|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 06:59 AM EST |
| Microsoft fined in
Europe for not offering browser choice.
Microsoft has been fined 561
million euros ($731m; £484m) for failing to promote a range of web browsers,
rather than just Internet Explorer program, to users in the European Union (EU) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Not enough! - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 07:42 AM EST
- Not enough! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 03:06 PM EST
- Just right! - Authored by: albert on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 03:44 PM EST
- Just right! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 03:57 AM EST
- It must be a typo ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 07:56 AM EST
- Pocket change for MS, so why so little? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 08:01 AM EST
- Adequate - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 10:23 AM EST
- Microsoft has been fined 561 million euros - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 12:37 PM EST
- Open Letter To: European Anti-Competition Commission - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 03:14 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 10:53 AM EST |
Danish tax authorities are seeking almost $ 1 billion in back taxes from
Microsoft.
This is part of a tougher EU stand on multinationals transferring money within
the company but across borders to circumvent tax demands.
A recent investigation found that only about 1/3 of companies located in Denmark
(domestic as well as foreign) pay the corporate taxes they are obliged to.
While these companies enjoy good infrastructure, a well-educated workforce pool,
next to no corruption, and a host of other, less quantifiable, benefits, they do
not feel the urge to contribute anything towards this.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 02:49 PM EST |
Article
link.
Nice, I just hope the Whitehouse does extend that to "all
consumer electronic devices". That should very much include the PS3 and it
would be nice to tell Sony "it doesn't matter what your EULA says, the Law says
I can remove your software and install my own regardless of teh EULA
terms!"
Of course, there's lots of assumed factors - like the Law
actually saying "regardless of license agreement terms, if you own the device
hardware, you can remove their software".
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 10:08 PM EST |
.
It might not be popular to defend Mr. Swartz' prosecutorial assailants, but Mr.
Holder is right. They were not unreasonably hard on him from the usual
perspective.
First of all, forget about the maximum sentences. Sentences follow formulaic
guidelines that are well within any statutory maximum sentences. Someone with
no record will be accorded the most lenient guidelines. However, knowing the
guidelines, a prosecutor has immense power to bring charges sufficient in number
and seriousness that would result in significant jail time for certain
convictions.
Plea bargaining escalates. The longer a defendant takes and the more work he
makes the prosecution do, the tougher his plea offers get. He apparently had a
pre-indictment offer with a guideline of two months, but probation eligible.
After indictment, the offer went up. The offer extant at the end was to charges
allowing the government to ask for 6 months incarceration with the defendant
able to ask for probation. As a lawyer is known to say to his client, "the
answer to most of your questions is that it's up to the judge."
If Mr. Swartz had refused all offers and exercised his Constitutional right to a
jury trial, he would have faced more severe guidelines than those determined by
the plea offers. It would not have been anywhere near 35 years.
Also if the government had asked for a severe sentence, with a flourish Swartz'
counsel would call their recommendations false and remind the judge of the
government's own generous plea offers that indicated that this was not so dire a
calamity. "The government certainly does not want the court to punish Mr.
Swartz for exercising the right to a jury trial which we all share."
You have to work hard to get locked up. It's easier to get locked up for not
showing up or dirty urines. One has to do a lot and ignore judges and probation
officers. This is particularly so in money and drug crimes. You have to use a
weapon or steal many dollars at first. Drug dealers plead to thirty and
sixty-year offenses all the time. The maximums mean little. It is the
guidelines.
Swartz was a man of great brilliance and vulnerabilities. An easy, safe out
with a guilty plea was not really so safe for him. He would have been ordered
away from computers so as not to be a "danger." He probably couldn't
chew gum, watch TV and read for three years on probation. The expense and risks
of a trial tortured him also. This is a loss for everyone.
Unfortunately, prosecutors can use the laws that are passed. The incumbent
powers in the governments of the world recognize the internet as a threat. They
will never deem an attempt to control it as an abuse of discretion; it is
self-preservation. This sheds a light on an imbalance in the government's
monopoly powers. Copyright crime! It is a bitter contest with fairness invoked
if at all in the ending sentence.
~webster~
.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 10:47 AM EST |
| Link - GSMArena [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 03:42 PM EST |
| TechCrunch:
Microsoft's Patent
Lawsuit Against Google Could Shut Down Google Maps In
Germany [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
