The American case wound up requiring that Microsoft share APIs and generally make it less of a pain in the ass to provide a competing, compatible browser in Windows, but allowed it to continue to bundle IE. The EU case dealt with the issue of whether including IE at all constituted an anticompetitive action against other browsers. My point being that the EU is stricter about what constitutes anticompetitive promotion of one's own products in the software space.
I'd be genuinely alarmed that Cameron's leadership has left us so feckless that a tiny, technologically backwards nation on the other side of the globe was an existential threat. How bad do you have to be at your job that North Korea is near the top of the threats list?
A corporation acts with the will of its bosses but with the resources of the entire organisation. By contrast all of your other choices (excepting despotic regimes) act with both the will and the resources of their constituents.
Yep, there's a reason why directed energy weapon research in the US was linked to the SDI: you have to be outside of an atmosphere before they're worthwhile.
It has nothing to do with size. AT&T and Microsoft were engaged in specific, targetted actions against their competitors, while Goldman Sachs and Fannie Mae were not. You should have taken the fact that you had to introduce arbitrary-looking exceptions to your hypothesis as a warning that because your hypothesis was wrong.
Actually the whole idea is to keep capitalism working as it is intended, as a self-organising system of commerce and employment, while buttressing against pathological states that such a system can fall into. It's a way to - in principle - get the best of both worlds.
You talk about fair markets and your example is AT&T, a company that had a government-enforced monopoly? You must be a real threat on the debate circuit.
If you had to completely obliterate all competition before you could be prosecuted for anticompetitive action, it would completely defeat the purpose of the legislation.
Various online services - advertisers, travel sites, online stores - object to the fact that Google prioritises itself and its partners over organic search results on the results page. They argue that it disadvantages anyone who's not paying to be one of Google's partners.
It's not about whether Google dominates search (it's literally not part of the case). It's about whether they use that position to obtain (for themselves or their paying clients) leadership in other areas in which they do not have the best product. For example, Google Shopping is no longer an organic Search function, you need to pay to be featured there. Yet Google Shopping results appear ahead of organic search results, meaning people who pay Google get a leg up.
Competition law isn't about whether you dominate the market, it's about whether you use your dominant position to materially disadvantage competitors.
Computer hardware is tending to be more and more integrated and consolidated, not just within each console generation (the first PS2 eventually consolidated the GPU and CPU in one component) but between generations (the PS4 launches with a single component for GPU and CPU). Does this help you hack by giving you a smaller device, or does it hinder you by giving you less flexibility?
Eppur si muove: here we are, discussing them, yet again. Giving one name to voice various kinds of social unease, whether it's with Scientology, the NSA or power companies, seems to have been rather successful from a publicity perspective.
Your "less spending, small government, no interference" talking points don't work when the encumbent right wing party's pushing through regulation-of-the-press bills, threatening to cut the BBC's funding unless they get back in line, and adding billions of pounds worth of extra administrative layers to the health system. The UK's Conservative party believes in treading lightly where business is concerned, but they're not exactly shy about expanding their footprint when it comes to social control.
It was a celebration of the capture and execution of anti-government forces, with some vaguely anti-Catholic undertones, not a remembrance of their efforts. It has since metamorphosed into a politically neutral excuse to set off some fireworks and eat hamburgers on soggy November nights, and I'm all for using it as an ironic de-facto civil liberties day, but let's not be mistaken about its historical origins.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't a tautology contest.
The American case wound up requiring that Microsoft share APIs and generally make it less of a pain in the ass to provide a competing, compatible browser in Windows, but allowed it to continue to bundle IE. The EU case dealt with the issue of whether including IE at all constituted an anticompetitive action against other browsers. My point being that the EU is stricter about what constitutes anticompetitive promotion of one's own products in the software space.
Dell settled for $100m for taking those kickbacks from Intel.
Nope, the integration issues that prompted the US case were already dealt with: the browser ballot issue came down to MS' decision to preinstall IE.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/02/microsofts-eu-browser-ballot-approved-arrives-march-1/
WoW gold is ultimately money in Blizzard's bank accounts, which are indeed taxed.
I'd be genuinely alarmed that Cameron's leadership has left us so feckless that a tiny, technologically backwards nation on the other side of the globe was an existential threat. How bad do you have to be at your job that North Korea is near the top of the threats list?
A corporation acts with the will of its bosses but with the resources of the entire organisation. By contrast all of your other choices (excepting despotic regimes) act with both the will and the resources of their constituents.
Yep, there's a reason why directed energy weapon research in the US was linked to the SDI: you have to be outside of an atmosphere before they're worthwhile.
It has nothing to do with size. AT&T and Microsoft were engaged in specific, targetted actions against their competitors, while Goldman Sachs and Fannie Mae were not. You should have taken the fact that you had to introduce arbitrary-looking exceptions to your hypothesis as a warning that because your hypothesis was wrong.
Actually, yes, Intel and PC manufacturers were subject to a massive antitrust action for doing that.
You're thinking of the American antitrust case against Microsoft.
Actually the whole idea is to keep capitalism working as it is intended, as a self-organising system of commerce and employment, while buttressing against pathological states that such a system can fall into. It's a way to - in principle - get the best of both worlds.
You talk about fair markets and your example is AT&T, a company that had a government-enforced monopoly? You must be a real threat on the debate circuit.
If you had to completely obliterate all competition before you could be prosecuted for anticompetitive action, it would completely defeat the purpose of the legislation.
Various online services - advertisers, travel sites, online stores - object to the fact that Google prioritises itself and its partners over organic search results on the results page. They argue that it disadvantages anyone who's not paying to be one of Google's partners.
It's not about whether Google dominates search (it's literally not part of the case). It's about whether they use that position to obtain (for themselves or their paying clients) leadership in other areas in which they do not have the best product. For example, Google Shopping is no longer an organic Search function, you need to pay to be featured there. Yet Google Shopping results appear ahead of organic search results, meaning people who pay Google get a leg up.
Competition law isn't about whether you dominate the market, it's about whether you use your dominant position to materially disadvantage competitors.
Precisely. The Tories don't care about reducing the government, they just want to make sure that someone's making a quick buck off it.
That would be JYA's point, surely. New Labour is just rebranded conservatism; Lib Dem is, at this point, just New Labour.
Computer hardware is tending to be more and more integrated and consolidated, not just within each console generation (the first PS2 eventually consolidated the GPU and CPU in one component) but between generations (the PS4 launches with a single component for GPU and CPU). Does this help you hack by giving you a smaller device, or does it hinder you by giving you less flexibility?
Eppur si muove: here we are, discussing them, yet again. Giving one name to voice various kinds of social unease, whether it's with Scientology, the NSA or power companies, seems to have been rather successful from a publicity perspective.
Your "less spending, small government, no interference" talking points don't work when the encumbent right wing party's pushing through regulation-of-the-press bills, threatening to cut the BBC's funding unless they get back in line, and adding billions of pounds worth of extra administrative layers to the health system. The UK's Conservative party believes in treading lightly where business is concerned, but they're not exactly shy about expanding their footprint when it comes to social control.
Yes, obscure technical information has no place on a site that claims to provide "news for nerds".
That doesn't change the underlying legal and regulatory barrier, though.
It was a celebration of the capture and execution of anti-government forces, with some vaguely anti-Catholic undertones, not a remembrance of their efforts. It has since metamorphosed into a politically neutral excuse to set off some fireworks and eat hamburgers on soggy November nights, and I'm all for using it as an ironic de-facto civil liberties day, but let's not be mistaken about its historical origins.
Glad to see there's somebody with a sense of history. ;)