EU probes Oracle-Sun deal, cites open-source issue

[LenS]

Tempory? roadblock to the deal:

Source: Technology Review: EU probes Oracle-Sun deal, cites open-source issue

http://www.technologyreview.com/wire/23358/?nlid=2327
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Oracle Corp. figured its $7.4 billion buyout for Sun Microsystems Inc. could skate through antitrust scrutiny, folding Sun into a technology powerhouse when Sun badly needs the lifeline. Both companies will have to wait.

European Union regulators applied the brakes Thursday, launching a formal antitrust probe that shatters Oracle's goal of completing the acquisition this summer. The U.S. Department of Justice has already approved the deal.

The investigation is focused on whether Oracle will gain too much power in the market for database software, which underpins most things people do in business or on the Web. It helps companies manage and retrieve data they've stored, such as payroll or sales information. Typing in a search term, for example, forces a Web site to scour a database and spit out an answer.

In particular, EU regulators want to make sure Oracle will properly care for Sun's rival open-source database software -- which is freely given away in hopes of selling other products to the users -- or let it wither in favor of Oracle's proprietary software.

EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said regulators needed to examine whether customers could have fewer choices or see higher prices "when the world's biggest proprietary database company proposes to take over the world's leading open-source database company."

The European Commission now has until Jan. 19 before it makes a final decision to clear the deal or block it. In some cases, such as with Intel Corp., the EU has been a stricter antitrust regulator than the U.S., and often presses companies to make changes that eliminate antitrust worries, such as selling off parts of their business.

Oracle is the database leader with 37 percent of the overall market, followed by IBM Corp. and Microsoft Corp., according to the IDC research firm.

MySQL, a Swedish company that Sun bought for $1 billion last year, is a tiny player, with just 0.2 percent market share, but is the reason European regulators are worried.

The EU officials claim that MySQL, already popular among Web-based companies, will increasingly threaten Oracle's database software as it adds features and attracts more customers. The regulators questioned "Oracle's incentive to further develop MySQL as an open source database."

"In the current economic context, all companies are looking for cost-effective (information-technology) solutions, and systems based on open-source software are increasingly emerging as viable alternatives to proprietary solutions," Kroes said. "The commission has to ensure that such alternatives would continue to be available."

Sun and Oracle declined to comment Thursday.

Page2:
http://www.technologyreview.com/wire/23358/page2/

[Zhick]

MySQL, a Swedish company that Sun bought for $1 billion last year, is a tiny player, with just 0.2 percent market share, but is the reason European regulators are worried.
Is MySQLs market share really so small? I have a hard time believing this.

[deanjo]

Is MySQLs market share really so small? I have a hard time believing this.

When compared to the giants of the db industry, ya they are that small.

[LenS]

When compared to the giants of the db industry, ya they are that small.

$1 Billion for 0.2% seems a little high. I suspect potential earnings was a factor too. Open source can impact markets far beyond it's initial market share due to potential or perceived penetration. The steady rise of Firefox at the expense of Internet Explorer is a good example, something I'm sure the giants in the DB industry are well aware of. Anything they can do to delay any open source initiative will be done.

This new development could have a lot of unforeseen effects, as the cnet article below goes into. I agree with the author, it's politics. Players standing to benefit from the delay are feeding the pols a lot of exaggerated, biased, and misinformation that plays on their beliefs and I expect IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and others have the ear of a lot of EU pols.

EU fiddles with MySQL while Sun burns | The Open Road - CNET News
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10344537-16.html?tag=nl.e703
by Matt Asay

IBM and Hewlett-Packard could not have planned it any better.

The European Union has launched an in-depth investigation into Oracle's acquisition of Sun, potentially delaying the merger by several more months. In doing so, the EU is actually guaranteeing the demise of Sun's hardware business and gifting it to Sun's competitors by misunderstanding the deal's impact on open source, generally, and on MySQL, specifically.

If you haven't been paying attention, the delay on the merger due to U.S. and EU scrutiny has already resulted in two shockingly bad quarters from Sun. Many enterprise customers are already moving to competitors like IBM because of the uncertainty surrounding the future of Sun products, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Further delay will only compound the problem.

Unlike the U.S., which approved the deal, the EU's Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes is concerned that Oracle's takeover of Sun will end up diminishing competition:

Systems (like MySQL) based on open-source software are increasingly emerging as viable alternatives to proprietary solutions. The Commission has to ensure that such alternatives would continue to be available.

The Commission doesn't have to. MySQL's open-source license already does. It's open source: even Oracle can't put the open-source genie back in the bottle once it has been released, as MySQL has, under the GNU General Public License.

Consider: some of the folks cheering loudest for the EU to clamp down on the proposed merger, like representatives from Monty Program, have already demonstrated Oracle's (and Sun's) lack of control over MySQL. Monty Program has created a significant fork, or derivative, of the MySQL database, and stands to gain much by the EU's obstructionism.

In delaying the merger, the EU isn't helping MySQL. It's helping its competitors, including Drizzle, OurDelta, MariaDB (Monty Program's fork), Percona, etc.

Competition within and around MySQL is alive and well, regardless of Oracle. After all, as former MySQL CEO Marten Mickos has been saying for years, MySQL has never really competed with Oracle, anyway. MySQL serves (and has helped to create) a very different market: the Web database market.

When asked in April if Oracle's bid for Sun would end up hurting MySQL, Mickos responded: "MySQL works for Web-based applications. Oracle is for older, legacy applications." The vast majority of Oracle's revenue comes from enterprise IT. The vast majority of MySQL's revenue comes from Web companies like Facebook, Google, etc.

MySQL and Oracle don't really compete. They live in two very different markets.

So, if anything, Oracle's acquisition of Sun helps it leverage MySQL into a market--the growing Web database market--that its own technology is ill-equipped to manage. It also gets a lower-cost product with which to bludgeon its real enemy, Microsoft, coupled with a greater footprint in the rising open-source developer community.

Open source is not the enemy in this deal. Microsoft is.

The EU, however, has made itself an enemy to Oracle, Sun, and MySQL by holding up the merger, a situation that will only get worse due to its glacial pace, as CIO.co.uk's editor Martin Veitch suggests. Customers are not the beneficiaries of its intervention: Sun's server competitors like IBM are.

Though the EU purports to be in tune with open source, its meddlesome muddling reveals a surprising ignorance of open source, and shows a complete disregard for MySQL's true market opportunity.

UPDATE @ 6:59 Pacific on 9/4/09: I solicited comment from Gartner vice president and Distinguished Analyst, Donald Feinberg, who had this to say:

The EU does not understand open source. This is clear by using DBMS (MySQL) to extend the deadline. It also is clear that this is an attempt to use MySQL as a cover-up to a political agenda. It is protectionism at its worst.

