backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 235 comment(s) - last by just4U.. on Feb 1 at 8:58 AM

The EU proves itself once again to be a strong market-regulator, launching two new investigations into Microsoft anti-competitive practices

It could be safely said that the European Union (EU) and Microsoft are not exactly best buddies.  Microsoft fought the law, and the law won -- to the tune of a $690M USD fine imposed last year by the European Commission (EC), the financial regulatory branch of the EU.

Pleased with its success, the European Commission just released a memo detailing that it believes more fines may soon be in store against Microsoft.  The EC memo states its intent to launch two more formal investigations into whether Microsoft abused its market position and engaged in anti-competitive processes.

One claim leveled in the memo alleges Microsoft failed to disclose interoperability information “across a broad range of products.”  In particular it mentions the Office suite, server products and the .NET framework as possible software which Microsoft failed to disclose interoperability data; an anti-competitive and illegal practice.  The crux of the investigation is Microsoft Office 2007's new proprietary Open Office XML format

The Commission will examine whether the new formate makes Office “sufficiently interoperable with competitors' products.”  If it decides that it is not, it could be the latest in a long string of failures for the new oft-criticized format.  Recently, the governing body of the British school system expelled Vista and Office '07 from the classroom, partially because it felt OOXML was inferior to the open source Open Document Format.  Microsoft has constantly argued the opposite -- that its format is the superior one.

The Commission will also investigate Internet Explorer, partially based on a request from browser maker Opera.  Opera alleges that the bundling of IE with Windows violates EU guidelines.  Further, it says that Microsoft uses proprietary formats within the browser, in an effort to reduce compatibility with open internet standards, an anti-competitive practice.

The EC also received reports of the "tying of other separate software products by Microsoft, which include the products desktop search and Windows Live. The Commission's investigation will therefore focus on allegations that a range of products have been unlawfully tied to sales of Microsoft's dominant operating system."

While the EC is not charging Microsoft with a violation of Article 82 of the EC Treaty, yet, it vows to make the investigation "a matter of priority."

The EU engaged in an aggressive campaign of competition monitoring over the last several years and has issued numerous large fines.  The EC is also currently investigating or charging violations against Apple for its iTunes software and against leading chip-maker Intel

The EC is not only fielding claims against American companies.  British Airways and Siemens are also in its legal cross hairs.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Chris Peredun on 1/16/2008 11:17:46 AM , Rating: 3
Doesn't anyone else feel like Microsoft is going to call the European Commission's bluff one of these days and just pull out of the EU entirely?




By SandmanWN on 1/16/2008 11:20:25 AM , Rating: 2
I bet they are thinking about it.

Microsoft gets punished for being proprietary.

Then microsoft gets punished for moving away from being proprietary.

Doesn't seem like the EU is a winning proposition for microsoft in general. The stakes are getting rather high. Run away MS, run away!!!


By logaldinho on 1/16/2008 12:00:13 PM , Rating: 2
i wonder if MS moved out of the union, would it be better for american software retailers. customers from europe would still need to use microsoft's software, and would have to actually pay more to use it thanks to the EU pushing microsoft out of the region. meaning those retailers that do ship to other countries would in fact make more sales and profitability would be up for them. all in the while the EU actually ends up screwing over its citizens. again. even more.


By cciesquare on 1/16/2008 12:13:00 PM , Rating: 5
It can back fire. What if EU goes all linux or open source and it is successful? If that's the case EU makes a point that life can exist without MS. What impression would that give to others? They can do without MS.

The best thing MS can do is make it look like EU is just out to get big companies and make EU look bad. This can cause American or heck any company hesitant to enter the EU market.


By Christopher1 on 1/16/2008 1:42:13 PM , Rating: 3
Life cannot exist without Microsoft. There are too many things that are Microsoft or Windows only, games to name only one of them, that you cannot do on Linux.

I really think that Microsoft should call the European Union's bluff and back out of Europe for about 1 year. Once their society falls apart, then Microsoft can come back in and say "I told you so!" and reap massive rewards as they help put the European Union back together.

I am not a fan of Microsoft's bundling practices, but I have to say that with Vista they got it right. You can install any programs you want on Vista, and they run just as well as Microsoft's included programs.

Secondly, Microsoft has no responsibility to allow people to make things compatible with some of those things people are mentioning, and I should also point out that there is a add-on for Office that allows you to import and export ODF files to and from Office.


