Because it's still Windows 8 on both structures hence they are using their OS monopoly to leverage an advantage by forbidding dual boot, if Microsoft had designed a new OS for ARM and ARM only then what you say might be true but since they're using Windows 8(and thus you can assume that everything that will run on Windows 8 will do so regardless of x86/ARM) then they are leveraging their advantage to restrict competitors.
The problem as I see it is that they are not offering something they're not already required to do because even if the original agreement was time limited if Microsoft is still in a dominant market position when the time limit runs out then they will have to extend it if they want to stay in compliance. So as I see it MS is not really making a generous restitution offer, they are offering up something they are/will already be required to do.
The relatively speedy response is somewhat in their favor but not all that much because it's kinda expected that you fix a breach as fast as humanly possible if you accidentally breach the deal, otherwise it will be seen as intentional, which you definitely do not want.
Neither the calculator, text editor or sound recorder is particularly advanced in comparison with commercially available products in their respective fields
So? That's not the issue.
Yes it is part of the issue, it isn't actively competing with the other available products because the products is not even remotely comparable in capability.
As for Media Players, MS was fined for that at one point, as to why nothing has happened since then I don't know, possibly because no competitors are complaining. As for mail there has been no complaints about it as far as I know.
It's competitors complaining that their own offerings aren't enticing users away from the standard bundled offering, there's nothing stopping users from switching if there is a compelling alternative. Competitors should be out-innovating the defacto standard so that users actively want to use them.
No, competitors is complaining because bundling something with Windows gives MS an unfair advantage, their product just has to be good enough that users does not actively want to replace it, as long as that requirement is met then those customers will not be looking for a replacement and therefore is much more unlikely to notice a competitor no matter how much better they are.
Neither the calculator, text editor or sound recorder is particularly advanced in comparison with commercially available products in their respective fields, if MS bundled word with windows there probably would be a response to prevent it.
As for Media Players, MS was fined for that at one point, as to why nothing has happened since then I don't know, possibly because no competitors are complaining. As for mail there has been no complaints about it as far as I know.
Had there not been antitrust legislation then Microsoft could just have prevented users from installing a different browser same as Apple is doing on iOS, so yes government regulation and intervention is necessary.
The market has tolerated the Windows OS monopoly for far longer than "it" tolerated the MS browser monopoly so your assumption is flawed
Why not? They're doing the exact same think MS did in the 90's. In fact, not even MS had the balls to lock out other browsers the way Apple has with iOS.
Because Apple does not have a large enough market share to be considered to have a dominant market position and and therefore are not forbidden from using their market position to leverage an advantage in a different market.
The Commission is not a court(technically it is not them handing out fines either, it's the European High Court of Justice, the Commission sends the case to the court which then hands down a ruling which the Commission enforces), they can take independent action regardless of whether they receive complaints or not. But yes you are correct that there has to be an actual abuse before they can act, until then they can only tell MS "doing that would be in breach with current EU legislation, if you proceed then we are going to pummel you"
And on ARM, Windows has such a small market share, it can't be considered monopolistic (since MS is nowhere near being able to exploit a monopoly position).
Yes it can, MS has a de facto monopoly on the desktop(win 8), they are using that as leverage in another market(by blocking dual boot), I don't know about US antitrust legislation but that is explicitly forbidden according to EU antitrust legislation.
Why should the EU Commission take them up on that offer?
The Commission should fine them the 7 billion and keep fining them until they're cease to be in violation of EU antitrust legislation.
The browser choice is not voluntary, it was implemented to stay in compliance with that legislation, Microsoft can choose to either keep the the browser choice screen or not ship a browser with windows at all(including browsers hidden in the OS)
Asking the Commission to not fine you and in return you will honor the original agreement is likely to get you smacked much harder than they would have smacked you if you had just quietly taken the fine and amended your ways, the Commission does not like to be ignored.
They also encouraged people to pay churchmen to say X number of prayers for dead loved ones or even themselves after they died or in preparation of their death under the general principle that the more prayers people sent your way the better off you would be in heaven. Sounds familiar?
Indeed, it might not be trivial but it can be done, hopefully they are a bit daunted by the underwhelming 6% support in Parliament since even if they have another go at it there is no guarantee that Parliament will accept the new revised version, hopefully the court strike it dead as well because that should really put a wrench in their machinery.
Personally I fear that this was just a smokescreen and they put it up there just to fail and take up media space while they're busy passing the real treaty through the backdoor, maybe I am just paranoid or a cynic but I feel like this victory came too easy.