The EU is entering deep water here, water that it clearly does not adequately understand.

[deanjo]

I understand your concern but when it comes to db's there are literally million of applications out there. While MySQL maybe the second largest opensource db out there, when it comes to sheer volume of servers and systems that have been running oracle, IBM and MS db's for a better part of 1/2 century MySQL is relatively small. While MySQL may be the most dominant SQL in NA and maybe EU, there are many other db's that are prominent in other area's of the world. If you were to go to Japan for example the preferred choice is postgrsql. When you look at consumer based appliance sql's for example SQLite dominates and pretty much destroys the competition in marketshare. db's are one of the oldest forms of computing I would venture that even NS's Jet db obliterates MySQL in marketshare. When it comes to db marketshare these are systems that go for an extremely long time before a switchover occurs. Then there are the thousands of truely proprietary solutions as well.

As a side note I find it absolutely hilarious that the EU is basically saying that a proprietary company is responsible for maintaining a opensource project. After all isn't one of the biggest things about opensource the ability to continue support of projects if the company decides to quit supporting it?

[RealNC]

Sounds like MySQL market share is based on paid MySQL Enterprise subscriptions. Real market share figures are probably through the roof. I run 4 machines with MySQL and nobody knows I do. Imagine the thousands and thousands all over the world doing the same. This stuff doesn't make it into market share estimates.

[L33F3R]

some things require government intervention, like when it comes to defence or consumer safety. But this is flat out ridiculous.

Besides wiki is telling me that both sun and oracle are american, so would someone please tell me why the EU is getting involved?

[LenS]

As a side note I find it absolutely hilarious that the EU is basically saying that a proprietary company is responsible for maintaining a opensource project. After all isn't one of the biggest things about opensource the ability to continue support of projects if the company decides to quit supporting it?

I agree completely, though I would characterize it as "business as usual" rather than hilarious. I think the first and last lines of the cnet article sum up the situation pretty well:

"IBM and Hewlett-Packard could not have planned it any better. "
"The EU is entering deep water here, water that it clearly does not adequately understand."

Just another case of pols not really understanding the issue, but understanding very well what some of their deep pocket contributors want.

some things require government intervention, like when it comes to defence or consumer safety. But this is flat out ridiculous.

Besides wiki is telling me that both sun and oracle are american, so would someone please tell me why the EU is getting involved?

Simple. Sun and Oracle do business in Europe. They have to abide by European laws for the businesses they have there.

[L33F3R]

they prolly do business in Africa but we dont see African countries caring about market competition. As bad as a lack of competition is, such is a nice position to be in if you own that business.

If the EU thinks that such a merger is wrong then does it not have the ability to bar oracle? We all know that would never happen. If you dont like the food your served you dont eat it, common frigin sense. Ill remember next time I go to europe that when i buy a souvenir i will be subject to whether or not i can look at it back in canada.

[LenS]

they prolly do business in Africa but we dont see African countries caring about market competition. As bad as a lack of competition is, such is a nice position to be in if you own that business.

If the EU thinks that such a merger is wrong then does it not have the ability to bar oracle? We all know that would never happen. If you dont like the food your served you dont eat it, common frigin sense. Ill remember next time I go to europe that when i buy a souvenir i will be subject to whether or not i can look at it back in canada.

They don't have to bar them. They can just fine them $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Ask ms. or intel.

[deanjo]

they prolly do business in Africa but we dont see African countries caring about market competition.

No but they do have a large sum of money they wish to hide in your bank account if you forward your banking info so they can deposit it....

[L33F3R]

No but they do have a large sum of money they wish to hide in your bank account if you forward your banking info so they can deposit it....

well sir deanjo. I am a Nigerian businessman who has encountered dire problems and am trapped in the UK because of an expired visa. The Nigerian embassy requires payment to renew my visa but the bank has locked my account for security reasons. In order for my account to be unlocked I request you to send 4,000 united states dollars to my account and the released funds of 50,000 united states dollars will be shared between us.

[deanjo]

well sir deanjo. I am a Nigerian businessman who has encountered dire problems and am trapped in the UK because of an expired visa. The Nigerian embassy requires payment to renew my visa but the bank has locked my account for security reasons. In order for my account to be unlocked I request you to send 4,000 united states dollars to my account and the released funds of 50,000 united states dollars will be shared between us.

Oh hell that sounds legit, will you take that payment in postage stamps?

[L33F3R]

They don't have to bar them. They can just fine them $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Ask ms. or intel.

but what i dont understand is why they actually pay it. Lets be honest, you cant make a foreign company pay anything it doesnt want to without the host governments assertion. Only course of action would be to bar the company. Banning companies like M$ or Intel would collapse any economy without question.

Regardless of playing politics, its a matter of freedom. Freedom to make as much as you want. Like it or not, greed is the foundation of all of our economies and will continue to be so.

[krazy]

but what i dont understand is why they actually pay it. Lets be honest, you cant make a foreign company pay anything it doesnt want to without the host governments assertion. Only course of action would be to bar the company. Banning companies like M$ or Intel would collapse any economy without question.
The thing is that no company like Microsoft or Intel is really based in the US anymore (financially anyway); they don't call them Multinationals for nothing.
Microsoft, for example, routes much of its revenue through an Irish subsidiary in order to avoid paying US taxes. Steve Ballmer recently whinged (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY) about Obama making it more difficult for MS to use this 'loophole' in the US tax regs.

This document (http://www.techamerica.org/content/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/techamerica_cs_tax_deferral.pdf) has some more info. It's an industry-funded report, so is very anti-Obama's-reforms, but it has this quote:
Intel, for example, employs 45,000 people in the United States and manufactures 75 percent of its products here; yet the world’s biggest chipmaker generates 80 percent of revenues abroad.
All this gives MS, Intel, and other multinationals a very strong incentive to ask "How high?" when the EU tells them to jump.

Regardless of playing politics, its a matter of freedom. Freedom to make as much as you want. Like it or not, greed is the foundation of all of our economies and will continue to be so.
You may be right but corporate freedom is different to personal freedom and needs some kind of regulation. Personally I'm glad that the EU is taking a strong stand against anti-competitive business practices. In any monopoly, the general public is the biggest loser.

[L33F3R]

Tax loopholes is a whole new ordeal. Obama is doing good on that 1. Regulation for consumer safety is also important. I do not contest that.

