U.S. Lobbied EU Over Microsoft Fine 296
ukhackster writes "European commissioner Neelie Kroes has claimed that she was lobbied by the US government over the Microsoft antitrust case. ZDNet UK is reporting that Kroes 'did not appreciate' being asked to be 'nicer' to Microsoft. Given that Microsoft was fined 280m euros, perhaps this tactic backfired." From the article: "The commissioner criticised the approach. 'This is of course an intervention which is not possible,' Kroes told Dutch newspaper Financieele Dagblad this week. When asked if she was annoyed by the Embassy's approach, she said 'In my work, I cannot have a preference. I have, however, a personal opinion, but that is for Saturday night.'"
Pfft. Nothing New Here (Score:5, Interesting)
Since the days of the Yankee Traders the US government has meddled in the politics of other nations to ensure access to favourable trade for its merchants. It is said the American Revolution was more about expanding trade for businessmen in the colonies which the crown sought to prevent. These days there are innumerable reports and accusations conflicts the US finds itself embroiled in have at their very foundation the interests of american business interests. What next? Admiral Perry sailing sailing into the North Sea, firing off a cannon and proclaiming he expects better treatment when he returns?
American politics and business still haven't got it that much of the rest of the world is more circumspect in it's dealings where americans enter like barbarians and don't get why everyone is so upset.
I don't expect Microsoft was directly behind this, but they sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC. Though it does seem a stretch that with so many corporations attempting to bend the ear of the US government they would take it upon themselves to do this independently.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. Didn't we help overthrow Guatemala or one of the Central American countries for bananas (literally) in the '50's. At lease we didn't threaten to invade. I wonder what that would cost. Exxon, Bechtel, Haliburton, any comments?
IIRC Guatemalan government was overthrown because the leadership was going to seize the land held by american fruit interests. I think it is closely associated with the phrase 'banana republic' as in a central american government favourable to United Fruit, Dole, etc.
The war
Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here (Score:5, Informative)
The Guatemalan government had announced plans to purchase and redistribute most of the land controlled by United Fruit. They would use the equivalent of imminent domain, paying the value listed on tax returns. United Fruit had, of course, been cheating and lying on their taxes, vastly underestimating the value of their land. They had some pull with the Dulles brothers and managed to get the government overthrown.
Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here (Score:4, Informative)
John Foster Dulles, the Sec of State, had worked for a law firm that regularly defended United Fruit, and sat on its board of directors, IIRC. An overview of the whole sordid affair can be found in David Halberstam's The Fifties. The bit about compensating United Fruit for their assessed value of the land is completely true and particularly funny, but the Dulleses weren't laughing
It should be stated, of course, that United Fruit was completely incapable of ordering a war through its intermediaries in the US government, but Arbenz, by initiating a land redistribution plan, was pushing every anti-commie button the US government had at the time, particularly with McCarthy accusing the State Department of having 57 "Card-Carrying Communists" in its senior ranks. Had Dole owned the land and not United Fruit, the outcome would have probably been the same, despite Dulles having worked for their competitor.
One wonders what action the US would've taken if the land had been owned by a French or Mexican fruit company...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, because governments never did that type of stuff until the inception of the US and no other governments have done that stuff or do that stuff now.
If you're going to be anti-US, at least have the good sense to slam us for the things we do that every other government on earth doesn't do. Thank you.
Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, because governments never did that type of stuff until the inception of the US and no other governments have done that stuff or do that stuff now.
If you're going to be anti-US, at least have the good sense to slam us for the things we do that every other government on earth doesn't do.
I'm not being anti-US, it's just that examining a lot of american history in detail reveals unflattering behaviour at the root of conflict.
One thing I don't believe any other government, or people, have done throughout history is to insist other governments should be more like their own and encouraging change with a very large military. Ironic the US gets along very well with Pakistan where the leader was installed by a coup, yet applauds the overthrow of democratically elected President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Clearly there are things said behind closed doors which would make such things appear logical, but the rest of the world notices and eyes the US warily.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't believe in the British Empire? (And by 'be more like their own' I mean run by the British for the betterment of the Bristish, to the exclusion of all others.)
