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

[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?

...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 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:

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).