struck a blow

[sage]

By setting limits on Microsoft's practice of bundling software and services with its Windows operating system, Mr Monti has struck a blow against a key part of the software firm's commercial strategy.


excuse me, can you tell me what the meaning of "struck a blow " here ?
thanks ^^

 

[Tdol]

The court's decision has hit Microsoft hard.;-)

 

[sage]

oic! thanks tdol teacher!! ^^ hah

 

[Tdol]

Your welcome. I imagine Bill Gates isn't very happy with the European Union at the moment. It's their biggest fine ever. ;-)

 

[MikeNewYork]

Your welcome. I imagine Bill Gates isn't very happy with the European Union at the moment. It's their biggest fine ever. ;-)

It's not just Bill Gates. Some American politicians are seeing this as protectionism and are already talking about retribution.

 

[RonBee]

Astonishingly, the EU actually has a competition commissioner. They seem rather schizophrenic on the idea of free markets. (They don't understand economics.)

Europe's attack on Microsoft
http://www.townhall.com/clog/archive/040321.html#111949AM

 

[MikeNewYork]

Astonishingly, the EU actually has a competition commissioner. They seem rather schizophrenic on the idea of free markets. (They don't understand economics.)

Europe's attack on Microsoft
http://www.townhall.com/clog/archive/040321.html#111949AM

I think that things are likely to get ugly between the US and the EU.

 

[RonBee]

Astonishingly, the EU actually has a competition commissioner. They seem rather schizophrenic on the idea of free markets. (They don't understand economics.)

Europe's attack on Microsoft
http://www.townhall.com/clog/archive/040321.html#111949AM

I think that things are likely to get ugly bwtween the US and the EU.

I think you're right.

• March 24, 2004
  EU Microsoft Decision Bad for Consumers and America
  SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Today, European regulators delivered a major blow to Microsoft, hitting the software maker with a record fine and new rules in addition to the sanctions the company already faces under American antitrust law.
  
  “It’s a sad day for future innovation and competition when those companies that failed to have their way under American law can simply go to Europe and have their case opened again,” said Sonia Arrison, director of Technology Studies at the Pacific Research Institute.
  
  “This sets a bad precedent. Consumers don’t benefit when companies spend their resources in court, they benefit when those dollars are spent creating new products,” she said.
  http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/rel/2004/pr_04-03-24sa.html

• March 25, 2004
  European Commission Decision has Global Ramifications
  
  (Washington, D.C.) Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today expressed outrage over the draconian punishment handed down by the European Commission (EC) to Microsoft for violating European antitrust laws. The decision requires Microsoft to handover valuable intellectual property, unbundle its software, and pay a $612 million fine.
  
  “The decision by the European Commission will have a global impact of negative consequence,” CAGW President Tom Schatz said. “In most international antitrust cases, courts will rely on precedent if a decision has been made in another jurisdiction. This is to ensure stability in the global marketplace. Microsoft had already reached a fair agreement in U.S. courts that the EC should have followed.”
  http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_03252004

• March 24, 2004
  Small Business Group Critical of EC Action Against Microsoft
  
  Washington, D.C. – The Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC) today voiced its concern and disagreement with the European Commission’s (EC’s) record $613 million fine on Microsoft Corp., and the demand by European Union (EU) regulators for the company to alter its business model.
  
  SBSC Chairman Karen Kerrigan commented: “The EC’s ruling against Microsoft signals a red flag for all U.S.-based companies that do business in the EU. Businesses that are inclined to stifle a competitor through legal or other artificial means, rather than competing in the marketplace have been provided an open door to venue shop at the EU’s ‘competition commission’ with their grudges. It’s absolutely unacceptable that the EC has rendered such an extreme ruling impacting not only the health of one of America’s best companies, but one that has wide-ranging impact on U.S. shareholders, workers, small business suppliers and our innovative capacity and competitiveness in general.”
  http://www.sbsc.org/LatestNews_Action.asp?FormMode=1&ID=338

 

[MikeNewYork]

Thanks for the links. :twisted:

 

[Tdol]

Your welcome. I imagine Bill Gates isn't very happy with the European Union at the moment. It's their biggest fine ever. ;-)

It's not just Bill Gates. Some American politicians are seeing this as protectionism and are already talking about retribution.

Coming from the steel tariffers, that's rich. ;-)

 

[MikeNewYork]

Your welcome. I imagine Bill Gates isn't very happy with the European Union at the moment. It's their biggest fine ever. ;-)

It's not just Bill Gates. Some American politicians are seeing this as protectionism and are already talking about retribution.

Coming from the steel tariffers, that's rich. ;-)

That's interesting coming from a government-subsidized Airbus country.
:wink:

 

[RonBee]

Your welcome. I imagine Bill Gates isn't very happy with the European Union at the moment. It's their biggest fine ever. ;-)

It's not just Bill Gates. Some American politicians are seeing this as protectionism and are already talking about retribution.