The Court does have a limited say because it is supposed to investigate if ACTA is compatible with the framework treaties of the European Union, if they are Parliament can vote on it and either pass or reject ACTA which has already happened. However if the court finds that ACTA is incompatible with said framework treaties then it cannot be passed regardless of Parliament vote unless said framework treaties are changed as well. If the court finds that ACTA is ok then the Commission can remove whatever parts they think led to the rejection in Parliament and ask the Parliament to vote on the amended ACTA
True Valve is an American corporation and doesn't have to follow EU legislation... unless they want to do business within the EU and well there certainly is a non-trivial number of Valve users within EU.
The problem from Valve's point of view is is that this not a new law but a precedent on an old law and as such all EU citizens have the right to sell games bought since the creation of said law, should Valve refuse them that right they will probably have to refund that game unless they want to get in legal trouble and since they do accept payment in Euro and from EU citizens they are obviously doing business in EU and as such are required to follow EU legislation.
Of course this precedent will not really change things until someone sues(and wins or at least make a big enough ruckus) one of the big game producers/retailers for refusing to allow used game sales or the EU Commission takes an interest and decides to smack someone with a large enough fine for not following EU legislation.
No they don't really need to be changed it's simply that any clause forbidding resale of the software is unenforceable and you can happily ignore it. In any standard EULA there are a lot of clauses that are for various reasons unenforceable within EU, this will just be yet another one.
You're basically right, I'll add a few clarifications although I'm no expert ether.
The Council consists of the Heads of State/Government(for the consitutional monarchies since their head of state wields no political power) of every member nation as well as the President of the Council(non voting member), the President of the Cmomission(non voting member), High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs(also non voting member I think). The council decides on foreign policy and defines directions and priorities for the EU which the Commission is then empowered to enact.
If you compare EU to the US the council most closely resembles the Presidency. The reason people think the the power lies with the Council is because decides on matters of foreign policy which is one of the most visible parts of the EU and because it gathers the executive power of the member states which dictate policy in their respective nations and typically represent the majority of the parliament members from their nation.
The Council can however be overruled by the Parliament, not the other way around but for obvious reasons this rarely happens.
Yes the EU is typically used as a smoke screen by the politicians of the member states but this is more due to the fact that in most member states. The elections for the EU parliament etc is seen as less significant than the national parliament/executive despite the fact that the EU parliament can force member states to enact law and policies.
So the local politicians takes unpopular matters to the EU parliament and then makes them law and force them on the member states and meanwhile the local politicians can maintain the facade that they are fighting tooth and nail in the best interest of the people but in the end they have to "yield".
True, the Court of Justice is a legislative instance that in this case is supposed to investigate whether ACTA is compatible with the founding treaties of the European Union. The court is supposed to be impartial and in no way are they supposed to act in the best interest/the will of the people, they are to interpret the law as written, nothing more nothing less.
If passed ACTA will move on to the democratically elected European Parliament which will vote(July 4th) on whether to accept ACTA in its current form or not. Should either the Court or the Parliament turn ACTA down then ACTA in it's current form is dead as far as EU is concerned.
And the fact that he backstabbed his way into power and that once he got there he turned out to be nothing nothing more than a bumbling incompetent buffoon with absolutely no media awareness had nothing to do with him getting ousted?
His predecessor got elected pretty much because there were no competition, when she failed they were desperate to find a new, hopefully strong leader that could stop the free fall the party currently was in and so they elected the current chair of the party executive council.
In fact this is the first time I've heard anything about Juholt even having a stance on ACTA much less being against it so some sources would be nice.
The Social Democratic Party has been VERY friendly with industry representatives for the past 30 years at the very least, for example in 2006 they changed the law to make copyright infringement for personal use illegal, despite massive complaints and a clear public opinion in favor of keeping the (then) current regulation.
The only political parties that I've heard speak out against ACTA so far is from the Green Party, the Pirate Party and the Leftist fringe/former communist party.
It is not so much that the EU International Trade committe has taken it upon themselves to have a vote, they act as an advisory to the EU Parliament and are supposed to recommend either passing or rejecting the proposition, every committee(they are made up of members from EU parliament) of the EU that oversees an area affected by ACTA is supposed to leave a recommendation based on how ACTA will affect their area of responsibility, it is a normal part of the process.
Only the European Parliament can enact laws and ratify treaties and the Parliament is democratically elected.
The European court of Justice has the same oversight powers as the US Supreme Court.
So the real difference is that the EU is a huge seething pile of bureaucracy and getting anything done takes forever.
On the other hand the European Commission has no legislative power, it only has legislative initiative and as such can only suggest laws.