RE: How many straws is that on the camel's back now?
By TSS on 1/16/2008 2:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
bull. if 1 of the world markets (EU, US, china, india, anything with large buying power) switches to linux in its entirety, nearly every game publisher will ready games for linux. microsoft might be able to survive without the europian market, many game company's can't survive without global launches. likewise, the gaps in programs needed will be closed within a year.

we can survive with all the current windows installs we got until open source is ready.


By afkrotch on 1/17/2008 11:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
Have you even worked IT before? It would take well over a year just to swap a company completely over to *nix. Usually it's poorly done and ends up costing the IT department a messload of headaches and the company more money than simply just sticking with Windows.

Odds would be high that none of your OEMs would stop selling Windows. More businesses would probably simply import the OS and mark up the prices. Even if Microsoft pulls out, there products would still be available.

The market is too ingrained in Microsoft to simply remove it all within a short amount of time. It'd take years to migrate to a completely non-MS environment. God forbid if they utilize specialized software that only works with Windows.

Also did you actually put China and India on there? They are hardly part of the world's currently largest markets. They are an emerging market that shouldn't be overlooked though. I don't think the combined sales from China and India even make 4% of Microsoft's revenue. I know in 2006, China made up less than 1% of Microsoft sales.


By Benji XVI on 1/16/2008 2:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Life cannot exist without Microsoft


The clue to the level of credibility was in the opening statement here, folks.


By The Sword 88 on 1/16/2008 3:57:47 PM , Rating: 3
Do you guys really think the EU business world will want to use Fedora or Ubuntu and Open Office?

No way, if MS pulls out something will happen, but it will not be mass acceptance of Linux.


By Nik00117 on 1/16/2008 4:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, if I would be M$ i'd simply tell the EU this

"Any EU customer calling from witin the EU for techsupport will recieve double the rate to call. Also all EU sites will be taken down, yes including the translated ones. Thirdly M$ will not allow retailers to sell M$ within the EU but it must be imported through outside retailers, at retail value...

If you want to sue us again, thats fine also we are shutting down all offices of M$ in the EU, this will create a flux of experieneced IT techs without a job... I don't think some countires in the EU could somatch this too well.

O BTW if you want us to come back it'll cost that 690 million you fined us, along with all our legal fees and ad additonal 500 million for the hassle.

TYVM much and enjoy your day :) O BTW considering we M$ no longer conside routself a company a part of the EU you can kiss our ass.


By Spoelie on 1/17/2008 6:02:25 AM , Rating: 3
The M$ abbreviation is soooo geek-in-mom's-basement.


By Xenoterranos on 1/17/2008 10:23:34 AM , Rating: 2
I though it was a touching nuance. :P


By senbassador on 1/16/2008 5:01:02 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, but you're going under the assumption that the EU actually cares about EU businesses or what they think.

Do you really think its fair to punish them twice?


By Samus on 1/16/2008 5:36:19 PM , Rating: 3
Microsoft should simply pull out of the European market for a moment. They will eventually discover that a non-Microsoft world is going to rip their economy apart, because proprietary software is neccessary when you have 95% marketshare, for the same reason even Apple with unimpressive (figuratively speaking) marketshare still have proprietary libraries in OSX.

Wait for then to beg your return Microsoft. Just wait. It's not like last years earnings in the EU topped $690 million anyway ;)


By eye smite on 1/16/2008 4:01:19 PM , Rating: 5
One might also speculate that if MS pulls out of the EU, that would give rise to standardized forms of linux like the mac os, with full vendor support on hardware and software that would find it's way back here and finally give us a real option to microsoft thats affordable and would certainly be better than vista.


By qwertyz on 1/17/2008 7:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
EU just wants Microsoft's money, even if Microsoft will not develop any OS anymore they will still get sued by EU that will try to take their hard earned money because EU commission is a bunch of corrupted pigs that eat big companies money and they are just unstoppable how can u avoid this ?

Microsoft should just develop the software like they have developed until now because consumers like their products, instead if EU wants their money they should just sue back EU for absurd requests and practices and request them to pay back their hard earned money that EU have taken from them.

The rule should be if u take from us we take from u.


By TheDoc9 on 1/16/2008 12:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think the EU has wanted Microsoft out from the very beginning. They want European companies to write OS's, and they obviously can't force Microsoft out in a free market because the court of world opinion would condemn it. Instead simply fine the hell out of them, like a traffic cop. The EU hates what the U.S. has been on a power grab to become a super power, this is simply the next step. They've positioned there currency to become the world standard and eventually they'll need to line up a military because they'll burn there ties with the U.S. to continue using ours. At least it will be someone else for the world to hate.