Re: (Score:2)
We simply don't live in the age of empires anymore. (never mind the computer game).
The British had to establish an empire to be able to actually trade with the countries they invaded. i.e. the British love their tea, so they took over India so people back in Britain could drink tea.
With the modern world and the WTO etc., all part of the USA's making, such government intervention is heavily dissuaded. In some sense, the US government shot themselves in the foot
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even within the last fifty years, while the US has been nowhere close to the shining pillar it a
Re: (Score:2)
This has to be the single stupidest statement I have ever read on slashdot. Have you ever heard of the British Empire? The French Empire? Soviet Domination of Eastern Europe? Did it ever occure to you that pretty much everywhere in the world was some sort of colony of a European power? How does this stupid shit
Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Rubbish. Not even the Golden Horde or the Nazis were simply murderous. They'd wipe out armies, and occasionally cities that resisted, but otherwise just wanted to enslave their opponents. More successful empire builders like the Romans made efforts to assimilate their former enemies.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that actually was sort of the beginning of the end for them. Their political power was waning so they had to destroy things.
Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, maybe we should. But next time you have a terrorist attack, don't think it was because the terrorists hate your freedom or because their religion tells them to do it. It will be because of that very same asshole attitude of yours.
Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here (Score:4, Insightful)
Terrorists do not attack and kill 3000 people simply because they don't like the people's attitude. They attack because they hate the people and want them destroyed.
No, al Queda wants us out of the middle east in general, and Saudi Arabia in particular. You don't see them attacking Canadians or Germans so much, do you?
Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is precisely why some people like Osama and his friends have decided that it's in their best interest to kill you first, before you change your mind.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the big problem is that we had the first real chance to be the originators of a whole new kind of behavior, but chose not to.
Don't be a player hater (Score:2, Insightful)
If the 'rest of the world' has any issues with the tactics taken in cases such as these, perhaps it is only that the USA is too successful at the game they invented.
Don't hate th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Please get off your soap box for a moment. Not that I support everything the USA government does on behalf of corporate interest, but let's not pretend the US is the sole practitioner of such tactics. The imperialists of Europe have been using their military might to enrich monetary interests since way before there even was a USA.
The exception to this argument being that Europe isn't doing anything with it's militaries anymore. Oh, a little intervention in West Africa by France, but mostly to keep the p
Re: (Score:2)
So if the Europeans only try to advance their economic interests through diplomatic, rather than military means, then there should be no issue in this case of the USA trying to advance its economic interest through diplomatic means.
Re:Don't be a player hater (Score:4, Insightful)
Has it been that long since world war II? Certainly it's been a while. But Europe has a much longer lineage of threating the world than the US does...
Re: (Score:2)
Are you for real? 100 years ago was the end of colonial power? Peoples eventually began to push back?
Basic human nature has not changed. Humans have been conquering humans for as long as we have written or oral history. Empires have risen and fallen again and again. People have ALWAYS pushed back and people will always push back.
The US is currently dominant in the world, but anyone can see that this is untenable. As an American, I just hope that the next empire is as kind to the US as the US has been tow
The ONLY reason Europe enjoys peace! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't be a player hater (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah...for a moment there, I thought you were going to end with "towards Iraq".
"I'd love to live in Europe right now and enjoy empire living standards without having to do any of the dirty work."
Dirty hands, you mean. Yes, obviously, it's thanks to the imperialistic tendencies and unilateral arrogant attitudes on worldlevel, that Europe enjoys good living standards. If you hadn't supported rebels - though now described as terrorists - and dicators alike, where would we be?