Only the European Parliament which is democratically elected can actually enact laws.
ACTA is currently making it's way through the various committees which act in an advisory manner to the Parliament, said committees have no power and the Commission is merely saying that it will not withdraw ACTA before it has made it's way through the various committees and the European Court of Justice and will eventually be voted upon by the Parliament but if the result in Parliament is a negative vote that effectively kills ACTA within the EU unless the Commission renegotiates ACTA and sends it on another round through the system.
The NPT treaty was signed and ratified by the puppet the US put in charge through a coup. Honestly how can anyone expect that the Revolutionaries would honor ANYTHING the previous despot had ever said or promised or be surprised when they refuse to honor any deals/treaties brokered by said despot?
Of course Iran won't back down, backing down would not be the rational choice thanks to the historical US foreign policy. Iran has been backed into a corner and sees nuclear deterrent as it's only choice to stay in power.
First you staged a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader and replace him with a despot and when said despot was overthrown by the irate public you "secretly" fund another despot to invade Iran. Later US groups them into the "Axis of Evil" and subsequently invades one of thus named countries without provocation. The past and current US foreign policy seemingly leaves them with only one alternative and that is to get an invasion deterrent, which means getting nukes. And if Iran has nukes that creates a very real possibility that they can ship some to Hamas and/or Hezbollah which could mean that they can possibly deliver nukes into Israel regardless of any ballistic missile shields etc that Israel might have.
Yes Iran with nukes is a scary thought but they very reasonably see it as their only remaining option because whatever the US says they can obviously not be trusted. And currently the US is weakened by the financial crisis and the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, can the US really afford another war? I doubt defeating Iran will be as easy as defeating Saddam was and could Israel successfully invade Iran without US military support? And would Russia/China sit idly by or would they ship arms or other resources to Iran?
Yes and the last time this was up for serious discussion ICANN retained control mostly because the US managed to convince EU that it would let ICANN remain a private organization essentially free from government control and/or oversight and that the US government would not interfere with ICANN either through regulation, legislation or through legal action.
If the US reneges on that promise the demands for the internet to be controlled by a neutral organization will return in force and this time they will not be silenced so easily. If the US then refuses to relinquish control the internet as we know it will most likely cease to exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's still Windows 8 on both structures hence they are using their OS monopoly to leverage an advantage by forbidding dual boot, if Microsoft had designed a new OS for ARM and ARM only then what you say might be true but since they're using Windows 8(and thus you can assume that everything that will run on Windows 8 will do so regardless of x86/ARM) then they are leveraging their advantage to restrict competitors.
The problem as I see it is that they are not offering something they're not already required to do because even if the original agreement was time limited if Microsoft is still in a dominant market position when the time limit runs out then they will have to extend it if they want to stay in compliance. So as I see it MS is not really making a generous restitution offer, they are offering up something they are/will already be required to do.
The relatively speedy response is somewhat in their favor but not all that much because it's kinda expected that you fix a breach as fast as humanly possible if you accidentally breach the deal, otherwise it will be seen as intentional, which you definitely do not want.
Neither the calculator, text editor or sound recorder is particularly advanced in comparison with commercially available products in their respective fields
So? That's not the issue.
Yes it is part of the issue, it isn't actively competing with the other available products because the products is not even remotely comparable in capability.
As for Media Players, MS was fined for that at one point, as to why nothing has happened since then I don't know, possibly because no competitors are complaining. As for mail there has been no complaints about it as far as I know.
It's competitors complaining that their own offerings aren't enticing users away from the standard bundled offering, there's nothing stopping users from switching if there is a compelling alternative. Competitors should be out-innovating the defacto standard so that users actively want to use them.
No, competitors is complaining because bundling something with Windows gives MS an unfair advantage, their product just has to be good enough that users does not actively want to replace it, as long as that requirement is met then those customers will not be looking for a replacement and therefore is much more unlikely to notice a competitor no matter how much better they are.
Neither the calculator, text editor or sound recorder is particularly advanced in comparison with commercially available products in their respective fields, if MS bundled word with windows there probably would be a response to prevent it.
As for Media Players, MS was fined for that at one point, as to why nothing has happened since then I don't know, possibly because no competitors are complaining. As for mail there has been no complaints about it as far as I know.
Had there not been antitrust legislation then Microsoft could just have prevented users from installing a different browser same as Apple is doing on iOS, so yes government regulation and intervention is necessary.
The market has tolerated the Windows OS monopoly for far longer than "it" tolerated the MS browser monopoly so your assumption is flawed
Apple isn't considered a monopoly.