By senbassador on 1/16/2008 4:58:18 PM , Rating: 2
If MS pulls out of the EU, whats to stop Google from creating their own OS from scratch and entering the EU market. (ok, I mean besides the fact that it would probably be free but embedded with ads which will annoy the EU just as well) Hey, it can happen. Google will end up owning just about everything.


By Ringold on 1/16/2008 12:20:05 PM , Rating: 5
There are these things called women..

http://images.google.com/images?q=sexy+women&rls=c...


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/16/2008 3:05:38 PM , Rating: 4
Greater good hmmmm, I'm just not seeing it. I see it as being more beneficial if the EU would simply pick a Linux Distro and funnel money into it, and get it to compete on the open market. Fining a successful company is rather distasteful.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/16/2008 4:24:43 PM , Rating: 3
Frankly, if the ungodly number of Linux distros would band together and create one all encompasing distro, they could compete against Microsoft and Apple in the market. Right now every ticked off kid that has issues with a distro can tinker and spin his own. With night and day differences between meny of them. While we encompass "Linux" as an operating system, it market perspective it would be more correct to call them out by indiidual distro, because while they share the same basic kernel, no two distros are the same, with many sporting massive differences between others.

Companies want a stable platform. Microsoft provides 1 OS. It goes on to replace this OS every 3-5 years with a new version. The market can easily standardize against it and support it. Linux either moves too slowly, with new distros released every 6-12 months, or too slowly where the releases are spotty and range between 6 months and 6 years. Apple so far has been the only real respectable competitor here. They are fairly regular in release windows, and they have standardized the platforms to the most part. You don't see 50 different specific flavors of OSX, you see one. Linux..... yea, they have a ways to go, and quite honestly, need to consolidate themselves.


By SandmanWN on 1/16/2008 4:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Frankly, if the ungodly number of Linux distros would band together and create one all encompasing distro

I smell another EC lawsuit on the horizon already. :P


By rcc on 1/17/2008 5:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I smell another EC lawsuit on the horizon already.


Yes!!! Sue all the Linux distros for not creating a viable Windows competitor. Why not.


By schnazzer on 1/16/2008 5:32:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yes, in the current system, that would be the surest way to compete with Microsoft in the short term. But it is fundamentally incompatible with the open source model, where we are all "free to fork".


This is precisely why the open source model you may be envisioning won't work in the real world.


By afkrotch on 1/17/2008 11:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
Your vision of open source is exactly why Linux doesn't grab a big market share. How does one code software to work on every version of Linux, if everyone is making it completely different from one another?

This is just my guess, but more than likely over 95% of available software released within the past 2 years for Windows will work on Windows 98, Me, NT, 2k, XP, and Vista. Can the same be said about available software releases for Linux, especially if consumers are "free to fork" their OS.

I can't remember where I read it, but closed source brews innovation. Open source just refines that innovation from closed source.


By HeelyJoe on 1/20/2008 9:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I know, as long as the source is made available the programs will work with pretty much any distribution of Linux.

If you are talking about specific package formats (i.e. .deb), then yes, there are more limited options, but a .deb package will run on any distribution based on Debian.


By djcameron on 1/16/2008 10:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
You mean like Airbus?


By rcc on 1/17/2008 5:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
as being more beneficial if the EU would simply pick a Linux Distro and funnel money into it,


You mean they're not? I thought they just wanted MS to finance it for them. : )


By clovell on 1/16/2008 11:24:20 AM , Rating: 2
They've got to be considering it. This is getting a bit ridiculous. Microsoft could take the hit financially, but the press would murder their brand image.

Competitors would would follow suit and try to capitalize on it. I can just imagine the Mac commercials now - Mac guy with Jimmy Carville - 'They want to take the computers out of your schools - deprive them of their education! They want to intellectual maim your babies!'

But, if this were some third-world country or group of nations, and not the EU, Microsoft would be long gone.


RE: How many straws is that on the camel's back now?
By ebakke on 1/16/2008 11:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
And then, with any luck, all of the member countries will follow.


By SandmanWN on 1/16/2008 1:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
The EU should tread carefully here. They currently enjoy a positive trade deficit with the US. If this spins out of control with all this head hunting against US companies then the EU has the most to lose overall.

The US has a negative deficit with the EU that will go to zero.
The EU has a positive deficit with the US that will go to zero.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a mathematician to figure out who comes out smelling like a rose.

Be careful what you wish for EU. As the saying goes... "What goes around, comes around."


