EU Fines Microsoft $1.3 Billion 699
jd writes "The EU has slammed Microsoft with a fine of €899 million ($1.337 billion at current exchange rates) for perpetuating violations of the 2004 antitrust ruling.The fine is the sum of daily fines running from June 21, 2006 to October 21, 2007. It is the first company ever to be fined for non-compliance. The amazing thing is that the EU now expects Microsoft to comply and 'close a dark chapter' in their history. The EU has opened new investigations into Microsoft's practices and gave a lukewarm response to the company's turning over yet another new leaf last week."
Re:1.3 billion (Score:3, Insightful)
And what if not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even as an MS fan, good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I'd like to see the EU start to use the same stick on large companies that also feel that they are above the law.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
1.3 billion ~= nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
It just like EU told MS that they can continue infringe on laws as long as they give them about 10% of their benefits.
If EU wants MS to comply fast, they just have to make a ban on MS products in Europe, so that selling MS products would be considered illegal and fined enough.
the EU says what are your RIGHTS in the EU (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1.3 billion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unfair? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Interoperability of Office? (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem unclear on the concept of "rights". A "right" is something that a government has decided you may do. This government has decided that they do not have this "right". You can't wave a magic BS stick in the air and make it so that they do. They don't have the right because the EU government bloody well says they don't, and that's all there is to it.
What exactly do the EU want from Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And what if not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Did you see that? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Did you see that? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1.3 billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You're right (Score:4, Insightful)
"Well we were fined for breaking the law and rather than stop breaking the law and paying the fine we decided to get revenge by flushing trillions of dollars worth of sales down the toilet and antagonise nearly all of what would have been a huge and profitable market for us."
Re:And what if not? (Score:1, Insightful)
7.6% (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It would be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
If MS was to try and pull that, we'd contract with Red Hat, Novell, somebody, and be up and running before the licenses expired. There's only a few apps that are Windows only that don't have linux equivalents; if someone was to throw a few million at it they'd be ported to linux in no time, even if it meant running with wine in the interim.
Try a stunt like that with a real government that can throw billions at the problem, and MS would find itself in the freezer. Remember, governments can pass laws; they can easily pass a law suspending copyright until they get it sorted out.
Re:It would be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh - and those licenses, we don't need them: you copyrights are void.
Re:And what if not? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know it's an alien concept to American's, what with us Eurpeens being commies and all that and American firms usually being allowed to do what they want as long as they grease a few palms but what usually happens is:
1. A law is enacted
2. A firm ignores it.
3. They get fined
4. They pay the fine.
In the UK last week a few multi million pound fines got dished out to various big companies (this was from watchdogs rather than the EU though) and it's pretty much a given they'll pay up.
Re:Business-Friendly EU (Score:3, Insightful)
The amazing thing is (Score:3, Insightful)
How can this be considered *amazing*?
It's the only option they have. They've played their cards and lost, now is the time to just pay the fine, comply with the ruling and move on.
Re:Interoperability of Office? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unfair? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is Apple a convicted monopolist ?
No, they're not are they but Microsoft is and that is what makes the situations different.
Re:1.3 billion (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the most appropriate punishment because it is MS's anti-competitive behavior that would ultimately lead to them being barred from competing in the marketplace. It's not like people wouldn't be able to buy Macs or install Linux for their OS or use Open office/other alternatives for productivity.
Heck it might actually do the industry some good, nothing breeds innovation like necessity.
Re:MS can't win (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, the EU doles out fines to any companies who disobey European laws. Microsoft broke the law they got fined, they ignored the findings/requirements of the remedy they got fined again. There isn't any evil European persecution of an American company going on here. Just a company being fined for breaking the law.
Re:And what if not? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually they can so easily be bought.. there's been quite a few cash scandals for years now. (disclaimer: I don't think this is true - I only read what they tell me in the newspapers)
I think the difference is that the EU politicians cannot be bought by an American company, there's no amount of "freedom" cash a "cheese-eating surrender" politician will accept to take Microsoft's side in anything.
Re:1.3 billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:7.6% (Score:5, Insightful)
That's how it works in the EU, you don't get to continue doing what you were fined for after you pay your fine! (Otherwise people would be speeding all the time, and when stopped would say, "I already paid my fine", and would get let off!)