Didn't the US do some good as well? Certainly, just like any other country. Alas, also just like all empires before it, it also behaves like it owns the world. the problem with that is:
a)They aren't very good at it (at least the Romans made an effort to bring culture and civilisation, aside from destruction, AND they were also politically adept, AND they endured for a thousand years)
b)The time of empires has passed, and it seems the US didn't get the memo. This imperialistic, military and arrogant behaviour belongs to another era, and the USA is like a dinosaur acting like it still can control the world the way a budding empire did hundreds of years ago. And not only that, it thinks it has the god-given right to do so, moral superiour as they think they are, or 'a shining example for all'. You know: freedom, democracy, all that - well, unless a country goes against USA interests, of course.
Anti-americanism exists all right, even in europe. But what you fail to realise is, that it's been born and it has grown as a result from your own hypocritic actions. It might be funny in a south-park episode, but it isn't in real life, if USA citizens are unaware of the reason why people dislike the USA so much. And for fucks' sake, it isn't because we're "jealous of your freedom" or because america is the pinacle that the West has to offer, or any such self-deluging flattery that you people invent to try to keep your own narcistic illusion in place.
The downside is, most of the populace are viewing the matter in generalised terms, and in black and white. And anti-americanism gets a too broad a stroke to my taste. I'm anti-american myself, though I only interpret that in a limited way: I do not dislike the USA population as a whole (as is becomming more and more the current mentality), because, as individuals, I know you have some swell persons living there. (The late) Carl Sagan comes to mind, and a lot of others. But, your current government deserves all the flack it gets, and THEY present the USA on the world-stage (and, in all honesty, at least half of the populace voted for Buja - well, the second time, anyway - and thus, half earns the miscontempt it gets)
Anti-americanism, based on the actions of your government, and those that kept that same government in place, is justified and well deserved, me thinks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You say that as if something "illegal" cannot also be "the only way to do business". In those other countries, its also illegal. And the pervasiveness of it in US electoral politics in various forms suggests that its also the only way to do business, at least big business, in the US. What is practically necessary and what is illegal can overlap.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite. You omitted some key facts. A simple Google search will enlighten you, but there are a couple of quick points that I'll write here. One, there was a boycott in the colonies of the British monopolist East India Company, which was quickly going bankrupt. While the alternate source of tea was in fact smuggled, the lifting of tax on the East India Company was not what got the colonists all up in a frenzy. In fact, it was the plan to escort in the East India Company's ships with a British naval guard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
New here eh? Microsoft has done more to stifle innovation and progress in personal computing since they took over than they have contributed. Negative sum game for consumers. They promote lock in to their system, use their new lock-in to promote their other business interests etc. They spend lots of money promoting standards and then do not follow them so consumers and left hanging. The very definition of a monopoly no?
If you want specific examples how about them buying competing software companies, shu
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's a little strong. Having a monopol is more or less the ultimate achievement of a company. Unfortunatly, once a monopol emerge, basically the entire sector is screwed up. Ideally you should say Microsoft "won the game" and enter the hall of fame of legendary companies, but the game is finished and we start again ( break Microsoft, opensource it,
Once you are a monopol, you should not exist, basically anything you do then can fall into the "illegal" section. Even i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, i am saying that part of the definition of the law that people are talking about is that the consumer was harmed by the practice in question. Merely existing as a monopoly in this country is not illegal. One of the charges in question had consumer harm as a predicate to the definition of the law
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. MS was found guilty of illegally abusing that monopoly. Abusing the monopoly by definition caused harm to the consumer. Sometimes that involved denying choice to the consumer, sometimes inflated pricing, sometimes collusion.
"There are plenty of people in the government that are power-hungry and oppose the current administration (for any definitino of "current"). If there was an open and shut case, why didn't they go for it?"
Becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the regulatory issues were identical (which isn't the case, anyway) one hand doesn't care what the other is doing. I'm sure the Italian trade attaches around the world didn't stop lobbying for Parmalat however much trouble they got into at home.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the current US government decided they didn't have antitrust issues with Microsoft and just stopped pursuing it.
Cheers
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A defence based on 'well, other people do it too!' isn't good enough.