By ADDAvenger on 1/16/2008 11:25:14 AM , Rating: 2
I dunno, the EU is a pretty big market, but then again 2/3 of a billion sounds like a pretty big loss to me, especially if it becomes an annual tradition.


By afkrotch on 1/17/2008 11:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft made $51.12 billion dollars in 2007. What's 2/3 a billion mean to them?

If Microsoft pull their PC products out of the EU, they'd lose that money, but they can also cut jobs and probably recover the losses that way. No need to make a specialized EU version. Can manufacture less. Can get rid of more tech support. That or redirect those assets into emerging markets like China or India.

Me...I'd just keep the EU lagging behind for a while. Oh, have problems with our current OS's? No problem. Here's Windows ME (EU Edition). Completely open source.


By Ringold on 1/16/2008 12:29:24 PM , Rating: 2
Europe is extremely important for American business, you are quite correct. It's a place where we can look to, observe their business practices (if you can call a lot of what goes on there 'business', particularly when government spending is 53.8% of GDP as in France), and then determin how to do the exact opposite to achieve optimal growth.

Without Europe, where would economists look to for a constant reminder of why socialism and government-dominated economies are a bad idea?!

Thankfully, we can still do that if MS drops support for Europe.


By mdogs444 on 1/16/2008 12:36:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Without Europe, where would economists look to for a constant reminder of why socialism and government-dominated economies are a bad idea?!

Canada?


By Ringold on 1/16/2008 12:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
Doh! Forgot about Canada! Particularly Quebec..

Alright. We can forget Europe now. :P


By Christopher1 on 1/16/2008 1:48:10 PM , Rating: 3
Excuse me, but socialism is not a bad idea. The countries that have 'socialism' are usually more free-market oriented than the rest of the countries in the world, the United States included, except in areas where government control and mandation are necessary: health care, to name only one of them.

Socialism gets a bad wrap because of the problems with Russia back during the 1900's. It is a good system when it is not a totally socialistic society that tries to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own lives as long as they are not physically hurting someone else, and only steps in in the most egregious cases, like with the health care problem in the United States today that could be solved with government-mandated health care.

I have friends who live in France and Canada today, and they LOVE the government as only payer health care systems that these two countries have.
To debunk a usual hit on it, you do NOT have to wait months to see specialists or your primary care doctors..... not even a day for the latter in most cases, and less than a MONTH (faster than in the United States) in the former cases.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/16/2008 1:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
> "To debunk a usual hit on it, you do NOT have to wait months to see specialists..."

Unable to wait 16 months for surgery, Canadian man flies overseas for operation:

http://www.pr.com/press-release/54883

Canadian woman trapped in US: no hospital beds in home country:

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article.jsp?con...

British man waits five months for heart surgery:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nhs/story/0,,963067...

U.K. states no one should have to wait longer than "18 months" for orthopaedic surgery:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg...

Thanks, but I'll stick with the free market.


By Christopher1 on 1/16/2008 1:59:02 PM , Rating: 1
I hate to point this out, but those are very few and far between cases, and usually have other things going on there: such as the doctor's around there are packed and THAT is the reason why they are waiting so long for those procedures.

In every single one of those cases, once they were investigated (I had seen them before) the problem was not the government-payee system..... the problem was that they had VERY FEW DOCTORS in the areas where those things were happening.

Now, that is a problem even over here in the United States. My father had to wait 6 MONTHS for a appointment with a specialist doctor to get his shoulder looked at, and he works for JOHNS FREAKING HOPKINS HOSPITAL!

Our 'free-market' is just as broken, if not more, than those socialistic countries systems, and I have to say that the socialistic countries systems aren't broken, they just need to encourage more people to become doctors!


By Ringold on 1/16/2008 2:48:34 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
they just need to encourage more people to become doctors!


How do you do that? One way and one way only: higher wages.

What does the government have to do to afford to pay them higher wages? Raise taxes.

Keep it up and before long.. you've got cost inflation starting to look like what the United States has, except with no competitive pressure between doctors to keep prices low.


By ghost101 on 1/16/2008 3:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
Freedom of movement within the EU should help if people actually embrace it.

For example, i was reading an article today on how theres a distinct lack of doctors for callouts at off peak periods in some small towns. The pay during these times can be ipto £80 an hour which you would have thought people would ahve jumped at. However, theres still a shortage.

A doctor over in Poland who earns £400 a month saw this and now comes over to work for a day during the weekend and earns a significant amount of money. Very cheap no frills flights means he can come to the UK for not much more than a long cab ride in London.