But anti-competitiveness? that's anti capitalism. Businesses are not puppets that the government uses to leech taxes and manipulate (which to a degree they do already). If thats what businesses start to become then very little businesses will spawn and innovation along with it. You start a business to buy the bread, not pay taxes or get surrounded by red tape. Multinationals or not, the point is right now you cant live without M$ or intel when it comes to the daily operations of society. The thought of losing money shouldn't even be considered because they have the power to cripple the countries that oppose them. and i'll tell you what, thats not good for the consumer but these 2 companies earned the stage they stand on. You cant have both a vibrant economy and an equal society, you can have something in the middle. This middle ground protects consumer safety and security as well as sponsor small business growth, which as i recall, is one of obamas hitting points. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to look at either extreme of the spectrum (nazi and commie), and see how it rly didn't work out for them.

Ill make note, im a very liberal guy. But my eyes are open to the fact that western society runs on business. Not only that but business made western society what it is. This is accepted as fact.

And based on that, what environment might endorse you to start a company (which might i add, was a huge topic on the 2008 USA election):

A. Free market principals, make as much as you can or want. We will place restrictions on you to protect consumers health and safety but you are free to grow as you wish beyond that.

B. We endorse a competitive marketplace with choices. We will place restrictions on you to protect consumers health and safety. If a company gets too large and anti-competitive then we will slow it down.

If you chose (B), you are an idiot. I tried my best to minimise bias but the answer is so historically obvious it hits you in the face.

[lordmozilla]

The US does exactly the same than the EU poking around with big mergers. True the EU does it with anyone - not scared of messing with american giants such as microsoft and intel which in the US are too big to be regulated by your corrupt political system full of lobyists.

But when a european company tries to buy a US one or do a big merger, look at what happens..... Fiat and Chrysler... Now they just couldnt stand the fact that their little star would get eaten by "fix it again tony"

[RealNC]

But anti-competitiveness? that's anti capitalism. Businesses are not puppets that the government uses to leech taxes and manipulate (which to a degree they do already)

This is also to protect the consumer (you and me). And that's good. Capitalism is not always a good thing for the people at the bottom of the chain, so regulations need apply.

[L33F3R]

Chrysler also had lots of debt with America, patents, who knows what else. For these reasons its no wonder they had to get involved. A similar thing happened when a chinese company wanted to buy some oil company a while back. It was stopped because it would mean the chinese could get technology that had military uses. This is protecting the people, not penalising a company for being too big. It came down to politics.

Regulations are not puppetry. People at the bottom get shafted, there is a reason they are at the bottom, like it or not. They need an opportunity to get back on their feet but beyond that something happened in their life for them to be at the bottom. Equal opportunity does not need to equal equality (sounds funny doesn't it). Everyone has a chance to succeed in the market if they make the right decisions. intel and MS made the right decisions.

A regulation could be considered how Canada managed its banking system and largely avoided the credit crisis (which as i recall, Europe largely fucked up on aswell). Our government stopped banks from doing these dangerous practices. They protected consumers. This is the job of a government, not to tell a company to pay a fine because they are anti competitive.

@lordmozilla - I am not american, and i am very content knowing that. This is not my "corrupt political system full of lobyists". They have these stupid lobbyists because unlike many countries, personal freedoms are respected to an extreme. This is a major problem for the USA that needs to be addressed however your rant seems like just another anti-american slide. When the EU gets into bed with these major corporations it is doing so under the assumption that it will get what it wants. I said it and ill say it again, the world runs on MS/Intel. if an economy took out the systems it uses to operate then you have no economy.

You can try this at home, use the TV remote. Now take out the batteries.

Oh and by the way. Say the EU fined me $7,000,000 for being too competitive in say.... Hard disk manufacturing. Where does my $7,000,000 go? to my competitors? because I have a hunch it goes to the EU.

[krazy]

Multinationals or not, the point is right now you cant live without M$ or intel when it comes to the daily operations of society. The thought of losing money shouldn't even be considered because they have the power to cripple the countries that oppose them. and i'll tell you what, thats not good for the consumer but these 2 companies earned the stage they stand on.
You think private interests of one corporation should be able to override public interests of a country?

So are you saying that they should be allowed to expand without limit? Isn't that exactly the problem with the US economy at the moment? Lax regulation allowed some corporations to become "too big to fail"?

You cant have both a vibrant economy and an equal society, you can have something in the middle. This middle ground protects consumer safety and security as well as sponsor small business growth, which as i recall, is one of obamas hitting points. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to look at either extreme of the spectrum (nazi and commie), and see how it rly didn't work out for them.
I think you can have both. The current US system didn't work either :eek:. Plus, it's perfectly possible to have a system encouraging small business and regulating big business.

Ill make note, im a very liberal guy. But my eyes are open to the fact that western society runs on business. Not only that but business made western society what it is. This is accepted as fact.In the US maybe, but I thought that was democracy & free speech? ;)

And based on that, what environment might endorse you to start a company (which might i add, was a huge topic on the 2008 USA election):

A. Free market principals, make as much as you can or want. We will place restrictions on you to protect consumers health and safety but you are free to grow as you wish beyond that.

B. We endorse a competitive marketplace with choices. We will place restrictions on you to protect consumers health and safety. If a company gets too large and anti-competitive then we will slow it down.

If you chose (B), you are an idiot. I tried my best to minimise bias but the answer is so historically obvious it hits you in the face.Have you read the papers in the last two years?

I think the options are more like this:
A. Free market principals, make as much as you can or want. We will place restrictions on you to protect consumers health and safety but you are free to grow as you wish beyond that. Corporations are free to grow so large that when they fail the government has two choices:

- Allow the corporation to fail, costing millions of jobs, trillions of investors dollars and destroying the infrastructure that the corporation has invested in which also creates widespread panic in the market and major repercussions for the many other businesses relying on that corporation.

- Bail out the business with taxpayer dollars to avoid massive damage to the economy, but in the process nullifying the "invisible hand" of the free market and encouraging other big businesses to take increased risks knowing that they can rely on bailouts because they are untouchable.

B. Regulate the market so that no corporation can become too big to fail. If a company fails, the directors are the only ones held responsible for their own mistakes, any assets are liquidated and investors learn from their poor investment. ie. market forces are allowed to operate freely within some reasonable boundaries.

Surely B is a better option. Of course, what option B's boundaries should be is another discussion.

[L33F3R]

im speaking in general terms and am by NO WAY saying the American model is very good. I am saying however that the american model is the reason you own a car and have a dishwasher.

You are once again confusing regulation and corporate interests. The american government fucked up in the bush administration, thats no secret. And as a result they have a nice massive debt they need to pay off, and good for them because they elected the bastard, twice. If those regulations have been in place like they had been with Canada then the subprime crisis would be less of a worry. Bad government is not no government. Do not confuse me with the shear stupidity of a bush voter.

