. China and the USA have trade agreements in place, regulating what goods they can block or put import tariffs on. If one country blocks or puts tariffs on goods, the other country usually responds by doing the same thing on other goods.
Outlawing purchases from certain companies in the other country is effectively a form of block, which tips the trade balance between the two countries. I don't think China cares if it's the Federal state or a local state behind the block.
You seem to be suggesting that MS should go out and sue companies that violate GPL licences. What has that got to do with them? Do you go across town and sue people for actions they commit against people you don't even know and have nothing to do with you?
I think the grandparent is referring to the exemption for open source in the new law. The law is specifically designed so that 1) software companies (like Microsoft) can't be sued under it, and 2) open source software companies (like RedHat, Microsoft largest competitor on the server side) can't sue anyone under it.
This law is not about protecting American interests, it's about protecting the interests of one American corporation at the expense of all other Americans.
The practical side effects are massive, though - it creates a huge uncertainty for any companies which contract foreign goods or services. Checking if their contractor uses pirated software will be practically impossible for American companies, and they won't know when or how evidence of software infringement will surface. A small risk of being sued for millions of dollars is much worse than a small, fixed cost.
The only reason that property taxes work is that it is very difficult to transfer your house and land out of the county/state/country.
This. A rich person can hide most of his assets from the state, but he/she probably wants to live in a nice house and drive a nice car. By taxing these, the state makes it harder for a tax evader to get away.
But it's practically impossible to be sure that none of your contractors is using some unlicensed software somewhere in their organisation. Even large companies who do everything they can to stay legal, usually fail to be 100% license compliant within their own organisation. This law will effectively give Microsoft the power to decide who's "competing unfairly" on the American market, since they can arbitrarily decide to give software amnesty to their friends' contractors.
Contractors in low-wage countries are unlikely to start buying Microsoft licenses in either case (they'll either switch to free software or keep pirating), so it doesn't cost Microsoft much to give amnesty.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really think China produces cheaper goods because they skimp on software licenses?
Chinese wages are only a fraction of American ones. Forcing every Chinese company to use licensed software won't make a difference - they'll still produce much more cheaply than Americans.
No, we can't. Software companies are exempt from being sued under the new law. (And open source companies are exempt from suing anyone.) Read the Groklaw article.
The cost of software is negligible compared to the cost of labour. Chinese companies won't lose jobs to American ones just because they're forced to pay for their copies of Excel. If they cost was that big for them, they could just switch to free software like OpenOffice.
You're assuming the Hong Kong camcorder is cheaper because they pirated their copy of Excel, when in reality the reason is the much, much lower price of labour.
This law will create a huge amount of insecurity for all American firms which may be held liable for what a foreign company has done without their knowledge. It's practically impossible to ensure that no pirated software is being used. The licensing rules are so complicated, a large company can't even be sure they're not breaking the license agreement somewhere within their own company.
Because it's very hard for them to sue, for example, a Chinese company. Among other things, they're required by law to use a Chinese legal firm.
By making the American importer liable, Microsoft off-loads the responsibility to pursue software violatons to every American company that imports goods or services.
I have a hunch that this law is less about recovering loss from piracy, though, and more about getting a larger stick to threaten other American companies with.
The products being pirated most world-wide are Microsoft products, and it's Microsoft who keeps track of the licenses and usage. An American company that wants to sue their competitors for "unfair competition" under this law, will likely have to ask Microsoft for evidence. Being friends with Microsoft will be more important than ever. This law will give Microsoft a golden bargaining chip every time they want a favour from someone.
The law can also be used to squash Microsoft's own competition. For example, a manufacturer of Android phones uses a large number of parts from different suppliers in Asia. It's very likely that at least some of them uses at least some pirated software somewhere in their organisation. Microsoft can then release the evidence they have to their Windows Mobile Phone manufacturers, who proceed to sue the Android manufacturers for unfair competition.
The Windows Mobile Phone manufacturers are also very likely to use suppliers who use pirated software, but it's Microsoft's choice if they wish to to investigate those suppliers. If they choose not to, there's no evidence to hand over to the Android manufacturers when they want to counter-sue.
Sorry, the new law specifically exempts software companies from being liable.
It also specifically exempts anyone to sue when the software being infringed upon is open source.
Yes, the law is that specifically tailored to benefit one particular company. Read the Groklaw article.
You don't have to track anyone else's licenses. All you need to do is write into your contract with the supplier that they are not to use pirated software, and if they do and you get sued for it, they are on the hook for the damages.
Then why can't the software company sue the company which uses the unlicensed software directly?
The difficulty of pursuing lawsuits in, for example, China, is the reason Microsoft needs this law in the first place. It relieves them of the responsibility to police their own software, and places the burden (and cost) on every American company that imports foreign goods or services.