Coming from the steel tariffers, that's rich. ;-)

I didn't agree with the steel tariffs. At least Bush finally lifted them. For whatever reason he did it, it was the right thing to do (lift the tariffs).

Fair trade is the enemy of free trade. When you protect jobs in some industries you wind up losing more jobs in other industries than you save in the protected industries. Tariffs might be good politics, but they are bad economically.

It is a strange idea for the government to be promoting competition. (It's the marketplace that does that.) But if that is what they want they should stop subsidizing industries or individual businesses within those industries.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I didn't agree with the steel tariffs. At least Bush finally lifted them. For whatever reason he did it, it was the right thing to do (lift the tariffs).

Fair trade is the enemy of free trade. When you protect jobs in some industries you wind up losing more jobs in other industries than you save in the protected industries. Tariffs might be good politics, but they are bad economically.

It is a strange idea for the government to be promoting competition. (It's the marketplace that does that.) But if that is what they want they should stop subsidizing industries or individual businesses within those industries.

I don't approve of tarriffs as a rule, either. In this case, the steel tarriffs were a temporary measure to allow an industry, which some see as a matter of national security, to recover. Tarriffs ahould be applied sparingly if used at all.

 

[RonBee]

Thomas Sowell wrote an interesting article on how the tariffs on sugar have hurt the candy industry. Life Savers has moved much of its production to Canada. Why? Canada has no tariff on on sugar, mostly because it has no sugar industry. The measures to protect jobs in the sugar industry have cost more jobs elsewhere than they have "saved" in the sugar industry. There are always costs, but politicians eager for votes usually ignore the costs, because they are not as obvious as the benefits.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Thomas Sowell wrote an interesting article on how the tariffs on sugar have hurt the candy industry. Life Savers has moved much of its production to Canada. Why? Canada has no tariff on on sugar, mostly because it has no sugar industry. The measures to protect jobs in the sugar industry have cost more jobs elsewhere than they have "saved" in the sugar industry. There are always costs, but politicians eager for votes usually ignore the costs, because they are not as obvious as the benefits.

Yes, I agree. The rippling effects often are worse than the original problem. The sugar industry is clearly not a matter of national security. :wink:

 

[Tdol]

Microsoft is not simple protectionism- they have two sides to their operations- OS and software, yet they have repeatedly made software applications less competitive than their own and refused to deal with certain security issues, despite warnings. The fine may seem high, but their position is similar to that of the oil monopolies of yore. ;-)

 

[RonBee]

Microsoft is not simple protectionism- they have two sides to their operations- OS and software, yet they have repeatedly made software applications less competitive than their own and refused to deal with certain security issues, despite warnings. The fine may seem high, but their position is similar to that of the oil monopolies of yore. ;-)

So they have "refused to deal with certain security issues, despite warnings"? That sounds pretty ominous. So if the government warns you about something you had better do what they want or else?

The fine is not only high it is unjustifiable.

Governments don't create wealth. They take it from people who do.

(An operating system is software.)

 

[Red5]

(Moved to the members area for fear of law-suits)

 

[Tdol]

So they have "refused to deal with certain security issues, despite warnings"? That sounds pretty ominous. So if the government warns you about something you had better do what they want or else?

The fine is not only high it is unjustifiable.

Governments don't create wealth. They take it from people who do.

(An operating system is software.)

Name a government that cannot fine- it's a procedure used by all. I'm not one of the KillBill types celebrating this action and happily use Microsft products (OS, Office, IE, Messenger, etc), but there are legitmate issues, just as there were in the US with Sun and Netscape. ;-)

 

[RonBee]

Europe's attack on Microsoft
http://www.townhall.com/clog/archive/040321.html#111949AM

There are legitimate issues. One issue is whether government--either in the US or the UE--should be punishing success with their attempts to create a "level playing field" which really means helping those who are less competitive by restraining those who are more competitive--and all in the name of competitiveness. Honesty would compel them to admit what they are really doing. Those governmental actions stifle competitiveness. They do not enhance it. It is the marketplace that forces people to compete. The government can't do that.

Microsoft has indeed been very competitive. That is exactly the problem. If they weren't so competitive the EU's so-called "competition commissioner" wouldn't have anything to say about them. No, his interest isn't in increasing competition (the marketplace does that) but in suppressing competition. If you want to compete with Microsoft the way to do that is with better products--not by using the government as a sledgehammer.

My apologies to MikeNewYork. It was George Will who wrote the column I referred to earlier. (See below.)

"Protectionism is a variant of what conservatives disparage as ``industrial policy'' when nonconservatives do it. It is government supplanting the market as the picker of economic winners. Another name for industrial policy is lemon socialism -- survival of the unfit."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20040212.shtml
(The sugar trade)

Subsidies are all wet
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040319.shtml

'Fairness' fanatics
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20031126.shtml

The globalization of quotas
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040310.shtml