Mobility within the EU should help costs down, but unfortunately migration is a very hot political issue, with the opposition party in the UK proposing a cap for all types of migration.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/17/2008 6:47:15 AM , Rating: 1
> "Very cheap no frills flights means he can come to the UK for not much more than a long cab ride in London"

Commuting to work across four countries by jet, to solve the problems introduced by government control of the market? Now there's a great solution to our energy shortage!

Somehow I think the free-market solution of allowing local pay rates to float to the necessary level is far more efficient.


By Xenoterranos on 1/17/2008 10:41:51 AM , Rating: 2
Not entirely true. You could always provide doctors with tax breaks. Hell, if it meant not paying taxes, I'd have become a doctor!


By rcc on 1/17/2008 5:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
But, with no curb in the governments spending, that would mean raising everyone else's taxes. It's the same solution with a different spin on the description.


By tmouse on 1/16/2008 2:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
Well also working for a major research organization I can tell you either your story is complete BS or your father was waiting for a PARTICULAR doctor (maybe for a freebee?) there is NO WAY anyone is waiting 6 months just to see a doctor for a shoulder problem at JH. If his condition was that rare he probably would be waiting several years in Canada. I also have dozens of friends who are Canadians and around Québec and BC things are fine in the poorer provinces things are no where near fine.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/16/2008 3:06:12 PM , Rating: 1
> "those are very few and far between cases"

Few and far between? 15 months is the standard for orthopaedic surgery wait times in the U.K. The complaint is because its taking even longer than that.

A recent survey stated that over 40% of all Britons have had to wait more than 5 months for surgery at some point or another.

> "My father had to wait 6 MONTHS for a appointment with a specialist doctor "

Sorry, I don't believe you. First of all, in the US system, no one has to wait for a particular doctor. Pick up the phone right now, and you can pick between thousands, most of which will see you in a few days time or less.

The US has the best, fastest, most responsive medical system in the world, bar none. Let's not meddle with success.


By ghost101 on 1/16/2008 3:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
It has also got a lot do with underfunding. The UK has only recently increased spending on healthcare and waiting times have plummeted. But yes, lack of accountability is a big problem within the NHS.

The french healthcare system combines the private sector with the public sector and does it very well. So its a better comparison. Universal healthcare with a large element of competition (freedom to choose) and lower overall spending on healthcare.

The US spends 15% of its GDP on healthcare and the French ~10%. So yes the market is bound to be better in the US, but is universal healthcare sucha bad thing? How do you weight health across a poulation? Is a healthy person better for the economy even if it means that some intervention must take place? (Dont use the French economy as an example since it has other major problems which stops anyone from making a reasonable judgement).


By masher2 (blog) on 1/16/2008 4:06:21 PM , Rating: 1
> "The french healthcare system combines the private sector with the public sector and does it very well"

That's just the point. Healthcare systems that are nearly pure socialist (U.K) are the worst. Systems that are only partly socialist (France) are better. Fully private systems such as the US are better still.

Socialist policies are a very strong negative correlator to the quality of a health care system.


By Benji XVI on 1/16/2008 4:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Healthcare systems that are nearly pure socialist (U.K) are the worst.


The failings of the healthcare system of the UK (where I live) are entirely commutative with the ways in which it has tried to imitate the US system.

The French system of healthcare is far more "socialist" than the UK's, by any standard, as are all the top performing healthcare systems in the world.

quote:
Fully private systems such as the US are better still.


I see what we're dealing with here.

Research article: Competition in a publicly funded healthcare system

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/335/7630/1126?eaf


By masher2 (blog) on 1/16/2008 7:03:58 PM , Rating: 1
> "The French system of healthcare is far more "socialist" than the UK's, by any standard"

Oops-- no it isn't. First of all, the French preserve autonomous private practitioners. That alone is a massive step towards insuring at least a limited degree of competition. Second of all, the French must pay for services, then submit for reimbursement. Thirdly, the French pay for healthcare right out of their check...and see at least part of the charge on each paystub. Fourthly, you can't get a residency permit in France without already having private health insurance.

There's quite a few more reasons why as well.


By jhinoz on 1/16/2008 8:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
Rather than put in an argument for either socialist or private health (I'm in Australia, am covered by public health but am also a member of a private health fund), it's the same as anything else, the more you pay the better the service. Public health over here is ok, but if you've got private cover health services suddenly get a whole lot better.

