Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

China Could Be Another Hurdle In MS Yahoo Bid

Posted by kdawson on Sun Mar 30, 2008 07:14 AM
from the another-lot-to-pay dept.
Microsoft
wattrlz points out a NYTimes piece on the clout China could soon wield on antitrust matters and the impact it could have on Microsoft's Yahoo bid. A new Chinese anti-monopoly law takes effect in August that will extend the nation's economic influence far beyond its borders. Nathan Bush, an antitrust law specialist in Beijing, said the law represents the ascendance of China "as another regulatory capital contending for influence with Brussels and Washington." The article makes it clear that no one knows how China will play its burgeoning antitrust influence — conciliatory or nationalistic.
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: China might be another hurdle in MS yahoo bid by wattrlz (1162603)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

China Could Be Another Hurdle In MS Yahoo Bid 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • I should pass a law that says.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by 3seas (184403) on Sunday March 30 2008, @07:27AM (#22911008) Homepage Journal
    ....anyone who attampts to swindle me gets fined, payable to me, 10 x the amount they were attempting.
    but if they succeed and I catch them, they get fined 100 x the amount.

    Which country am I?
  • China wants payback for us blocking their UNOCAL buyout [foxnews.com].

  • Notahurdle. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Sunday March 30 2008, @07:30AM (#22911022) Homepage Journal
    China will be perfectly happy with the new united Microhoo as long as Microhoo is as compliant in handing over dissident's information as Yahoo & Microsoft are as separate companies.
    • Actually, that's a fairly interesting question. If Yahoo and Microsoft have pursued distinct privacy policies, e.g. with respect to email accounts, whose privacy policy will prevail in the new structure? Is it practical to maintain one policy for Yahoo Mail users and another for Hotmail, or will the new merged entity share information within itself to such an extent that behind the scenes there won't be any border between Yahoo information and Hotmail information, meaning that the company could effectivel
    • How does shit like this get marked insightful...Sure, insightful if you consider that China has no interested in constraining large American corporations, and may wish to help their own companies compete.

  • Need a global standard (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Alain Williams (2972) on Sunday March 30 2008, @07:53AM (#22911108) Homepage
    OK: I am talking the talk of the idealist here but we can dream ...

    The trouble with all of this is that any organisation that deals internationally (ie have a web site visible globally) needs to check that it is compliant in all 195 countries in the world - both in terms of web-site/mail-order/dealing-with-customers/... and in terms of corporate governance [think accounts, anti-monopoly, reporting, ... legislation].

    We could really do with agreed international standards - so that I know that if I am compliant by one set of rules that I can download/read/... then I am OK everywhere.

    OK: it would be a long haul, but we could start with web sites & web trading. One size would not fit all, but if I could to choose from a half dozen or so standard terms and conditions that I could display/link on my web site (with standard/authorised translations into all languages) then: I would know where I stand as would my customers. Be honest: do you always read/understand the terms and conditions from every web site that you visit ? I have refused to deal with some places (eg ebay) because the T&Cs were too long/complicated.

    The main people to loose would be charlatans and solicitors - neither of who I care much about; both are usually scum.

    The chances of this coming to be in my lifetime are small. unfortunately.

    • alternatively one could drop the non-national TLD's, and request that anyone that sets up a page on that domain behaved by that nations laws...

    • We could really do with agreed international standards - so that I know that if I am compliant by one set of rules that I can download/read/... then I am OK everywhere.

      Haven't you realized by now that 99% of international standards/treaties are simply bad laws that can't be repealed? Internationalization usually means that the US/EU can basically tell whatever country they want to sign this or they might get no imports/exports like Cuba has. Good idea in theory however almost every international treaty/standard has somehow been screwed up with the exception of some standardizing done by the ISO.

      • What about Basel I and Basel II? That's an example of what the GP is talking about. They define the rules for banks, so that a bank can comply with the laws of its home country and make loans across borders safely. Things got very messy once in 1974 when German regulators closed a bank that had just received dollars to turn into Deuschmarks.
    • Wasn't this supposed to be part of what the WTO was supposed to do?

  • The article makes it clear that no one knows how China will play its burgeoning antitrust influence -- conciliatory or nationalistic.


    Nobody knows, because it is impossible to know something before it has happened. But everyone can guess.

  • Unsure? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    no one knows how China will play its burgeoning antitrust influence
    I'd say we nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
  • Am I the only one that finds it ironic that China, which has a totalitarian one party politcal system (the ULTIMATE monopoly) is implementing anti-monopoly laws?

      • Re:Oh the Irony! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by FooAtWFU (699187) on Sunday March 30 2008, @09:19AM (#22911602) Homepage

        Oh yes, US is so much better, with its Demoblican/Republicrat duopoly...
        Yeah. Bush administration does something that a bunch of people don't like, and some of those Democrats are SCREAMING THEIR LUNGS OUT about how he's the WORST PRESIDENT EVAR!!! and such. They dump fliers around, they poke fun of the administration in late-night comedy shows, blogs, and The New York Times; they stage marches, rallies, protests. And they don't get sent to jail even for a few moments except in a few incidents such as when someone is doing the screaming right up in front of the Prez trying to make a speech, AND when THAT happens they get tons of media attention about it to boot.

        China, if you try to distribute pictures of the tank in Tiannamen Square, you're very quietly taken off to goodness-knows-where and disappear.

        Does the US need improvement? Quite possibly. Is it "so much better"? You'd better believe it, pal!