I never said you cant regulate big business. My argument is simply that you must let them grow as much as they can. Small business and large businesses need to be treated equally with exception of some taxes for smaller companies. The tax issue is to help encourage the growth of these companies so they can get to a point to pay fair taxes. Again, political issue.

Democracy & free speech is a principal used all over the world now. many democratic free nations are poor as hell so thats proof that democracy alone doesnt make a country rich, it just gets the people involved.

I do read papers and watch TV. And i can tell you that the government intervention in recent economic troubles is a direct consequence of the government not putting obvious legislation in place. Stupid republican government is not fair regulation. Fair regulation is protecting consumers and safety. Not passing good hedge fund, loan, ect. legislation or safeguards is your own dumb governments faults. Everyone knew what the banks where doing long before it all crashed on them.

As you put it, B would be the correct answer. However with B you would have such little economy to begin with that people would go hungry.

I had a hear of a good example of how important AIG was to the economy. They insured things like oil rigs, airline planes, ect. They lowered the risk for these companies so they could actually go ahead and be companies. because of this, airlines and oil companies have capacity to do things they otherwise wouldn't. Such assets or risk taking would never have existed. The worse case sinario is far better then the best case sinario without this.

But i would like to assert that AIG messed up big, and everyone knew AIG was messing up. Stupid government is not an excuse for super-regulation.

[LenS]

If the EU or any government wanted to collect fines, taxes, or whatever from a business operating in their jurisdiction, they would not have any problem debiting their money transfers. All large transactions are electronic, so garnishing part of any businesses cash flow would be relatively easy. ONCE they got a court order. Court costs and ensuing penalties could easily double or triple the actual fine then too. If a corporation wants to do business in a country, it has to play by the countries rules.

The bigger the corporation, the more able it is to get the countries pols, or regulators to pass and/or enforce rules that favor it and discourage it's competitors. This has varying degrees of success, depending on the countries existing laws, local media, customs, etc., but once passed the laws can be enforced. Said enforcement being done according to the spirit of the law and good government principles or based on who gives the biggest bribes, usually a combination of both, In democracies with elected officials the ability of a pol to spin the passage of a law or, as in this case enforcement of an existing law, with protecting his constituency is a win, win for the pol. He gets to impress his constituency and secure campaign contributions from the corporation(s) his actions benefit.

There is no free market. That's a fairy tale fed to consumers by the corporate interests. As long as the populace benefits and is content with the offerings, which is influenced by the media, cultural norms, etc., the corporations can siphon as much as they want out of the cash flow the citizenry generates. When they over reach and the facade comes tumbling down as it recently has with the mortgage crisis, the public has to be fed more bones and the most obvious inequities addressed.

Monopolies are GREAT for the monopolist, bad for everyone else. They stifle innovation, encourage inequities in income, and when they get too obvious force the government (pols) to act, as they did breaking up Standard Oil at the beginning of the last century in the US.

[krazy]

I never said you cant regulate big business. My argument is simply that you must let them grow as much as they can. Small business and large businesses need to be treated equally with exception of some taxes for smaller companies. The tax issue is to help encourage the growth of these companies so they can get to a point to pay fair taxes. Again, political issue.
To use your example of Canada: Are you against the media ownership rules in Canada which came in last year (http://www.friends.ca/news-item/705)?
...a person or entity will be permitted to control only two of the three types of media outlets — radio, TV, or newspapers — in a single market.

...one party would not control more than 45 per cent of the total television audience share as a result of a merger or acquisition.

...That would prevent the country's two main satellite TV distributors — Bell ExpressVu and Star Choice — from merging.

"It is an approach that will preserve the plurality of editorial voices and the diversity of programming available to Canadians, both locally and nationally, while allowing for a strong and competitive industry," said CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein.

Democracy & free speech is a principal used all over the world now. many democratic free nations are poor as hell so thats proof that democracy alone doesnt make a country rich, it just gets the people involved.
I didn't say that it made anyone rich. Just that I think it's the foundation of western society.

I do read papers and watch TV. And i can tell you that the government intervention in recent economic troubles is a direct consequence of the government not putting obvious legislation in place. Stupid republican government is not fair regulation. Fair regulation is protecting consumers and safety. Not passing good hedge fund, loan, ect. legislation or safeguards is your own dumb governments faults. Everyone knew what the banks where doing long before it all crashed on them.
I think we agree here.

As you put it, B would be the correct answer. However with B you would have such little economy to begin with that people would go hungry.
That's not true. See my example above. Do you think that Canwest is going to collapse because of the new media ownership rules?

I had a hear of a good example of how important AIG was to the economy. They insured things like oil rigs, airline planes, ect. They lowered the risk for these companies so they could actually go ahead and be companies. because of this, airlines and oil companies have capacity to do things they otherwise wouldn't. Such assets or risk taking would never have existed. The worse case sinario is far better then the best case sinario without this.

But i would like to assert that AIG messed up big, and everyone knew AIG was messing up. Stupid government is not an excuse for super-regulation.I don't think super-regulation is necessary. I know that the markets are completely different, but maybe if AIG hadn't been allowed to insure more than 45% of a market (whether it be oil/airlines etc.), then it could have been allowed to collapse without taking a huge chunk of the economy with it.

Also note that AIG's insurer eventually ended up being the US taxpayer.

[L33F3R]

for the most part you are right. But you failed to read what i already wrote.

1. If global brands like MS or Intel where barred from selling in a particular jurisdiction. That jurisdiction would collapse.

2. Your argument about manipulating government is only true in cases where the government is bad. If the voter is stupid, the voter will get a stupid government. And to think only a little over 50% of people voted for Obama.....

3. You have no idea what your talking about. That conspiracy stuff may fly well in science fiction novels but it stops at that. Your basis behind that REQUIRES everyone in a particular jurisdiction to be evil. If all are bad then what is good? Once again, you need good government. The American example is getting tiresome to repeat.

3. Monopolies dont stifle innovation, thats a load of crap. I beg you to provide a real world example. If anything companies like google encourage this by providing trips and perks to its employees. This helps google become a better and larger company. Historically when a situation is bad, people are pressured with ways to solve it. For example, Soviet russia was a hell of alot better then the TSAR, people got motivated to throw the TSAR after they were treated like garbage.

BTW, if google can come up from nothing and now compete with M$, it must mean opportunity to be competitive exists. So if a company is top dog, it doesnt mean it will be forever.

Oh and 1 more thing. I would like an answer on where the corporate fines go to in the EU. I really am curious.

EDIT: gimme a sec to respond to second 1

[L33F3R]

Canada is not my example. I used the canadian regulation model for bank regulations only. My country isnt perfect, we have elections almost yearly. But thats not the debate.