I think it works that way in the USA too, but don't quote me on that.
Re:And what if not? (Score:3, Insightful)
A more interesting concept would be to have a major portion of the fines go to Microsoft's competetors. It was they who were harmed by Microsoft's actions. Just think how a few hundred million would benefit FOSS projects in Europe.
Re:And what if not? (Score:1, Insightful)
MS can try the same ploy in Europe, but I don't think it will be anywhere near as effective as what they got away with in the US.
True (Score:5, Insightful)
The same thing is happening here, complying would cost more than the fine. We need some equivalent of "wheel clamping" for Microsoft.
I wouldn't count on it happening though, I can see states getting used to a regular "microsoft fine" dividend. They will probably have a routine of Microsoft saying it will clean up, not doing so and being fined again.
Re:It would be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
MS would be very, very screwed if they would try to do anything like this. Let me put things into perspective:
The EU area has a GPD of $14.51 trillion, while MS has a revenue of around $51 billion, globally. The EU has the power of the police, government, military behind them which can seize MS's assets and if MS decides to pull out of EU they would leave billions in assets behind. If events reach that point, EU given the national security clauses in copyright conventions would simply suspend MS copyright in Europe while Europe moves to Linux/BSD/Solaris at a hugely accelerated pace. Given that the EU is the largest economy block in the world, everyone else would be forced to use those open technologies and MS would find itself with a pretty minimal market share in a few years.
Even Microsoft isn't this stupid to make a move anything like this.
Re:It would be interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
There is that point, and then there is the aftermath. A hurricane can kill thousands. The following unsanitary conditions can kill millions.
In the same way, M$ pulls out of EU, with severe scars and loss of sales. That's the hurricane.
The EU turns to open standards. All multi-nationals have to turn to open standards in lockstep (Re: ROHS - a EU standard, but you can't find an electronics supplier that doesn't try to comply). All foreign (to US) governments see what is going on, and turn to open standards (not wanting to be the next in line for "Microsoft's Wrath). EU investment in open-source OS variants pushes the standard to unprecedented heights. Multi-nationals and governments adopt the "new and improved" Linux/BSD/whatever. Cheap box retailers have to install multiple "Linux Lines" to their assembly plants to keep up with the corporate and governmental demand, and the boxes are now slightly cheaper than the M$ boxes (because, they don't have the M$ tax, and the commercial guys pay Dell, et.al. to install the same free-trial/adware on the Linux boxes) M$ would see all foreign and a major portion of domestic sales disappear practically overnight. Microsoft would be irrelevant in 5 years or less.
Yeah, Microsoft could try thumbing their noses at the EU, but they'll be thumbing that nose with a razor knife. We call that "Cutting your nose off to spite your face." It is not considered a smart move by the intelligencia.
Re:Did you see that? (Score:3, Insightful)
Essentially we have a pan-government organization that is demanding one billion dollars to continue to do sale in its realm. This money is not earmarked for social programs or anything that would benefit humanity, but more for bureaucrats.
The principled thing to do is to say "Your products cannot be sold here for 5 years. Be gone." Instead the EU just took the money. I dont see how the EU is better than MS. They are both attempting to maximize their profits with the authority/market they have.
Im not some crazy anti-government type or some extreme free market type, but this is a significant fine and a significant precedent. In the long run this cant be good for other companies. "What? your ads arent in french and spanish and german? That's a billion dollars."
Re:Interoperability of Office? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, like that works...
Re:MS can't win (Score:3, Insightful)
A think the EU requires ALL operating system manufacturers to stop bundling different products into their OS. - Oh, wait ... WHAT other operating system manufacturers are we talking about? There is only Microsoft on the scene. Looks like monopoly to me...
I know it's fun to bash Microsoft, but consider that the ethical equivalent of what is being expected of Microsoft here would be compelling Linux vendors to ship only the kernel by default, and provide extensible mechanisms for anyone (including closed source, commercial vendors) to supply their own software to be used with such systems on the same basis as any preferences the vendor may have. The only difference is that at present, Microsoft is deemed to have a monopoly in the OS market.