Why not? They're doing the exact same think MS did in the 90's. In fact, not even MS had the balls to lock out other browsers the way Apple has with iOS.
Because Apple does not have a large enough market share to be considered to have a dominant market position and and therefore are not forbidden from using their market position to leverage an advantage in a different market.
The Commission is not a court(technically it is not them handing out fines either, it's the European High Court of Justice, the Commission sends the case to the court which then hands down a ruling which the Commission enforces), they can take independent action regardless of whether they receive complaints or not. But yes you are correct that there has to be an actual abuse before they can act, until then they can only tell MS "doing that would be in breach with current EU legislation, if you proceed then we are going to pummel you"
And on ARM, Windows has such a small market share, it can't be considered monopolistic (since MS is nowhere near being able to exploit a monopoly position).
Yes it can, MS has a de facto monopoly on the desktop(win 8), they are using that as leverage in another market(by blocking dual boot), I don't know about US antitrust legislation but that is explicitly forbidden according to EU antitrust legislation.
Why should the EU Commission take them up on that offer?
The Commission should fine them the 7 billion and keep fining them until they're cease to be in violation of EU antitrust legislation.
The browser choice is not voluntary, it was implemented to stay in compliance with that legislation, Microsoft can choose to either keep the the browser choice screen or not ship a browser with windows at all(including browsers hidden in the OS)
Asking the Commission to not fine you and in return you will honor the original agreement is likely to get you smacked much harder than they would have smacked you if you had just quietly taken the fine and amended your ways, the Commission does not like to be ignored.
They also encouraged people to pay churchmen to say X number of prayers for dead loved ones or even themselves after they died or in preparation of their death under the general principle that the more prayers people sent your way the better off you would be in heaven. Sounds familiar?
Indeed, it might not be trivial but it can be done, hopefully they are a bit daunted by the underwhelming 6% support in Parliament since even if they have another go at it there is no guarantee that Parliament will accept the new revised version, hopefully the court strike it dead as well because that should really put a wrench in their machinery.
Personally I fear that this was just a smokescreen and they put it up there just to fail and take up media space while they're busy passing the real treaty through the backdoor, maybe I am just paranoid or a cynic but I feel like this victory came too easy.
Hey at least The Higgs Boson sounds better than Midichlorians.
The Court does have a limited say because it is supposed to investigate if ACTA is compatible with the framework treaties of the European Union, if they are Parliament can vote on it and either pass or reject ACTA which has already happened. However if the court finds that ACTA is incompatible with said framework treaties then it cannot be passed regardless of Parliament vote unless said framework treaties are changed as well. If the court finds that ACTA is ok then the Commission can remove whatever parts they think led to the rejection in Parliament and ask the Parliament to vote on the amended ACTA
True Valve is an American corporation and doesn't have to follow EU legislation... unless they want to do business within the EU and well there certainly is a non-trivial number of Valve users within EU.
The problem from Valve's point of view is is that this not a new law but a precedent on an old law and as such all EU citizens have the right to sell games bought since the creation of said law, should Valve refuse them that right they will probably have to refund that game unless they want to get in legal trouble and since they do accept payment in Euro and from EU citizens they are obviously doing business in EU and as such are required to follow EU legislation.
Of course this precedent will not really change things until someone sues(and wins or at least make a big enough ruckus) one of the big game producers/retailers for refusing to allow used game sales or the EU Commission takes an interest and decides to smack someone with a large enough fine for not following EU legislation.
No they don't really need to be changed it's simply that any clause forbidding resale of the software is unenforceable and you can happily ignore it. In any standard EULA there are a lot of clauses that are for various reasons unenforceable within EU, this will just be yet another one.
Yes I meant the local parties here in Sweden because the AC was talking about Sweden ratifying ACTA.
You're basically right, I'll add a few clarifications although I'm no expert ether.
The Council consists of the Heads of State/Government(for the consitutional monarchies since their head of state wields no political power) of every member nation as well as the President of the Council(non voting member), the President of the Cmomission(non voting member), High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs(also non voting member I think). The council decides on foreign policy and defines directions and priorities for the EU which the Commission is then empowered to enact.
If you compare EU to the US the council most closely resembles the Presidency. The reason people think the the power lies with the Council is because decides on matters of foreign policy which is one of the most visible parts of the EU and because it gathers the executive power of the member states which dictate policy in their respective nations and typically represent the majority of the parliament members from their nation.
The Council can however be overruled by the Parliament, not the other way around but for obvious reasons this rarely happens.
Yes the EU is typically used as a smoke screen by the politicians of the member states but this is more due to the fact that in most member states. The elections for the EU parliament etc is seen as less significant than the national parliament/executive despite the fact that the EU parliament can force member states to enact law and policies.