What is western society without the standard of living. They found that democracy like system had been practised by tribes so as a foundation for the west, maybe. But i think its largely due to the loaning of money. This funded exploration, business and built the massive empires.

Canada has a unique media problem, and its problems reside down south. Restrictions have been in place for some time revolving around Canadian identity and american media. I think after reading it, that it has more to do with politics. Shaw, largely services the conservative west while Bell caters more here in the east. What they dont tell you is Bell Expressvu is largely controlled by none other then Dish Network. You see the issues that arise? This problem in canada has less to do with business are more to do with cultural preservation. Im not one to take a swing on whatever they are doing tho. Its doing the same thing the americans did with china and europe and it is the right thing to do.

AIG would have been fine if the government wasnt sitting on its ass. I was watching CNN today, eliot spitzer i think it was, talked about how the government had the resources to prevent this from happening and diddnt.

[krazy]

1. If global brands like MS or Intel where barred from selling in a particular jurisdiction. That jurisdiction would collapse.
I don't think a jurisdiction as large as the EU is afraid of that. I think instead that MS or Intel would do anything in their power to keep making money in a jurisdiction as large as the EU or US. See the ongoing MS Word case (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10345032-75.html) for example.

Oh and 1 more thing. I would like an answer on where the corporate fines go to in the EU. I really am curious.
From this page (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/antitrust_en.html):
These fines go into the Community budget, help finance the EU and ultimately save taxpayers' money.

[krazy]

Canada has a unique media problem, and its problems reside down south. Restrictions have been in place for some time revolving around Canadian identity and american media. I think after reading it, that it has more to do with politics. Shaw, largely services the conservative west while Bell caters more here in the east. What they dont tell you is Bell Expressvu is largely controlled by none other then Dish Network. You see the issues that arise? This problem in canada has less to do with business are more to do with cultural preservation. Im not one to take a swing on whatever they are doing tho. Its doing the same thing the americans did with china and europe and it is the right thing to do.
So, if I understand you correctly, we agree that some regulation is the right thing? After all, if you just let them grow as much as they can then the Dish network could just take over Canadian broadcasting.
AIG would have been fine if the government wasnt sitting on its ass. I was watching CNN today, eliot spitzer i think it was, talked about how the government had the resources to prevent this from happening and diddnt.So AIG should have been regulated more strongly by the government? That's what I've been saying!

[L33F3R]

That reverts back to page 1 when i was asking the very question, why do they even bother. Greed is the obvious answer. Let them do what they want i suppose, they are big and powerful because they are smart like that.

So lemme clear this up. The EU fines the corporations X amount of euros. And then spends it on itself.

When you go to court against another person, you are prolly asking for child support money or god knows what. Now the judge says u owe $5000. You pay the court. The woman doesnt get the money. Is that fair?

In the case of intel, AMD was the only real competitor. AMD received didley squat. VIA received didley squat. IBM received didley squat. Sun received didley squat. While the EU padded its taxpayers with the good old USD.

From a moral perspective, I call that stealing.

[L33F3R]

So, if I understand you correctly, we agree that some regulation is the right thing? After all, if you just then the Dish network could just take over Canadian broadcasting.
So AIG should have been regulated more strongly by the government? That's what I've been saying!

Growing a company has nothing to do with a culture. What if pepsico started running christian oriented campaigns in Saudi Arabia.. Government needs to protect its people, and in canadas case its an identity issue. Dishnetwork can grow all it wants, in the USA. it doesnt need to be in canada, mexico or good knows where else to grow if it plays its cards right. Thats a governments decision. The EU could bar M$ at any time. Will they do it? no. they cant. Blocking a possible takeover by American media, yea , Canada can prevent that. A large company doesnt need to be multinational, it can be very localised. All of which is a factor in the creation of the business to begin with. You need to trust me when i say the crtc is doing a cultural favour. Everything, even the commercials on American programming cater to a Canadian audience.

More regulated and properly regulated are different. My cause is against the arbitrary fines against companies. What we agree on is patching the stupid holes in the legal system.

[krazy]

In the case of intel, AMD was the only real competitor. AMD received didley squat. VIA received didley squat. IBM received didley squat. Sun received didley squat. While the EU padded its taxpayers with the good old USD.

From a moral perspective, I call that stealing.
I disagree. Intel knew the laws in the EU and chose to break them. It's just that the EU has much stronger 'antitrust' laws than the US.
Intel could easily just stop doing business in the EU, but they won't because there is still money to be made in obeying the law (or breaking it and paying a fine. I'm sure Intel made more money breaking the law than they lost in that fine).

[L33F3R]

did intel really know them? could it? Very few lawyers know even a fraction of what the law entails. Canada is a small population and was a country for little over 100 years. Our tax law alone is too large for any 1 man to read. any 10 men? 20 men? 20 women? not an easy state of affairs. Now we compare it to europe.

Enough to make a man cry.

Intel diddnt do its research, that puts it in the wrong but doesn't make it fair. and last i checked that was what justice was.

[krazy]

More regulated and properly regulated are different. My cause is against the arbitrary fines against companies. What we agree on is patching the stupid holes in the legal system.But the EU fines are simply enforcing their legislation!

Government needs to protect its people(...)
Which is why the EU passed it's antitrust laws - to protect its people from monopolies. Intel broke those laws and were made to pay a fine. How is that wrong?

[krazy]

did intel really know them? could it? Very few lawyers know even a fraction of what the law entails. Canada is a small population and was a country for little over 100 years. Our tax law alone is too large for any 1 man to read. any 10 men? 20 men? 20 women? not an easy state of affairs. Now we compare it to europe.

Enough to make a man cry.

Intel diddnt do its research, that puts it in the wrong but doesn't make it fair. and last i checked that was what justice was.
Fair is everyone playing by the same rules. No other company broke the antitrust law - why should Intel be excused?

A company the size of Intel would have a legal team numbering in the hundreds, if not thousands. And yes, it is their responsibility to understand the law in the jurisdictions they operate. Ignorance of the law is no defence anywhere.

[L33F3R]

Now it gets complicating

Justice
1. The quality of being just; fairness.

http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/server-farm/intel-breaks-another-record-biggest-anti-trust-fine-ever/

The European Commissioner for Competition Policy stated throughout the period covered by the decision, Intel held at least 70% of the worldwide market in x86 server CPUs, and used anti-competitive practices to hold that position.

But as usualy. the EU is retarded and like the oracle ordeal they had no idea what they were talking about.

x86 cpu's are not computers as we know it. We have how many arm licencees, mips? sparc? power? they all serve a purpose. x86 is for the desktop. is this fair? no. They might as well go after IBM because they have made so many supercomputers.

Justice had failed to be served. Equity was not present.