Re: (Score:2)
What 'others'? This is the Europeans complaining that the USA has copied their tactics. If you invite me over to play your game, and I see you trying to cheat, don't expect me to give your complaints much weight when I do the same.
A defense based on, 'well, I'm doing it the way you taught me' seems good enough to me. (I'm not saying some other 3rd party country or company wouldn't have grounds for complaint. I'm just saying it's hard to take the E
In this case, ya (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is standard practice. I'd have been surpised if the US hadn't lobbied the EU.
(Of course, there is lobbying and there is lobbying. MS, as a big company, is going to get more backing than most, and it may have crossed an unmentioned line someplace. Still, this story sounds like stan
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
US "lobbying" is more akin to bullying other states, including allies, into doing what the US
government wants. That does not always work though, partly due to the end of the Cold War
and the disgust the current US administration generates.
Some bully, others wish they could. (Score:3, Insightful)
I expect that when China "lobbies" one of it's neighboring countries -- or virtually anyone else -- from a position of power, they apply all the same pressure. There I expect it's probably even stronger, since politics and industry are so closely intertwined.
The states that complain most about the U.S. using its power for its (by which I mean, its citizens) own advantage are
Re: (Score:2)
And second time round it wasn't that convincing either, after all the playing around with statistics that got him in again.
Actually, it seems that the kinder, gentler policies are quite popular.
Re:Some bully, others wish they could. (Score:4, Interesting)
No. The principle reason is that we are willing to use that power. We have no qualms about killing as many people as we want and causing as much damage as we want to get what we want.
There are other powerful countries in the world like china, germany, france etc that have armies that can invade and occupy most weak countries (like iraq) but they don't do it.
The US has been involved in some war or another every three to seven years for all my life. We are a country of warmongers. We can't go a decade without killing somebody or another and that's a stark difference between us and china.
Somebody at DoJ is thinkin' (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If only... (Score:5, Interesting)
In my work, I cannot have a preference. I have, however, a personal opinion, but that is for Saturday night.
If only more politicians and government officials had this mind set. Bravo.
But unfortunately in America, this is rarely how it goes. We haven't had people who think that way in the last 150 or so years here. We had the founding fathers, then maybe 50 or 100 years to bask in their glow...then it all became special interest groups, big business, professional lobbying and damn the rest.
A good local example I can think of is the office where my wife used to work. It was the nearest large city's plans, permits and zoning office. They had a raging debate for hours on end. What was the debate, you may ask? Whether or not it would be a good idea to put a nativity scene on the door for the holidays!
Can you imagine adults actually having to debate that?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A large proportion of adults still worship a god who advocates slavery, religious genocide, and the inherent inferiority of women. Then they yammer on and on about how great, loving, and compassionate their God is.
Based upon that evidence, I can believe just about anything. Being adult just means your body stopped growing, not that you're free of prejudices or that you are in any way rational, objective, or impartial in your views of the outside worl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If only... (Score:4, Insightful)
It says a lot about your understanding of US history [wikipedia.org] that you think it was like that.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how your reference adds anything to the discussion, unless you are somehow saying that the Sedition Acts were suggested by some private entity for some private interest which somehow motivated President Adams to enact them.
I believe the acts were misguided - but I also believe that President Adams was really honestly trying to do what was best for the country by enacting them. I don't see an ulterior motive. I don't believe he was pandering to any particular small group, interest, or corpora
Re: (Score:2)
Best interest of the nation? The laws were there to smother opposition, not to protect the nation.
Astonishing that people think everything was hunky dory in the United Stat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
John Hancock was America's largest . .
KFG
MS and DoJ in cozy fluffy bed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Would they really? (Score:2)
While the security issues and sometimes instability of windows might lead you to think otherwise (other OS's have the same problem, and...) there are some pretty smart people who work at microsoft as well. The fact is, big corps with experienced IT people do get hacked, and backdoors do get found by hackers, etc. Yes, they're good, but on the other hand they don't always catch the elite hackers either.