So the local politicians takes unpopular matters to the EU parliament and then makes them law and force them on the member states and meanwhile the local politicians can maintain the facade that they are fighting tooth and nail in the best interest of the people but in the end they have to "yield".
True, the Court of Justice is a legislative instance that in this case is supposed to investigate whether ACTA is compatible with the founding treaties of the European Union. The court is supposed to be impartial and in no way are they supposed to act in the best interest/the will of the people, they are to interpret the law as written, nothing more nothing less.
If passed ACTA will move on to the democratically elected European Parliament which will vote(July 4th) on whether to accept ACTA in its current form or not. Should either the Court or the Parliament turn ACTA down then ACTA in it's current form is dead as far as EU is concerned.
And the fact that he backstabbed his way into power and that once he got there he turned out to be nothing nothing more than a bumbling incompetent buffoon with absolutely no media awareness had nothing to do with him getting ousted?
His predecessor got elected pretty much because there were no competition, when she failed they were desperate to find a new, hopefully strong leader that could stop the free fall the party currently was in and so they elected the current chair of the party executive council.
In fact this is the first time I've heard anything about Juholt even having a stance on ACTA much less being against it so some sources would be nice.
The Social Democratic Party has been VERY friendly with industry representatives for the past 30 years at the very least, for example in 2006 they changed the law to make copyright infringement for personal use illegal, despite massive complaints and a clear public opinion in favor of keeping the (then) current regulation.
The only political parties that I've heard speak out against ACTA so far is from the Green Party, the Pirate Party and the Leftist fringe/former communist party.
It is not so much that the EU International Trade committe has taken it upon themselves to have a vote, they act as an advisory to the EU Parliament and are supposed to recommend either passing or rejecting the proposition, every committee(they are made up of members from EU parliament) of the EU that oversees an area affected by ACTA is supposed to leave a recommendation based on how ACTA will affect their area of responsibility, it is a normal part of the process.
Only the European Parliament can enact laws and ratify treaties and the Parliament is democratically elected.
The European court of Justice has the same oversight powers as the US Supreme Court.
So the real difference is that the EU is a huge seething pile of bureaucracy and getting anything done takes forever.
On the other hand the European Commission has no legislative power, it only has legislative initiative and as such can only suggest laws.
Only the European Parliament which is democratically elected can actually enact laws.
ACTA is currently making it's way through the various committees which act in an advisory manner to the Parliament, said committees have no power and the Commission is merely saying that it will not withdraw ACTA before it has made it's way through the various committees and the European Court of Justice and will eventually be voted upon by the Parliament but if the result in Parliament is a negative vote that effectively kills ACTA within the EU unless the Commission renegotiates ACTA and sends it on another round through the system.
The NPT treaty was signed and ratified by the puppet the US put in charge through a coup. Honestly how can anyone expect that the Revolutionaries would honor ANYTHING the previous despot had ever said or promised or be surprised when they refuse to honor any deals/treaties brokered by said despot?
Of course Iran won't back down, backing down would not be the rational choice thanks to the historical US foreign policy. Iran has been backed into a corner and sees nuclear deterrent as it's only choice to stay in power.
First you staged a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader and replace him with a despot and when said despot was overthrown by the irate public you "secretly" fund another despot to invade Iran. Later US groups them into the "Axis of Evil" and subsequently invades one of thus named countries without provocation. The past and current US foreign policy seemingly leaves them with only one alternative and that is to get an invasion deterrent, which means getting nukes. And if Iran has nukes that creates a very real possibility that they can ship some to Hamas and/or Hezbollah which could mean that they can possibly deliver nukes into Israel regardless of any ballistic missile shields etc that Israel might have.
Yes Iran with nukes is a scary thought but they very reasonably see it as their only remaining option because whatever the US says they can obviously not be trusted. And currently the US is weakened by the financial crisis and the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, can the US really afford another war? I doubt defeating Iran will be as easy as defeating Saddam was and could Israel successfully invade Iran without US military support? And would Russia/China sit idly by or would they ship arms or other resources to Iran?
Yes and the last time this was up for serious discussion ICANN retained control mostly because the US managed to convince EU that it would let ICANN remain a private organization essentially free from government control and/or oversight and that the US government would not interfere with ICANN either through regulation, legislation or through legal action.
If the US reneges on that promise the demands for the internet to be controlled by a neutral organization will return in force and this time they will not be silenced so easily. If the US then refuses to relinquish control the internet as we know it will most likely cease to exist.