Frankly, I think some of the cases against Microsoft have gone way too far, to the point that MS are being compelled to ship worse products (from their consumers' perspective) than they otherwise would. The point of these competition laws is to prevent monopoly status in one market distorting another, separate market to the detriment of consumers. But can you name me any other modern desktop OS that doesn't come with a web browser or a media player? These things are now a standard part of products in that market, and that's just too bad for anyone who wants to compete independently. Hitting Microsoft for supplying them is like hitting them for improving security in their OS because it's damaging to anti-virus and firewall vendors, or forcing them to unbundle graphics drivers because the OS core could survive just fine with a text console. It's not at all the same as if they, for example, use their power in the OS market to promote sales of Office or 360s, because the latter are independent markets.
Re:Interoperability of Office? (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:1.3 billion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1.3 billion (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not get MS to debundle notepad because it competes with UltraEdit-32? Because UltraEdit-32 is such an improvement that some people will pay for it, and if they don't then notepad is enough for their needs.
They're opening up new anti-trust commissions as well, and they seem to be trying to force MS to debundle their media player and internet browser, as if any desktop OS on earth ships without a media browser or internet browser.
It just seems like the EU is abusing its regulatory power to cash in. Why don't the EU bully Wal-Mart around too? As long as they put the fines lower than the profits Wal-mart rake in from Europe they have to comply.
Re:1.3 billion (Score:4, Insightful)
Office would be slightly less of an issue for the folks that just use Word and Excel, as they could probably get used to OpenOffice or similar. Not sure if there's an alternative for Microsoft Project and some of the other lesser used applications. There are also plenty of folks here using XML based workflows in Infopath/Sharepoint for business process type stuff, which would probably require a lot of effort to rework with non-MS products.
Even if there are alternatives out there for all of these Microsoft products, the cost to industry of migrating would likely be huge if the sale of Microsoft products (soft licences for the most part I guess) were banned. It wouldn't have to happen immediately, as I imagine the likes of Dell etc. have got a stockpile of Microsoft licences, and many businesses would be on corporate licences that wouldn't run out straight away, but most businesses, especially in the SMB space, wouldn't have a clue where to start.
Natural rights and government-granted rights (Score:3, Insightful)
There have been several responses to your post basically all saying the same thing: that you are wrong because rights are not granted by the government.
All of the negative responses to your post have utterly failed to distinguish between natural rights, or inalienable rights, or whatever you want to call them (perhaps some would even prefer "God-granted" rights; also, there are technical distinctions between the various names, but the sense is that you have them by default, they are not given to you), and rights that are granted by the government.
Example of natural rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (From the Declaration of Independence).
An example of a non-natural, government-granted right is something that should be familiar to most ./ers: copyright. While there are arguments to the contrary, the general understanding is that copyright doesn't have anything to do with human dignity, etc., and exists only by fiat of the government (which is why it can easily differ in various jurisdictions).
In this particular case, the "right to be proprietary" is not a natural right. The EU has set conditions for participating in its marketplace, and it has the right to do this. End of story. You might not like it, but there's no inherent "right to be proprietary" to appeal to.
Revenue, not profit (Score:3, Insightful)
This fine is going to have be paid in cold hard cash. Not vouchers, not rebates. CASH.
That doesn't hurt MS revenue at all offcourse. Their revenue will remain the same, what this will hurt is their profit. 900 million euro's down the drain with no way to write it off hurts.
You also got to remember that this is just the total so far, this isn't a speeding ticket, the amount will go up and up as long as MS doesn't comply.
There are also other problems. The US is going to look a bit silly now with its own weak settlement. Exactly how many goverments are looking at this case and thinking "Mmm, I sure could use a couple of hundred millions while fighting for my citizens rights".
No this hurts MS, not enough to bankrupt it, but even a company the size of MS can't just cough up a billion without it hurting and the end is so far not in sight.
But you are right about their revenue, all those idiots who claim that MS could just pull out of the EU forget that that would cost MS far more money.
Re:Ha ha ha ha... (Score:5, Insightful)
Try finding a way to voice your concerns without resorting to hyperbole. We're all pretty smart here, you don't need to make a bigger case than you've actually got for us to 'get it.'
Re:1.3 billion (Score:5, Insightful)
In essence, Microsoft is gaming the system, breaking the free market.