And if you contro
Shock and Awe! (Score:2)
Practically every country in the world would lobby for a company the size of MS if it was in their backyard. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this is a good thing(TM). America has to aggressively expand trade of it's goods and services worldwide.
We all know that the underlying issue is what makes it
Re: (Score:2)
The EU is actually punishing Microsoft for something the DOJ silently dropped, but for which they are still guilty.
The EU is doing the DOJ's job for them.
Do These Tactics Ever Work? (Score:2)
The Pirate Bay case doesn't count because they were back up within 2 days stronger than ever, continue to operate now, and no one associated with them has yet been punished. The only thing still missing on their site are many of their hilarious replies to received legal threats.
There are American Microsoft replacement companies (Score:3, Insightful)
Commonplace (Score:2)
Dan East
Re: (Score:2)
The year is 2007... (Score:3, Funny)
"In a startling new development, Microsoft's appeal against the record anti-trust fine is to be heard this Saturday, at 7pm GMT. Early reports indicate that the judges hearing the appeal had been seen buying Linux t-shirts and double-bladed battle axes."
Airbus? (Score:2)
Modus Operandi (Score:3, Informative)
The EU has not forgotten that M$ was branded a monopolist in US federal court and that the appeals court upheld that judgement. M$ has few options of recourse outside the US - little chance of reversal in appeals, no lobbying channels to undercut barriers to their monopolist tactics, and a well read community with little tolerance for strong handed tactics from corrupt US corporations.
Good to see that there are level headed authorities in the EU that are not so easily swayed.
The US government should butt out (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But maybe in the US they're meaningless?
Din't think so. Break them and suffer the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The US government should butt out (Score:4, Interesting)
It's fining a company doing business in the EU. The "US company" just reflects to where it was founded. If you do business on EU soil, you have to obey EU laws. Even if you only are doing *just* import.
It's the same where I would start a daughter-company in the US. I wouldn't have a "European company", European law wouldn't apply. US law would. If in that case, the US courts would fine me, the EU shouldn't meddle with the US courts unless international laws are being violated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because I don't want the Federal government supporting a company's unethical business practices, even if that company is an American company. Is that unreasonable?
I may be crazy, but I'm the sort that believes the US Federal government should generally keep itself out of private business concerns unless necessary, and act ethically whenever possible. I don't see any reason to believe that the EU's case some unjustified politically-motivated witch hunt, so I don't see a reason for the intervention.
Re: (Score:2)
Boy, do you ever live in the wrong country...
Re: (Score:2)
No, but you're being unreasonable in your definition of "unethical". To many of us, adding value to the customer means that Microsoft, Apple, and any other desktop OS makers should be able to add features and bundle product as they see fit regardless of monopoly status. For me, the ethical issue in the past was that it was hard or virtually impos
Re: (Score:2)
For me, the ethical issue in the past was that it was hard or virtually impossible for 3rd parties to create aftermarket replacements (kind of like a car maker not allowing you to replace the stereo). But I can use Firefox, iTunes, and all sorts of applications in Windows, while I can also enjoy a lot of out of the box functionality should I choose not to download extra applications.
You can find aftermarket replacements, but Microsoft doesn't allow you to use them as replacements. It would be a "replace
Re: (Score:2)
To many of us, adding value to the customer means that Microsoft, Apple, and any other desktop OS makers should be able to add features and bundle product as they see fit regardless of monopoly status.
Further, I'd say that it's the retailer's job to bundle products. Perhaps Microsoft should be allowed to bundle software when they're selling retail versions of Windows, and they should also be allowed to offer bundles to OEMs should the OEMs choose to use them. However, Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to st
Re:And what's wrong with that? (Score:4, Insightful)
It has a lot to do with how much said company contributes each year to taxes.
Usually it has more to do with how much the company contributes to election campaigns, not taxes.
Those taxes fund government programs such as welfare, foodstamps, education, defense, etc.
So what? If a billionaire pays a million dollars in taxes each year should we ask the EU not to convict them for armed robbery when we convicted them of the same offense two years ago?
