China Could Be Another Hurdle In MS Yahoo Bid

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.

I should pass a law that says....

[3seas (184403)]

....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?

Re:

[Daimanta (1140543)]

Zimbabwe. By the time you catch somebody, money is worth 10 to 100 times less.

China's Payback for UNOCAL

[SRA8 (859587)]

China wants payback for us blocking their UNOCAL buyout [foxnews.com].

Notahurdle.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289)]

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.

Need a global standard

[Alain Williams (2972)]

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:

[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:

[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.

Re:

[antifoidulus (807088)]

Wasn't this supposed to be part of what the WTO was supposed to do?

lol

[The Living Fractal (162153)]

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?

[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.

Oh the Irony!

[dreamchaser (49529)]

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:

[bflong (107195)]

They hate competition.

Re:

[TapeCutter (624760)]

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.

Re:Oh the Irony!

[FooAtWFU (699187)]

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!

Re:

[hackingbear (988354)]

Unfortunately, the US is now only better in terms of allowing free speeches that nobody cares. See my previous comment about free speech in China. [slashdot.org] The good thing is that in China you are now allowed speak more and more freely while people care about what you have said less and less, just like here. For other matters in life, I found the differences are getting smaller and smaller -- the US is stagnant or declining while China is improving. That's why I pitch people I know in China not to immigrate here anym

Oh ? Good...

[Yvanhoe (564877)]

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 should make a bid...

[foniksonik (573572)]

China or a Chinese company (Baidu?) should offer to buy out Yahoo. That would certainly make for some interesting headlines...

Re:

[notamisfit (995619)]

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

Re:

[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.

Re:

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

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.

Re:

[notamisfit (995619)]

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

Re:

[nevali (942731)]

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.

Re:

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

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

Re:

[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

Re:

[westlake (615356)]

Fuck you, nobody pays for our software over there anyways.

think again:

How Microsoft conquered China [cnn.com], Sanity check: How Microsoft beat Linux in China and what it means for freedom, justice, and the price of software [com.com]