The ruling was in question
“The EC’s use of huge fines against market-leading firms - fines calculated from a firm’s world-wide sales, not from harm to European consumers - discourages aggressive competition that benefits consumers,” Ronald A. Cass, Chairman, Center for the Rule of Law, said in a statement. “Consumer harm should be the concern for competition law, and here instead consumers saw sharp declines in cost and increases in product quality - even Intel’s complaining rival, AMD, enjoyed historic success during the period it claims Intel’s actions foreclosed competition.”

So i ask, was justice served? are monopolies bad if quality goes up and price goes down? monopolies, like any company can swing both ways.

Legislation let banks mess up the economy, not lack of legislation. Holes existed. For the mortgage issue in particular, bush wanted to get visible minorities in houses. Turns out they couldn't afford them. I debated ridiculous legislation, and i have proven that.

[krazy]

I just found an interesting Q/A article (http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20090513124609396) about the Intel case over at Groklaw. Some choice quotes:
...Intel gave wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 central processing units (CPUs) from Intel. Intel also made direct payments to a major retailer on condition it stock only computers with Intel x86 CPUs. Second, Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing a competitor's x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products. Intel is obliged desist from the specific practices identified in this case and not to engage in these or equivalent practices in the future.

...Intel limited consumer choice and stifled innovation by preventing innovative products for which there was a consumer demand from reaching end customers. Such practices deter innovative companies which might otherwise wish to enter and compete in the market. By ordering Intel to end its abusive practices, competition on the x86 CPU market will play out on the merits with the effect that innovation to the benefit of the consumer can flourish.

Does the Commission seek to limit companies' ability to provide customers with discounts?

No. This case is about the conditions associated with Intel's rebates and payments, not the rebates and payments themselves. What is at stake here are loyalty or fidelity rebates, granted on condition that a customer buys all or most of its requirements from the dominant undertaking, thereby preventing that customer from purchasing from competitors. Intel also paid clients to delay or not launch computers incorporating a competitor's CPUs, a conduct which is not linked at all to a company's ability to provide customers with discounts.

...the Commission acts in the interests of consumers. The Commission does not look at the specific interests of individual companies, but is charged with ensuring that competition on the merits is safeguarded. This creates an environment where consumers can benefit and where innovation can flourish.

...

Intel is a US company. What gives the European Commission authority to decide whether its behaviour is legal or not?

Intel sells its products inter alia in the European Union, which is one of its main markets in the world. It must therefore respect EU antitrust rules in the same way that European companies must respect US law when operating on the other side of the Atlantic.

...

What percentage of Intel's turnover does the fine represent?

The fine represents 4.15 % of Intel's turnover in 2008. This is less than half the allowable maximum, which is 10% of a company's annual turnover.

[L33F3R]

ders a million sites we can look at which contract the same information both our ways. I think we have to agree to disagree. :p

Certainly an interesting debate tho. I have literally been hitting bud for the past 10 hours, sense my dog died :(. So im going to go to bed and not wake up for a week.


BTW krazy, i agree with alot of your points. I just like to keep a debate going ;).

[krazy]

But as usualy. the EU is retarded and like the oracle ordeal they had no idea what they were talking about.

x86 cpu's are not computers as we know it. We have how many arm licencees, mips? sparc? power? they all serve a purpose. x86 is for the desktop. is this fair? no. They might as well go after IBM because they have made so many supercomputers.

Justice had failed to be served. Equity was not present.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. They broke the law and had to pay a fine. How is that not just?

The ruling was in question
... by some US lawyer. Fortunately, he isn't in the majority in the EU or in the US (both have antitrust laws). Intel is going to court in 2010 in the US.

So i ask, was justice served? are monopolies bad if quality goes up and price goes down? monopolies, like any company can swing both ways.History shows that they can't. And if you see my groklaw link, the EU have a guidance paper which...includes a rigorous, effects-based analysis which has demonstrated that Intel's conduct has reduced consumer choice and limited innovation in the market.

More QA on this here (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/761&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en).

Edit: I didn't see your last post.. I'm sorry to hear that.

And I agree that we disagree :P. It's really just another political debate..

[LenS]

for the most part you are right. But you failed to read what i already wrote.

1. If global brands like MS or Intel where barred from selling in a particular jurisdiction. That jurisdiction would collapse.

You've forgotten about the WTO. The planet in interconnected now. Laws are enforced by global institutions. You're also misreading me. I never said ms or intel would be barred from a jurisdiction. I said the cash flow they generate could be garnished. At substantial penalties, if they didn't willingly comply.

2. Your argument about manipulating government is only true in cases where the government is bad. If the voter is stupid, the voter will get a stupid government. And to think only a little over 50% of people voted for Obama.....

NO, NO, NO!!! It only requires the voter to be complacent and willing to accept the story presented to him by the media. When the corporations gain control over the media the ability of the voter to get accurate info is greatly diminished. Given human nature being what it is, they will accept most seemingly reasonable stories until it starts hurting them personally.

3. You have no idea what your talking about. That conspiracy stuff may fly well in science fiction novels but it stops at that. Your basis behind that REQUIRES everyone in a particular jurisdiction to be evil. If all are bad then what is good? Once again, you need good government. The American example is getting tiresome to repeat.

The fact that corporations would try to influence laws and regulations is so obvious and ingrained in government I can't believe you're denying it. Look at the campaign donor list of any important pol and you'll see all of the major corporations on it as well as a host of PACs, many of which are sponsored by corporations.

3. Monopolies dont stifle innovation, thats a load of crap. I beg you to provide a real world example. If anything companies like google encourage this by providing trips and perks to its employees. This helps google become a better and larger company. Historically when a situation is bad, people are pressured with ways to solve it. For example, Soviet russia was a hell of alot better then the TSAR, people got motivated to throw the TSAR after they were treated like garbage.

I provided the well known example of Standard Oil. You just provided another with the Tsar. He had a monopoly on all economic activity in Russia. His abuse of power and and control is what got him overthrown. This is exactly what I meant when I said:
"
the corporations (or Tsar) can siphon as much as they want out of the cash flow the citizenry generates. When they over reach and the facade comes tumbling down as it recently has with the mortgage crisis (or the economic crisis in tsarist Russia), the public has to be fed more bones and the most obvious inequities addressed." Or in the case of the tsar: Off with their Heads!!!

Closer to home... What about Intel and AMD. If not for the anti-monopoly laws they could have undercut their prices severely by selling their chips at as large a loss as they needed to, until AMD went out of business, then raise their prices all they wanted to recoup their losses. They tried that anyway, but they had to at least look like they were playing fair and constrain their actions to avoid being too obvious, preventing the blatant price cutting that would have bankrupted AMD. This allowed AMD to continue to stay in the game.