If you've got a socialist system that pumps loads of cash into healthcare, the overall system will be better for the community than a private system that only a select few can afford to throw money at. Alternately if the whole community can afford to throw a lot of cash at a private system, that will be overall better than an underfunded state system.


By JustTom on 1/17/2008 1:41:09 AM , Rating: 1
The US is a fully private system?


By WelshBloke on 1/16/2008 3:46:28 PM , Rating: 3
Out of interest, if I didn't have health insurance in the US and needed an elective orthopedic operation, could I have it done state funded? How long would that take?

(you can go private in the UK and skip the waiting lists if you want)


By SandmanWN on 1/16/2008 4:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
elective orthopedic operation, could I have it done state funded?

Elective operations funded by the government??? Sounds like a positively marvelous way of causing mass inefficiency in a socialist medical system.

Ooops! Too late!!!


By WelshBloke on 1/16/2008 4:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
So that would be 'no Mrs Smith you cant have a new hip'?

In which case all these arguments comparing the US waiting list and the UK waiting list are meaningless.


By SandmanWN on 1/16/2008 4:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder... How many medical issues, severe enough to require hip replacement, would be considered "elective" to begin with.


By Gravemind123 on 1/16/2008 9:11:43 PM , Rating: 3
You forget those people who don't have health insurance, they can't see any of those thousands of specialists because they lack the money. I have a friend who should have had surgery by now, but if he were to get it, it would bankrupt his mom. You also are forgetting that insurance will only cover certain things to a certain amount, and only if you see doctors at hospitals that the insurance company specifies you are covered for.

Although government health care has its downsides, leaving the health of people in the hands of a an organization whose sole motive is profit isn't a perfect system either.


By P4blo on 1/17/2008 8:26:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure you would agreee it's not just a case of choosing one or the other. State or private. If you were a pennyless down-and-out you would very much appreciate the free operation even if you had to wait a while... It's much better to have both options. My company as with many includes medical insurance so I will always be private and get seen immediately.

Whereas in America the down-and-outs are pretty screwed for healthcare, right? Sounds very sucky and capitalist to me.


By Ammohunt on 1/16/2008 2:27:47 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah your right! Joe Stalin,Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Karl Marx, Adolph Hitler, Mao,(need i list more) are all just misunderstood.


By WelshBloke on 1/16/2008 3:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
Is that a random list of dictators or are you trying (and failing) to make a point?


By Muirgheasa on 1/16/2008 3:59:31 PM , Rating: 4
Of course Europe is full of dictators, so that comment is particularly relevant to the conversation. [/sarcasm]

Stalin, Castro, Marx and Mao were all communists, Hitler was a fascist and Chavez is a socialist but most of the information about him which the US receives is propaganda.

In Europe we have Social Welfare states rather than socialist states, and they are very different things. In Ireland (where I'm from and so feel most qualified to comment on) our health system is generally regarded as a sham, but if you are willing to pay for top notch private health insurance you can still get exceptional care and cut out almost all waiting for appointments. In the US my understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that if you have health insurance you're OK, but anyone who hasn't better not got sick - 'cos the government doesn't care. Although there are undoubtedly problems in some parts of Europe with health care, the suggestion that everything in the US is rosy and everything in Europe is awful is ridiculous. In Ireland, even though waiting times are embarrassing, the standard of care once you do get in is really very good - and it's available to everyone.

*****

On the Microsoft thing (back on topic) I think that Microsoft would have already threatened to pull out if they reckoned it would be worth it. Don't forget that the EU market is bigger than the US population-wise (approx 475 million versus 350 million-ish), and that it is one of their most established markets; the repercussions for Microsoft would be pretty massive (without checking exact figures I'd estimate between 20% and 30% of Microsoft's sales are in Europe at the moment).

Also, if Microsoft were to pull out both Apple and Linux would have a field day; new standards would emerge, and although it'd be awkward for a couple of years it would be even more awkward for Microsoft. They would have an enormous market that their competitors had to themselves. It simply isn't going to happen.

Another thing is that I wonder if there would be any complaints if it was a US court pursuing these actions? Far fewer, I'd hazard. Patriotism is all very well, but I feel there's an awful lot of judgment being clouded here (although there always is when the EU is mentioned, isn't there?)