There's a point of view that what Microsoft is doing is completely rational, and that the problem isn't what MS is doing, but that their competitors *don't* do those things, and instead naively try to compete on technical quality and consumer appeal. While I disagree with this point of view, there's one aspect I can agree with, which is that MS is acting rationally. What the EU is doing (or should be doing) is imposing such extreme restrictions and/or fines on MS that it is no longer rational for them to abuse their position the way they do.
That's why the answer to:
Re:1.3 billion (Score:4, Insightful)
First, the US Department of Justice decided Microsoft was a monopoly, so the European Union could very well take this for granted (the supervision for Microsoft as an monopoly is still active, with a recent two years added span).
Second, while the EU might fund Airbus, Boeing is an equal competitor to Airbus (at about equal size). Microsoft doesn't have competition of similar size - not even in a tenth of their size.
If an european citizen would be fined for parking in New York, those money would go toward reducing the taxes paid by the US citizens, increasing their capacity to compete against the Europeans.
I think the americans lost the stomach for competing against Microsoft in its main area of expertise: Novell Netware is just a shadow of its former past (and Windows networks dethroned it), I haven't heard lately news about Word Perfect (once leader of the word processing world), Netscape (once leader of web browser world), let's not even talk about Winsock Trumpet. I even remember a Corel Linux (rumours say Microsoft paid them out of the idea).
Microsoft's idea of "laissez faire" competition is to be alone in the world, and had taken steps for this (why buy now OS/2 when you can wait one year for our new Windows Chicago). For better or worse, OS/2 - once a competitor of Windows - is out of the marketplace for good.
No, it does not. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:MS can't win (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1.3 billion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ha ha ha ha... (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU is not an evil government and Microsoft is not a defenseless do-gooder. This is not the first time MS has been in trouble because of its business practices, althought in the US, since Bush came to power, they've sure enjoyed a nice ride over there, haven't they?
Re:1.3 billion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Interoperability of Office? (Score:3, Insightful)
I love it when people say things like that, it gives me a good chuckle. You do know it's completely and utterly meaningless, yes? Rights mean exactly fuck all if they're not backed up by men with guns. The governments have the most guns, so they're the only ones who can, in any practical sense at all, grant rights.
Re:And what if not? (Score:2, Insightful)
Cynicism makes you cool (Score:4, Insightful)
You make absolutely no case here. Your argument boils down to, "Yeah, well, you can't prove they aren't corrupt, so they must be, it's just human nature." I'd like to formally enter my own hypothesis here, which is that it isn't human nature to be corrupt. Just yours. You simply excuse your own corruption by thinking that everyone else does it, too, and you just have to be that way so all the corrupt douchebags of the world can't take advantage of you. As a side hypothesis, I posit that your cynicism is simply a defense mechanism stemming from deep seated insecurities.
Re:Interoperability of Office? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can intrinsically sneak into your home, stab you to death, rape your wife and take all your property. You might want to come up with a better definition of what a right is. After enough thought you'll come to realise that what you call rights are just things you want to be able to do and think would make for a fair society. The desire for these things may be intrinsic, but without enforcement these "rights" are pure mental masturbation.
Re:MS can't win (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it is retarded? (Score:3, Insightful)
The dollar does not just drop. If you think that's the case, well then you fails at the economics. You might even notice on your graph that though the overall trend is downward, there is a ton of fluctuation.
Re:Interoperability of Office? (Score:3, Insightful)
They had the de-facto right to do whatever the hell they liked, but no other rights. Can you tell me what the difference would be if they did or did not have rights, given there was no government to enforce them? I can't see how things would be different at all whether you considered them to have rights or not. That's why I think the concept of rights in the absence of a means of enforcement is entirely meaningless.
Re:1.3 billion (Score:3, Insightful)
This is going to be modded to oblivion, but isn't 1.4bn rather excessive?
I don't think so. The punishment has to be significant to the criminal or they are not motivated to change their behavior. To put this in perspective MS made about $9 billion in profit from selling Windows Server in the EU last year, a large portion of which would likely have gone to Linux/UNIX servers if not for MS's deliberate tying of their server and desktop OS. $1.4 billion as a fine for many years of abuse is probably significantly less than the profit MS made by breaking the law and gives MS little real incentive to change their behavior. This fine was more of a warning than anything else, indicating that the EU will fine them and keep fining them larger amounts until they comply with the law.
Don't the success of OS X and Firefox, and RealPlayer and Quicktime, indicate that MS's platform is still open enough to have competition?
