Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Your Rights Online

China Could Be Another Hurdle In MS Yahoo Bid 60

Posted by kdawson from the another-lot-to-pay dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Could Be Another Hurdle In MS Yahoo Bid More

China Could Be Another Hurdle In MS Yahoo Bid

Comments Filter:

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

    by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Sunday March 30, 2008 @08:27AM (#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 @08:30AM (#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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mgblst ( 80109 )
      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 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Sunday March 30, 2008 @08:53AM (#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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hitmark ( 640295 )
      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...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by webmaster404 ( 1148909 )

      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: (Score:2)

      by bflong ( 107195 )
      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

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close