Sure, it may not be what you want but the govt is actually looking out for its bottom line, not the company it's lobbying for.
Nope. They are looking out for their slush funds and bribes. Both the companies who asked the EU look into this issue and who are the victims whose money is being unlawfully redirected are American companies whose taxes also fund the US government. How does MS paying taxes on their portable document and antivirus tools businesses benefit the US any more than Adobe and Symantec doing the same?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And what's wrong with that? (Score:4, Interesting)
Other than the (dubious) 'reason' "because I hate Microsoft!" why should anyone complain that the United States government was lifting a finger to possibly help one of its interests?
Because it was the politician's interest, not the American people's. We convicted them of the same crime and after certain lobbying suddenly our corrupt politicians replaced the people overseeing the case and did not punish MS for their guilt. The US is supposed to look out for the people as a whole, but here they are spending our tax dollars to work against the interests of the US people by trying to get criminals, who coincidentally donated lots of money to them, off the hook.
I don't know about you, but I sort of dislike obvious corruption and abuse within our government.
In wonder, though, if when Apple starts suing EU companies for using the letters "pod" in their products' names people will expect (demand) the U.S. government to rattle some sabers on their behalf...
This is such a straw man I won't even go into it.
Am I the only one who remembers all the red coats and that "rather unpleasant matter concerning tea" up in Boston? Sure, we're shoulder-to-shoulder against the world, but when it comes right down to it it's us-against-them in the oldest rivalry our nation knows...
Do you really think like this? Is everything in your beliefs based not upon "right and wrong" or "just and unjust" or "beneficial versus detrimental" and instead based upon "us versus them?" Do you really pick sides on an issue based entirely upon who is on each side? A few of us actually look at each issue and make up our minds based upon the facts, rather than who is arguing. I agree with a lot of things the EU does and disagree with a lot of them. The same goes for the US. I'll not support corruption, bribery, or dishonesty whether it is being done by a Republican, Democrat, American, European, christian, voodoo priest, or illegal alien. It is not who is doing something that determines if it is right, it is what they are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we didn't. Niether case was black-and-white and the two can not be compared. For example, the EU is particular about some details that are simply unreasonable (i.e. crippling the user experience by not allowing the packaging of a media player with a modern OS).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we didn't.
In the US they were convicted of antitrust bundling. In the EU they were convicted of antitrust bundling. Both cases focused on different instances of bundling, but it was the same crime.
Niether case was black-and-white and the two can not be compared. For example, the EU is particular about some details that are simply unreasonable (i.e. crippling the user experience by not allowing the packaging of a media player with a modern OS).
That is perfectly reasonable in my opinion. MS should
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because those interests to not coincide with the interests of the people of America.
Rather a small (albeit wealthy) interest...
Secondly, those interests might be wrong and amoral.
Thirdly, those interests may conflict with the interests of the American people.
Had the US lobbied on the behalf of the American people or a majority o
Re: (Score:2)
That war which you lot were losing before the French stepped in to help, you mean?
A lot. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whilst apparently conveniently forgetting that you were helped in the fight against said red coats by the French, who are an EU founder member, and therefore have been part of it for far longer than Britain.
Re: (Score:2)
Because in this case the support of the government was for a convicted criminal. In fact, one convicted in the US for pretty much the very same crime. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my government to support criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some scenes of Rollerball were actually filmed at the BMW headquarters in Munich. This is appropriate. Germany's Government and economic policies are just as, if not more so, as favoring German corporations as the US ones. Cartels exist in Germany and are protected by Government policy. They don't actually call them cartels of course - cos that's illegal - but they are pretty much nonetheless.
And since Germany is the powerhouse (read: bully) of EU policy. Germany's Corporations d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the EU is like any other merchant state
No surprises here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
While it might not be in your best interest to see a US corporation heavily fined by the EU it does not mean that it is not in the best interests of European citizens. Opening up the APIs to allow true competition is definitely in the interests of EU citizens. If they refuse to do that then they should be fined in accordance wi