You seem to have forgotten about Intel losing $100million to AMD in the recent lawsuit, or maybe you think all would be well if AMD had gone bankrupt. Then intel would have developed quad core chips anyway, just like they developed Pentiums through the nineties and early 2000's.

(PS I can get you a great deal on some Florida property. Warm climate, close to town, real prime real estate, at firesale prices, and it's under water less than 3 months a year. PM me for details)

Fact is intel rested on their laurels, raked in the money, and let development stagnate until AMD overtook and passed them in chip performance. Then when their income was finally threatened they put increasingly larger amounts of time and money into development and there's been mere advances in chip performance in the last 5 years than in the previous 20. They even put out press releases saying they were going to do that. Do you really think that would have happened if AMD hadn't threatened their dominant position???

BTW, if google can come up from nothing and now compete with M$, it must mean opportunity to be competitive exists. So if a company is top dog, it doesn't mean it will be forever.

No, but you've forgotten that ms was fighting a monopoly lawsuit then. That greatly constrained it's ability to attack Google and probably bankrupt or absorb them. If a republican administration had been in Washington then, there would have been no lawsuit and probably no Google, at least as we know it. You don't seem to be aware of the netscape, internet explorer war of the last decade.

Oh and 1 more thing. I would like an answer on where the corporate fines go to in the EU. I really am curious.

I would assume they go where all the rest of the taxes and fines go. In the EU budget, to be spent however they want. All income and expenditures are in the public record. Where do the taxes and fine in Canada go?

[nanonyme]

Sheesh, how has this thread gone up in such a flamewar? It's a known fact Oracle has been buying away its (smaller) competitors whenever it has managed and merged their know-how of SQL products into its own. It seems almost like users here are trying to excuse their own blindness by telling EU makes stupid decisions. I at least admit myself I was blind and didn't realize what Oracle was actually doing when they bought Sun. MySQL was very likely the only interesting part of the company to them.

[Ex-Cyber]

MySQL was very likely the only interesting part of the company to them.I wouldn't be surprised if they were interested in getting Solaris as well. Oracle is very much about big installations, scalability, redundancy, and other stuff that can be considerably enhanced by the right OS features. Nothing stops them from maintaining their own patches to Linux, but those might not make it upstream (whether "upstream" in this case is an enterprise distro or mainline). A Sun buyout means that Oracle is upstream for Solaris, and has access to the top architects (assuming that they don't leave).

[L33F3R]

lol i wake up to find people are arguing with me over things i agree with them on. :p

I will make a few factual notes this time tho. For the sake of clarity. Oh and LenS thats too much for me to read, After i woke up. :D

The WTO, is useless. Up here we always get shafted trade wise by the Americans. China consistently manipulates the system. The worlds 2 major powers could give less about the WTO, and they should. The WTO has no real power to do anything. Anything you have ever been told about a global institution being stable or functional is a load of crap unless it has a military to back it up. As i grow older i realise more and more how political power and military power go hand in hand.

Corporate Lobbying is a problem, especially in the US. I dont think the republican party would be able to stand on its feet without the corporate donations. Should they be allowed to do this? well theres 2 ways to look at it. Corporations pay alot on taxes, but at the same time they can influence the environment to pay less of them. Its a trade off that largely boils down to personal preference because a real answer doesnt exist.

Brainwashing is happening. Yes it is happening in the US alot, but it happens everywhere. It happens in capitalist nations. It happens in North Korea.

[lordmozilla]

Chrysler also had lots of debt with America, patents, who knows what else. For these reasons its no wonder they had to get involved. A similar thing happened when a chinese company wanted to buy some oil company a while back. It was stopped because it would mean the chinese could get technology that had military uses. This is protecting the people, not penalising a company for being too big. It came down to politics.

Of course, oil - military?? No its just cause they are scared the chinese will become too powerful. And protecting who? The people? No, their money.

The Chinese have much easier ways to get american technologies. Its called plain corruption - quite easy to do especially in these times of uncertain incomes


personal freedoms are respected to an extreme.

Really? Where are you from? That is far far from true. Lets have a look at racism for example. Well I guess you could say allowing racism is a personal freedom.... Freedom of speech? Wait no they dont have that - bush made sure to take what little was left.


When the EU gets into bed with these major corporations it is doing so under the assumption that it will get what it wants.

Well of course. They only control the EU market - so they cant exactly loose... I dont see your point, you only 'go to bed' with someone under the assumption you'll get what you want. If you want a cuddle and you know you aint gonna get one, you dont go to bed with someone who you are sure wont give you one ;-)


I said it and ill say it again, the world runs on MS/Intel. if an economy took out the systems it uses to operate then you have no economy.

So? Doesnt mean it cant change.
Plus banking systems, pretty much all run unix, and currently the rule america... Look at the TOP500 - also probably the most expensive computers. 5 (I think its the right number) run windows. I wouldnt say thats rulling the world.

And anyways who said antyhing about removing those systems? Even if microsoft was banned from selling in europe, it wouldnt mean people have to uninstall all their windows licenses!


Yes it is happening in the US alot, but it happens everywhere. It happens in capitalist nations. It happens in North Korea.

But only in the US do 50% of the population think einstein is american....

Cant believe you compared the USA as worst than North Korea. Respect.

[bridgman]

But only in the US do 50% of the population think einstein is american....

In fairness, Einstein *did* become a US citizen in 1940 so calling him "American" isn't such a stretch. I think most Americans understand that he was not "Born in the USA".

[L33F3R]

lordmozilla, im afraid you greatly perverted my words. To such a degree its probably not worth noting but because i have all day i might as well.

-everyone is scared the Chinese will get too powerful, especially Europe. but even the Chinese know that there will be no winner of world war 3. Europe is becoming a group of welfare states, and like Canada they can reduce the size of their military(s) because of the NATO nuclear umbrella provided by the united states. So back to the basics, who has anything to lose? well, the US wants the "empire" as i will call it to be far lasting and to do that it needs europe. On the flipside, Europe needs that umbrella of protection. However more and more people are coming out and saying that such provided protection is a fallacy. What does this have to do with oracle and sun? well it mostly comes down to technology. Name 1 mainstream European semiconductor company. Guess what, all the best ones are in america. And corruption, is far less prevelent then you are led to belive. For example the Russians once had clones of an old intel processor. Today they are worried how so many of the worlds supercomputers are built in the united states. If such corruption was as widespread as you believe, then the Chinese wouldn't have gotten the F16 design plans from the Israelites, they would have got it from the state department. Should such technology be leaked they wouldn't be using ak-47's and various other 50 year old technologies.