I'm in Sweden, working at a Danish corporation, using an Indian call-center as the first line of IT support. I've always found the Indian staff to be polite and thorough, even if it's a little hard to understand the dialect. They've taken a long time to solve the problem, but they've done it right (and remotely).
I doubt this law will have any effect on the competitiveness of foreign suppliers. The cost of software licenses are negligible compared to the huge differences in labour costs between, for example, the USA and China, and if this law forces foreign suppliers to stop pirating (which I doubt), they can just switch to free software, like OpenOffice, and stay as competitive.
It will, however, affect the competitiveness of American companies. It will cause them a lot of extra costs by forcing them to do software audits of all their suppliers, and even then, they can't be sure some software license isn't breached somewhere. As soon as someone imports something, they'll open themselves up to potential lawsuits, creating an enormous amount of insecurity for business.
This law is wrong on so many levels.
How do you figure you are going to sue your supplier in China? The reason Microsoft needs this law in the first place, is because they can't get at the Chinese supplier legally. So instead they let you bear the cost.
It's interesting how you shift the debate from software license compliance to child slave labour.
I think it makes sense to require large corporations to check their suppliers for things like child labour, because it's 1) abhorable, 2) uncommon, and 3) relatively easy to check.
The new law, however, doesn't make any sense, because copying software without paying is 1) merely a question of economy, 2) extremely common, and 3) impossible to check in practice.
We need to level the playing field so that US producers can compete. Otherwise we are just exporting our child labor, pollution and low wages.
And the best way to do this is to put pressure on the government in the country where the production is taking place, which has to be done on a national level, for example, through boycotts and import tariffs.
Laying over the responsibility on American companies will create an enormous amount of confusion and extra costs. Instead of having clear rules to follow ("it's not allowed to import these goods from these countries"), each American company will need to check each foreign company they buy from for license compliance, over and over again. You need to multiply the number of American companies by the number of foreign contractors to get an idea of how many checks need to be made.
That said, it's a fair point that software piracy could give overseas companies an advantage over US-based ones.
I'd also like to add that any advantage gained from piracy is very small. China produces cheaper goods because they have much cheaper labour, not because of lower software costs. If software were a large part of their expenses, they could just switch to free software for most of their needs.
I notice that you don't actually deny the accusation.
That's why they made sure to exempt software companies from being sued under the new law.
Yep, you read it right. The law is designed so Microsoft itself can't be sued under it. It also specifically exempts open source, so some of Microsoft's largest competitors, like RedHat, can't sue anyone under it.
I don't think they would take it so lightly. China and the USA have trade agreements in place, regulating what goods they can block or put import tariffs on. If one country blocks or puts tariffs on goods, the other country usually responds by doing the same thing on other goods.
Outlawing purchases from certain companies in the other country is effectively a form of block, which tips the trade balance between the two countries. I don't think China cares if it's the Federal state or a local state behind the block.
You seem to be suggesting that MS should go out and sue companies that violate GPL licences. What has that got to do with them? Do you go across town and sue people for actions they commit against people you don't even know and have nothing to do with you?
I think the grandparent is referring to the exemption for open source in the new law. The law is specifically designed so that 1) software companies (like Microsoft) can't be sued under it, and 2) open source software companies (like RedHat, Microsoft largest competitor on the server side) can't sue anyone under it.
This law is not about protecting American interests, it's about protecting the interests of one American corporation at the expense of all other Americans.
The practical side effects are massive, though - it creates a huge uncertainty for any companies which contract foreign goods or services. Checking if their contractor uses pirated software will be practically impossible for American companies, and they won't know when or how evidence of software infringement will surface. A small risk of being sued for millions of dollars is much worse than a small, fixed cost.
Sorry, the law contains an exemption for software companies. They can't be sued under this law.
Ma Gates din't raise no fools.
It HAS passed. In two states.
The only reason that property taxes work is that it is very difficult to transfer your house and land out of the county/state/country.
This. A rich person can hide most of his assets from the state, but he/she probably wants to live in a nice house and drive a nice car. By taxing these, the state makes it harder for a tax evader to get away.
"This isn't a car. It's a song!"
Don't do that! People would think it's okay to download it!
Unfortunately true, but there are also non-profit organisations with honest, hard-working people and just enough money to go around.
Sometimes a large company wants to go after a small company which has an innovation which may pose a threat to their business model.
But it's practically impossible to be sure that none of your contractors is using some unlicensed software somewhere in their organisation. Even large companies who do everything they can to stay legal, usually fail to be 100% license compliant within their own organisation. This law will effectively give Microsoft the power to decide who's "competing unfairly" on the American market, since they can arbitrarily decide to give software amnesty to their friends' contractors.
Contractors in low-wage countries are unlikely to start buying Microsoft licenses in either case (they'll either switch to free software or keep pirating), so it doesn't cost Microsoft much to give amnesty.