And to whoever questioned who would lose most if there was no trade between the EU and the US: both would be crippled economically for many years to come. The difference between the two is that while US leaders have been happy to do this (George W's trillion dollar debt anyone?) the EU commissioners would do whatever possible to avoid such an outcome.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/16/2008 4:11:00 PM , Rating: 3
> "In Ireland where I'm from... suggestion that everything in the US is rosy and everything in Europe is awful is ridiculous"

Of course. Ireland has one of the most free economies in the world, better than the US in most respects in fact. Correspondingly, Ireland has the highest per-capita wealth (measured by spending power) in all the EU, and one of the highest in the world in fact.


By Muirgheasa on 1/17/2008 12:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but Ireland is widely regarded as having one of the worst health services in the EU. England would be similarly poor, but most of mainland Europe (France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Denmark etc) would be many magnitudes better. I can't even remember what set this debate off now so there's not much point in my going too much further (something about socialism I think, but it's not hugely important).

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/artic...

Probably isn't entirely representative (and I know Michael Moore comes out with a fair bit of crap) but this somewhat lack of functioning is always the image I had of American healthcare (although this story takes it to the extreme).


By Muirgheasa on 1/17/2008 1:27:43 PM , Rating: 3
That may be the case, but then you're saying that it's more important that the people who can afford it get good service than everyone get reasonable service. I did a small bit of reading and from what I hear you can't be refused emergency care in the US, but if it's not an emergency (for example you need a hip replacement) then if you can't pay you're done for. Whatever you might say about European health care (and I'm the first to criticise it usually) at least no one has to sell their house to pay medical expenses.

Under your criteria the US may have the best health system, but I would argue that ease of access for all is a major thing that needs to be gotten right, and it isn't something the US does well. That's probably why the WHO top 50 list goes like this:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland

I'd venture that ease of access is what hit the US on that list (although I don;t know the criteria and I'm sure there are those who would claim it isn't representative of real life). Oh, and to whoever had a dig about European health systems originally, that's 17 in the top 20 there.


By theapparition on 1/17/2008 8:43:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the US my understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that if you have health insurance you're OK, but anyone who hasn't better not got sick - 'cos the government doesn't care.

One thing that the US has that is oft overlooked by foreigners is the state level of government. We have a federal government, and then a state government that fills in the gaps, and finally, a local municipal government.

Health care expenditures by the federal government may seem rather small when compared to some other services, but there is also a state government that collects taxes and provides more services. States don't defend our country, so obviously, defense spending comes solely out of the federal budget and people look at those numbers and just assume that we are neglecting other areas. Not true, as you can see.

Doctors and hospitals are under oath and law to provide medical services if necessary. You can't be denied.

So, to answer your question in the end........NO ONE in this country can be denied medical services. I know plenty that have gone to a hospital with an emergency (like burst appendix). They have no insurance, no way to afford the operation, and have walked out without paying a dime. The state picked up the tab (well, not really, every citizen of the state did by paying taxes).


By Ringold on 1/16/2008 2:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Socialism gets a bad wrap because of the problems with Russia back during the 1900's.


Wrong. Economists tend to ignore Russian "socialism"; it didn't resemble what Marx desired, and it didn't at all resemble what socialism has come to mean for everyone else. It gets a bad rap because:

A. When you compare countries with similar initial starting conditions around the same time where one then diverges with socialist reforms and another with free market reforms, the free-market reformer almost always ends up better off.

It's not too bad to look at Latin America here, where the Chicago Boys got many of them to initiate reforms around the same time. Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru bought in to Friedmans free-market reforms aggressively, and were all rewarded -- especially Chile. Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Jamaica, Costa Rica all made either tepid reforms or moved back to the left, and most saw growth stall and many ended up worse off. One could also look at how Nigeria and Indonesia fared up until the 70s, and then observe how they departed -- radically. A lot plays in to that one, but starting conditions were very similar. In fact, from 1900-1950s, Africa grew quicker than Asia...

B. When one looks at countries that implement socialist economic controls, it often presages lower growth, and occasionally outright economic collapse. Venezeula and Zimbabwe are decent examples, with the latter being further along than the former. On the flip side, one can see sharp changes very quickly when statist countries turn free market.

The best example in all of human history is probably the capitalist reformation of China from the 1970s onward. The results.. ought to be obvious. Protests have occured in China against price controls on petrol because it offended their sense of free market capitalism. That's a big move forward from Mao. India also reformed in the late 80s; it went from the "Hindu rate of growth" of 1.5% annually from 1950-80, to 4.4% from 1990-2000, and higher since. If you look at a timeline of their real GDP per capita, it tightly follows a trend up until the 80s, then explodes upwards. Coincidence? No.