    • They hate competition.
    • No, TFA may be about microhoo but the anti-monopoly sentiment is aimed at resources [google.com.au]. China recently scuttled BHP's takeover of Rio Tinto buy buying a stragic stake in Rio Tinto (after first trying to ban sales of their shares in China), the aim was to keep competition in ore prices alive down here in Oz.
    • Am I the only one that finds it ironic that China, which has a totalitarian one party politcal system (the ULTIMATE monopoly) is implementing anti-monopoly laws?

      What you will also find ironic is China is the only nation which the Walmarts have unions. Of course its the Communist Party Worker's Union, but a union nonetheless.

  • A better idea (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Perhaps instead of focusing on anti-monopoly laws, China should make it illegal to slaughter 1.2 million Tibetans?

    Perhaps the penalty for a violation of this law could be a boycott of their Olympics?
  • Fuck you, nobody pays for our software over there anyways.

  • China could soon wield on antitrust matters

    That's relatively good news. At first I read "China could soon wield on antimatter thrusts". That's a relief...
  • China or a Chinese company (Baidu?) should offer to buy out Yahoo. That would certainly make for some interesting headlines...
  • he article makes it clear that no one knows how China will play its burgeoning antitrust influence -- conciliatory or nationalistic.

    Initially conciliatory and ultimately nationalistic. China's government isn't "conciliatory" on much of anything else, so I fail to see why they would start now.
  • Quick question: Any translators on Slashdot (unfortunately, I can speak but not write Chinese) that could interpret some of the English literature out there? I'm wondering how much awareness the Chinese public has about the sort of information you find at Groklaw and such.
  • we welcome our Chinese, Microsoft-crushing overlords.
    all our base are belong to you.
  • The article makes it clear that no one knows how China will play its burgeoning antitrust influence -- conciliatory or nationalistic.

    Nationalistic. Next question?

  • The article makes it clear that no one knows how China will play its burgeoning antitrust influence
    What nonsense - everybody on /. knows with full certainty that the Chinese are evil, Satanic Communists, and they will do everything they can to hurt and subdue good, red-blooded American capitalists.
  • Since the link to TFA requires an account with the New York Times ... does anyone have a link to the story which we can actually read?

    Why do editors keep posting links to sites which require a login?

    Cheers
    • No, keeping "monopolies" under "control" *destroys* the free market (ie, a market of freedom, not your rationalistic "perfect information/perfect competition" crap).

      • o, keeping "monopolies" under "control" *destroys* the free market
        Yea, this country has really been in the shitter since The Sherman Antitust Act [wikipedia.org].

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by webmaster404 (1148909)
        We have NO free market here in the US. Why? Because now you can practically get a patent for breathing, and copyright doesn't expire till the next geologic age. Gone are the days that you can easily start up a new tech-based company like Apple did without a really good lawyer because of the patent trolls, this along with such laws like the DMCA. We have no free market, we have a somewhat free market, but a "Market of Freedom" you have to be joking.
        • Well, we sort of have a, "Market of Freedom". It's called the, "Legal System": In general, the more money you spend in it, the more free you are.
      • The extreme perspective on something is usually the least useful one.

        I would rather have a somewhat "broken" free market than one that allows a misuse of monopolies. In the long run, no one benefits from monopolies other than the monopolist. I don't think societies benefit unless there is viable comptition.
        • A monopolist who benefits no one but himself doesn't stay a monopolist for long. Say what you will about Gates and Microsoft (I certainly do, especially Gate's maligning of the system that enabled him to succeed and prosper), but by and large, they are in the position they are because customers choose to do business with them. Microsoft isn't putting guns in anyone's back, it's simply ensuring that they are the best choice to be made. So, in what is a completely voluntary effort on both sides to enter into
          • you missed "and because they used strong-arm tactics to squash any attempt by their customers to go to their competitors" in there where you said "because customers choose to do business with them". As much as your free-market ideal claptrap is wonderful, it fails to take into account the negative effects of vendor lock-in in relation to past abuses.

          • Because the monopolist can set in a set of market conditions that make it extremely disfavorable, if not impossible for competition to form. Because the monopolist usually has deep reserves, they can sell below cost should competition arise, drive them out of business, then raise the prices again. So you have to wait until some competition comes along with even deeper pockets, assuming that ever happens. The monopolist would also have the power to set up long term exclusive contracts such that an entity
            • "Free market for its own sake" is simply a consistent application of a belief that human beings do in fact have the right to live their own lives and make their own decisions free from coercive interference. Call it an ideological club if you will; I will never reject the notion that I have principles and make every effort to apply them in a non-contradictory manner.

              • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward

                So, at what point does economic power won in a free market become a 'coercive interference'?

      • A truly free market would not have the same type of contract laws, regional and international commerce laws, patent laws, etc. ad infinum which keep smaller companies from prospering by using other's ideas mixed with their own to out-compete the larger companies.

        You can't have a *free* market when you have protectionist laws on the books... either for or against competition. If you're going to regulate one aspect, you have to regulate them all.... or find a balance, which is what the US economy and governme
        • You seem to be confusing laws that uphold the rights of individuals (contract and patent laws, per your example) with laws that deny them (commerce restrictions, and antitrust (not mentioned, but implied per the topic)). The government is acting perfectly fine when it is upholding the life, liberty, and property of its constituents; that is in fact why we have one. When it chooses instead to violate those rights (ie, to initiate force against individuals), then it is acting in an unjust manner. Those are th

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by I_Voter (987579)
      rednip wrote:

      .... keeps the worst of human nature from destroying the free market.
      -----------

      My Question: What is the "free market"?

      I think a little historical background on the traditional U.S. view of the political economy would be helpful at this time.

      The following quote is from James Madison's Federalist Paper #10 -

      "A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into d

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.