Okay, let me try to break down your query. OS X is an OS that is only licensed in conjunction with Apple hardware. Boxed copies of it are sold, but in amounts negligible to the "Desktop Operating System" market MS has been ruled to monopolize. Further OEMs which are the primary customers for desktop OS's cannot buy OS X to include on their systems. As a result, OS X's popularity is completely irrelevant to this case.
Firefox is likewise irrelevant as this case was about only two abuses, that is to say two products tied to their desktop OS monopoly: Windows Media Player and Windows Server.
As for RealPlayer and Quicktime, both have been losing market share while WMP as been gaining, with WMP already holding about 65% of the streaming media market it is coming close to qualifying as yet another market monopolized by Microsoft via leveraging their OS monopoly.
If there's not enough competition for people to replace MS's media player why should the EU take special measures to make it easier for the competition?
Umm, I' not sure I understand that sentence. It is illegal to use one monopoly to gain market share in a separate market. MS has been using their desktop OS monopoly to gain market share in many other markets. What trends have shown is that the EU's attempt to make the media player market competitive failed miserably and were ineffective (as anyone with a brain could have told you they would be). Also, the EU's attempt to make the server market competitive has not had enough time to see if it worked or not, since it took until only a short time ago to get MS to actually obey the court order. We will see if it makes a real difference over the next few years.
Why not get MS to debundle notepad because it competes with UltraEdit-32? Because UltraEdit-32 is such an improvement that some people will pay for it, and if they don't then notepad is enough for their needs.
Nope. It is just that there was not an existing, competitive market for text editors at the time MS gained their OS monopoly.
They're opening up new anti-trust commissions as well, and they seem to be trying to force MS to debundle their media player and internet browser, as if any desktop OS on earth ships without a media browser or internet browser.
The new antitrust investigations are with regard to MS Office and IE. MS was convicted of abusing their OS monopoly to promote IE in the US, but the EU has not yet charged or punished MS, let alone required them to change their behavior. Neither the US nor EU has investigated MS with regard to MS Office since every time MS is sued with regard to MS Office they settle out of court (they settled with Novell for half a billion just 7 days after Novell filed suit)
Your comment about what is bundled with other OS's is irrelevant. Bundling is not illegal by itself. Bundling products from one market into a product from a market you have monopolized is illegal. It is illegal for your local power company to bundle a Web
Sorry, can't do that (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ha ha ha ha... (Score:2, Insightful)
Press corps?... you mean any of those corporations like Sony or Disney or News Corp that pretty much control what is seen or read in the US?
Propaganda?, try watching the trailers for the US and international versions of the new "Indiana Jones" trailer.
And no, regardless of what you may have read chidren do not get finger printed without permission, and no before you even bring up the topic... Socialized Medicine is not a bad thing.
Re:And what if not? (Score:5, Insightful)
So lets apply this to Microsoft and then the free market in general. In this case Microsoft will have to pay lots of money to the EU. If they attempt to pass this cost on to consumers, it will strengthen OS X, Linux, Solaris, etc as alternatives to Windows. This means that in the case of Microsoft monopolizing the market, the EU fine can accomplish its task of lessening Microsoft's stake in the market if it is large enough. But if they have full control of the market, well that's why governments reserve the right to break companies up. If a fine would not be sufficient to punish a company, they could be split into smaller companies that would have to compete against each other.
So in the end, it isn't necessary to give the fines to Microsoft's competitors as you propose. Simply the act of fining Microsoft should be enough to help its competitors out.
Re:1.3 billion (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly WHY They Got Fined (Score:3, Insightful)
THAT right there is the reason why the EU took their action against MS. What the original order said is that MS was ordered to release full and complete interfacing specifications and protocols. They dragged their heels on this for three years, and then tried issuing the specs under a super-restrictive license along with a huge fee.
EU called "shenanigans" on that one, and smacked them with a fine of 2M Euros per day.
They were warned, tried to play lawyer-ball, and lost. Big.
With specs and protocols, Active Directory and Exchange support would probably already be in the Linux machines, and would at most take a small amount of configuration for site-specifics like domain name, etc.
Instead, you are locked-in to ONLY purchasing MS clients right now. And it is BECAUSE of this that the EU took action.