C. Current comparisons between more free-market economies and current government-dominated economies further reaffirms the historical analysis; France's 5-year annual rate of growth being 1.9%, Germany (after many years of painfuly low wage growth) with .5%, Spain at 3.1%, and Italy and Belgium with .4% and 1.7% respectively, compared to US at 2.8%, Ireland (a firm believer in Reaganomics) at 5.0%, Hong Kong at 5.2%, and New Zealand at 3.4%. Those are huge differences when they compound year after year.

quote:
It is a good system when it is not a totally socialistic society that tries to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own lives as long as they are not physically hurting someone else, and only steps in in the most egregious cases, like with the health care problem in the United States today that could be solved with government-mandated health care.


That alone wouldn't be called "socialism", perhaps "pragmatism." You note Canada and France, however, and they don't stop with health care. Because you're free, essentially, to smoke pot in Canada and drink at 18 there is the perception of freedom there that isn't had here, but economic freedom doesn't begin to compare in some aspects to the United States, particularly France.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/co...

Botswana has a more free economy than France! Lithuania as well -- a former Soviet satellite!


By eye smite on 1/16/2008 4:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
You mean socialism like the law California just adopted to control peoples thermostats in their homes? I'll pass, thanks for playing.


By See Spot Run on 1/16/2008 8:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, I'm sorry.

I've been living in Canada my whole life. Ventured outside of my borders into the US for a grand total of a week.

OUR HEALTH CARE SUCKS!

Case in point. I had a good friend who developed early stages of brain cancer behind his eye. Our surgeons said they had a 50% chance of getting it. He sent his MRI's down to an American doctor, and they guy said he could get it with a 98% certainty. So he went down to American, the guy got it, and he's been cancer free for close to 10 years now.

And private clinics are starting to pop up, mostly because people are willing to pay for health care, so they don't have to wait months for a basic check-up. I do wish you'd send some of your optimism for our health care into reality, we could use a few more beds for the people that we turn away.


By Ringold on 1/17/2008 1:02:51 AM , Rating: 2
Private clinics? Are you talking about here or Canada?

I was under the impression private dealings between individuals and doctors not done within the government system was banned in Canada.

Here though, yeah. Nurse practitioners are all the rage; less college, less expensive, equivalent care for common issues.


By See Spot Run on 1/17/2008 11:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
Private clinics are an iffy grey area. Alberta has them, and many people have started screaming from the rooftops that we're losing our health care system. It's created quite a stir, needless to say. Most of the other provinces don't even want to muddle up the waters with that one.


By rivercat on 1/19/2008 1:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry pal, socialism IS a bad idea.


By Frallan on 1/17/2008 3:47:13 AM , Rating: 2
It is interesting how all of you are calling the european systems Socialist. This points to a lack in information from us or a lack of understanding from you.

The European countries are mixed economies - a model that has showed its worth for a along time now. I have lived in the U.S and in Sweden, german and U.K and there is a heck of a difference in culture. And believe me the U.S does not come out of it smelling like a rose. Neither does anyone else but that is the issue many of us europeans have with the views from many americans. You are so sure that you are right and you have found "the way" that you do not even bother to understand anything else.

in more then one conversation I have had with Americans where we have discussed business commeon models or praxis or even differences between states i have recieved the answer:
-No it cant be like that!
from an US american because in that case our way works better. that lack of humility is also shown in all discussions here where it becomes a Euro/US bashing feast with no middleground.
What Im trying to say here is that we can learn from each other and help each other (and god knows it is your turn to need the help now). But only as long as we keep a dialoge where ppl acctually wants to learn.
/F


By phusg on 1/17/2008 7:59:02 AM , Rating: 2
Yes world economists are clamouring to adopt American economic ideas:

- deregulate the entire financial service industry
- create real cheap credit by lowering interest rates to 1%
- spend a major (and undisclosed) % of your GDP (and poor people's lives) on fighting a war to keep the oil flowing

Granted France has very high level of government spending, even for Europe, but who's economy is heading for a major recession?


By ilkhan on 1/16/2008 4:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
I love how people always point out the US national debt. How much of that is internal? And compare it to countries like Japan, which has a national debt like 3 times their GDP. Our 2/3 of GDP debt is NOT the huge deal people like to call it. Is it a problem? Yes. Is it being overblown to a large degree? Yes.

Also, fuck the EU. Their near socialism gives the CONTINENT a gdp roughly equal to the US GDP, with 33% more people to work.

Comforming to EU standards will just bring the US down to that level. And personally, I dont want that.