Your bush spur is totally opinionated. Racism is everywhere, whether you believe it is or not. Playing HoN alone, i had Brazilians screaming out 9/11 and the "n" word because i spoke english. They have no idea about either of these concepts. Regardless of your personal opinions, they love their constitution and so do their courts.

I have fallen into said bed trap before. Awkward circumstances. Now i have call her my gf and have for over a year. :p

500 supercomputers dont run a country. M$ windows is the choice of many for the backend because people are stupid. You cant deny people are stupid :p. For the front end, its almost all M$ windows. And no you dont need to remove hardware or licences, however M$ could block updates and computer hardware goes obsolete very quickly.

And no i did not say the usa was worse then north korea. Please read again.

[deanjo]

Name 1 mainstream European semiconductor company.

Philips aka NXP Semiconductors

[L33F3R]

Philips still alive?

[monraaf]

Europe is becoming a group of welfare states

LOL, you have been watching too much Fox News.

[deanjo]

Philips still alive?

Very much so.

[nanonyme]

-everyone is scared the Chinese will get too powerful, especially Europe.And at the same time we in Europe are trying to sell as much of our University-level know-how to China? Does not compute. :3

[L33F3R]

LOL, you have been watching too much Fox News.

your right. I watch it for the ranting stupid peoples :p

rly though. less and less military funding and more and more healthcare, welfare, w/e else funding. Whether this is a good or bad thing is debatable.

I noticed Chinese people are in like, every university... Maybe they charge them a premium?

[Ex-Cyber]

Name 1 mainstream European semiconductor company. Guess what, all the best ones are in america.It doesn't get much more mainstream than ARM Holdings, does it? Maybe you don't see the logo all over the place, but I think there are more ARM processors in service than x86 ones: for example there's one in every Nintendo DS, Wii, iPhone, and most iPod models, and that's just a few popular products that jump to mind. ARM is the rule rather than the exception for mobile stuff, and does pretty well in wired embedded stuff also.

[bridgman]

Infineon and ST Microelectronics were both in the top 10 worldwide last year, both European.

[Zhick]

rly though. less and less military funding and more and more healthcare, welfare, w/e else funding. Whether this is a good or bad thing is debatable.
Don't know about the other eu-states, but here in germany the general direction is quite the opposite. There used to be (and by american standards I guess there still is) alot of welfare, but the conservative and the liberal parties, which will with ~90% certainty win the elections this month, want do decrease it.

[L33F3R]

i think there are more arm cpu's actually. it would make sense because almost every phone uses them. But what needs to be remembered is that they are licences off to dozens of companies. I had a hear about ST and they seem to be doing well. What i should have noted is that we wont be seeing any serious horsepower come out of arm arch for a while. :rolleyes:

for reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_sales_leaders_by_year#Ranking_for_ye ar_2008

[LenS]

I don't think anyone's mentioned TSMC:
Source: TSMC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Address : <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC>

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company is the world's largest dedicated independent semiconductor foundry, with its headquarters and main operations located in the Hsinchu Science Park in Hsinchu, Taiwan. TSMC's market capitalization as of 1 January 2009 is US$40.4 billion.

Although TSMC offers a variety of wafer product-lines (high-voltage, mixed-signal, analog), TSMC is best known for its logic chip product line. Various fabless high-tech companies such as Qualcomm, Altera, Broadcom, Conexant, Marvell, NVIDIA, and VIA are customers of TSMC. Some fab-owning companies like Intel and AMD also outsource some production to TSMC[3].

[Penti]

I think people forget how much semiconductor manufacturing there is in Europe. There's AMD now global foundries, Qimonda, X-fab and Toppan Photomask just in Dresden. As mentioned there's also Infineon and STM. But also semi design companies like Ericsson, Nokia Siemens, defense contractors etc. Ericsson is in the process of acquiring Nortels CDMA/LTE business and is a serious player. Other semi companies in Europe are NXP and some smaller companies. And I think we should differentiate between semiconductor design companies and semiconductor companies. All GPUs are manufactured by TSMC in Taiwan. AMD is on it's way to become a completely fabless company. And it's not like other countries can't do the same stuff, ATi was Canadian before AMD bought them.

[Penti]

Don't know about the other eu-states, but here in germany the general direction is quite the opposite. There used to be (and by american standards I guess there still is) alot of welfare, but the conservative and the liberal parties, which will with ~90% certainty win the elections this month, want do decrease it.

It's kinda retarded (no offense) to compare it like that. No country in the world spends as much on health care as United States. They spend a lot more then people think, the government is huge in the US not just the defense industry which gets federal money. They have a huge budget deficit. They should tax more then most european countries maybe. At least definitively more then Switzerland and your (US) neighbor Canada. Eu countries have a budget deficit ceiling of 3% of GDP they should keep under, US is currently on a budget deficit over 7%. To do a comparison I would pretty much have higher costs running a business as self employed in the US with health insurance then I would in Sweden where it's payed through (payroll tax for employees, social security taxes for self employed) taxes (where I'm covered even without ever having earned/payed a cent to the insurance system). Through the government (taxes) they already pay as much as Swedes do per GDP. Yet Sweden manage to have more doctors and nurses employed (per head/1000 people) and less people dying from deceases i.e. ranks higher/better in the statistics. All without any private health insurance on the side or private hospitals (they are run by regional governments where we elect representatives every for years).

It's not like private systems are free either. Having a dual system where both are working poorly isn't exactly good either. Overall in western european countries there also used to be less need to use the welfare system. Changing realities and neoliberal policies have pushed for a system where less people is actually needed in the workforce. But it's hardly social security and unemployment insurance that takes up all the budget. Either way "high-tax" countries tend to get very good value from there tax money. Few have succeeded creating a truly low tax system. (With low costs overall and people not living in shanty towns). For that matter US has never really been a low tax country. It's a country of (former) federal monopolies, federal price regulations and a lot of other government intervention. Currently a country of medicare, medicade and social security. Programs with huge spendings. Total health care spending is projected to reach 17.6% of GDP in US this year anyhow. OECD average is around 9%. They also performs under the OECD averages regarding hospital beds, doctors, nurses, life expectancy, infant mortality etc. Even though a party rules here in Sweden now that was against the health care reforms in the fifties, it's not like they have tried to dismantled the system under their 3 years in power. Conservatives don't mean less spending on "welfare". Just means attitude change. And due too the expected downturn and maybe not so excepted financial crisis the "moderate workingparty" government (as opposed to workers party) do all the things they criticized the previous government for like hiding unemployment, pointless programs for the unemployed, not creating jobs and leaving people in long-term unemployment and just paying these people to do nothing, passivising them as they said before they took power. Hypocrisy is everywhere.