Basically, the EU rule is now "inside the box: MS owns that and can keep secret. Outside the box: customer owns that and it must be publicly documented."
Re:Ha ha ha ha... (Score:5, Insightful)
"You know, there are real dictators in the world, who are truly evil, and are working to oppress their people." The removal of powers from elected parliaments, by devious method, to an unelected and undemocratic executive, Council of ministers, which holds its meetings in secret, unelected commissioners, and a very weak parliament that is bought and paid for by the latter.
Too bad that your prejudice has kept you from keeping track of recent developments. This criticism has been levelled at the EU for a long time and was to an extent justified, but guess what? They have actually done something about it. The European Parliament, which is directly elected and no longer as weak as it used to be, has received new powers with every treaty revision since 1992 and plays an integral role in EU law-making. Meetings of the Council of Ministers are not secret, as you can see on its website [europa.eu], which states: "All Council deliberations under the co-decision procedure are open to the public. The Council's first deliberations on legislative acts other than those adopted by co-decision are open to the public. The Council regularly holds public debates on important issues affecting the interests of the Union and its citizens, as well as policy debates on the Council's programmes." FYI, the co-decision procedure is the most commonly used procedure in EU legislation. Granted, institutional reform is slow, the EU still has work to do in terms of its accountability and communication with citizens, but that hardly makes it an evil oppressive dictatorship, which is the point that you were trying to make. Apart from Belarus, you will indeed not find oppressive dictatorships in Europe at this time, and the EU was established precisely to keep it this way, which brings me to your next point.
Yes, Europe has a fine tradition historically to be able to ignore history and repeat past mistakes yet again. Europe's ability for arrogance is only matched by its fantastic ability for creating evil, two world wars, and hundreds of millions of dead. How could I possibly not trust a European elite running out of control, and with a massive cavern where democratic due process should exist, but doesn't.
Please explain first who you mean by "Europe" and who exactly is being "arrogant". Is it Britain, Germany, Russia, France, Greece, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Sweden? Does every single one of this country have a "fine tradition to be able to ignore history and repeat past mistakes"? Last time I checked, Germans are still making up for the crimes of the nazis and not exactly preparing a second Holocaust. The Scandinavians no longer send out marauding bands of pirates to rob frightened people in coastal places. In Spain acknowledgment is slowly growing for the abuses and oppression of the Franco dictatorship, even on the political right. Italy does not seem eager to resurrect the Roman Empire. You may note that none of these examples has anything to do with the other, which illustrates that you can't generalise across an entire continent. I could even go on and argue that the one country which seemed unable to learn from history (notably European colonial history) in the last few years, with an elite running out of control causing millions of dead, does not lie in Europe, but I don't want to ignite another flamewar. In any case, as I mentioned before, the EU was established to prevent repetition of the mistakes of the past. It has been rather successful at that, considering that France and Germany are unlikely to go to war with each other at any point in the near future. It obviously does not have a perfect record, as was shown in the fall of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Still, I fail to see how you can see the current European elite as being "out of control" or suggest that it will cause millions of people to die any time soon.
This same EU that's failed 13 years of account audits?
What does failing 13
Re:Interoperability of Office? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not believing rights are inherent doesn't mean I don't think they're important or worth fighting for, quite the contrary in fact. I know I have no rights without something to enforce them. Knowing that without enforcement I have no rights, I will fight hard to ensure the rights I want are enshrined in law. I don't need to believe I have inherent rights to fight to preserve and extend my freedoms - your suggesting that I do is a complete non-sequitor. I find your attitude, which suggests the government cannot take your rights away, dangerous. I fight because I stand to lose my rights if I do not. If I had nothing to lose, why would I fight? I do stand up for my rights and the rights of my fellows, not because I think that's the way God intended things to be or because the rights are inherent to humanity, but because that's the way I think things should be.
You fight for enforcement of rights you believe you have anyway, I'll fight for the rights I don't believe exist without enforcement. I bet we'd pretty much agree on what those rights are / should be. We'll be fighting for the same thing, the only difference will be that I won't be deluding myself about what I am fighting for
Re:Ha ha ha ha... (Score:2, Insightful)
BTW I'm getting fcking fingerprinted every time I enter the US, so don't give me those stupid finger printing examples.
Yay! (Score:3, Insightful)