MS Wants Laws To Block Products Made By Software Pirates 617
kaptink writes with this quote from Groklaw:
"Microsoft seems to be trying to get its own personal unfair competition laws passed state by state, so it can sue US companies who get parts from overseas companies who used pirated Microsoft software anywhere in their business. The laws allow Microsoft to block the US company from selling the finished product in the state and compel them to pay damages for what the overseas supplier did. So if a company overseas uses a pirated version of Excel, let's say, keeping track of how many parts it has shipped or whatever, and then sends some parts to General Motors or any large company to incorporate into the finished product, Microsoft can sue not the overseas supplier but General Motors, for unfair competition. So can the state's Attorney General. I kid you not. For piracy that was done by someone else, overseas. The product could be T shirts. It doesn't matter what it is, so long as it's manufactured with contributions from an overseas supplier, like in China, who didn't pay Microsoft for software that it uses somewhere in the business. It's the US company that has to pay damages, not the overseas supplier."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Addtionally (Score:4, Interesting)
More complicated than a carbon tax. (Score:5, Interesting)
If Microsoft China employs engineers who wear pirated Nike t-shirts, can Nike sue Microsoft?
Re:More complicated than a carbon tax. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
/. News Network (Score:3)
Microsoft buys new laws to make it criminal to import parts from most of Asia, news at 11.
Re:/. News Network (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a good thing Microsoft's hardware divisions do not use any parts imported from Asia.
Oh wait... [wikipedia.org].
this is an EU concept... (Score:5, Insightful)
...and it's not as insane as it seems. Regulation is usually to protect the small guy while the big guys have the lawyer power to avoid it. By phrasing regulation in terms on unfair competition laws, you end up with big businesses paying to enforce regulation. Which do you prefer:
(i) One big business forcing another business to abide by some law;
(ii) That same big business also ignoring the law.
Perhaps the underlying law is unjust. But then you tackle the underlying law - you don't tackle some principle which makes it harder to enforce a law. Let us have more rule of law and less rule of men, yes?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the underlying law is unjust. But then you tackle the underlying law - you don't tackle some principle which makes it harder to enforce a law. Let us have more rule of law and less rule of men, yes?
We've been trying for decades to no avail. The big guys simply have too much money and can easily bribe their way through any representative democracy, while we don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Let us have more rule of law and less rule of men, yes?
Laws are written by men. Rule of law is just rule of men by proxy.
Re: (Score:3)
"Rule of law" doesn't mean "laws exist". It means that laws and the legal system aren't engineered to give an advantage to particular men. But when that engineering has occurred, unfair competition regulations act as a counterbalance.
Re:this is an EU concept... (Score:5, Insightful)
Normally, I'm pretty OK with a lot of EU regulatory concepts (their banking rules a notable exception). But, if this is a common idea of EU regulators, I'm going to have to rethink my support of them...
This "principle" breaks one of the foundations of modern law - that you should be held responsible for you own actions, and not actions of others which you neither had controller over, nor knowledge of (which is one of the big reasons I hate the "felony murder" laws here in the US). The "principle" of which you speak isn't a good one, and I'm fine with being rabidly opposed to it. Just because it may be bad for Big Business, doesn't make it right, or even good for anyone else.
I'm not excessively worried, though. The laws don't fit the "consumer protection" mold, and pretty obviously overstep Constitutionally-set boundaries - they regulate interstate commerce (which is a federal area), and also likely are to be looked at as attempting to set Copyright and national import standards, neither which are allowable by states. That is, these type of laws most likely would have to be passed at the Federal level to be Constitutional. Given the potential enormous impact on large manufacturers, you can be sure that if they actually get passed, they'll be some Big Corp with Deep Pockets funding a challenge in US Federal courts.
Re: (Score:3)
Law is meant to rule men, more rule of law is more rule of men, and you're haphazard quips are pathetic - I hope if you are as bat-shit insane as you sound you will promptly commit suicide and rid us all of you're lunacy, if you are just a bad PR person I hope you at least get replaced by someone competent enough not to turn against a company I otherwise love (Microsoft, seriously, even though I'm posting on /. I worked in Redmond and love that place). You are an utter disgrace to the Human race in any regard, its embarrassing, really.
I just wanted to quote this paragraph because it's stuff like this that keeps the Internet entertaining. Thanks.
Fair enough... (Score:4, Interesting)
...then U.S. companies should also be prohibited from selling goods manufactured or obtained from companies overseas who don't follow all the other U.S. laws, not just copyright laws. This would include all U.S. laws regarding the environment, labor, accounting, etc. Why pick and choose?
What could go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's not a single person supporting this bill that wouldn't like that to happen. In fact, I'm pretty sure Microsoft is making a blantant power grab by betting on the isolationist crowd to get this bill passed without anyone looking too hard at it.
The saddest thing is that there's enough people in the US to give their plan a decent chance of success.
And.. (Score:2)
...Microsoft SUES ITSELF and bites its own tail CLEAN OFF.
Good thing they don't sell Windows XP anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure Sound Forge authors are just waiting for this law to pass.
Seeing as under this law they could sue Microsoft for big bucks! [techpavan.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it looks like the proposed law covers customers downstream from the company that uses pirated software.
In this case, it seems like Soundforge would be able to seek damages from any company that licenses Windows XP.
Re: (Score:2)
If the summary is correct then no, this only comes into play if an overseas company has violated copyright. Actually it isn't correct, but you have to bounce on to Seattle Times [nwsource.com] to find out that it doesn't just affect overseas companies.
If you can't get the overseas company, go upstream (Score:3)
Perhaps this should be a model for how to get at companies that are otherwise out of US jurisdiction. It would only be reasonable to discourage them from conducting business with those entities.
How about expanding this a bit more to include other practices, such that it makes a de facto offshoring ban?
Just silly... (Score:4, Insightful)
"An offer you cannot refuse" gamut (Score:5, Informative)
This is a good way for companies with large law departments to cudgel smaller businesses. Just like how the endangered species act is misused sometimes, find some product, no matter how esoteric, that a company used that might be called into question, then threaten to sue that company out of existence unless they take an offer to be bought out.
This would be a field day for law departments. If one thought the patent lawsuits flying back and fourth with the phone company makers is insane, wait until the lawsuits because a bolt made from an offshore company just might be considered being made with a bogus copy of XP Embedded on the CNC mill.
For those not of the bar association, it means higher prices for everything (since companies have to pay bucks to CYA, and create additional internal auditing divisions, or fight these claims.) It also raises the barrier for entry for small businesses.
It will be interesting to see who will end up the lawmakers' master on this one. Companies who don't want the trouble of additional IP regulation, versus the usual people who keep fighting for more Draconian IP laws to protect their tired old stuff. This might get interesting because it may pit well-heeled lobbyists against other lobbyists of companies who just don't want the legal liability if this law passes.
Re:"An offer you cannot refuse" gamut (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL, but as I see it basically Microsoft could sue ANYONE. I doubt that there is any business in the United States that doesn't have some part somewhere that was made by a Chinese company that didn't pirate something Microsoft along the way. If the burden is on the company to prove they didn't do anything wrong then you've got a great formula for putting small businesses into bankruptcy.
We don't only have a class war in the U.S., we have a war between big and small businesses.
Re:"An offer you cannot refuse" gamut (Score:5, Interesting)
Nail, head hit.
This proposed law would instantly make Microsoft billions. If done right, companies would have to prove their supplies didn't use pirated products in order to not get sued.
It also will force companies to buy Microsoft products for CYA reasons. This happened with Sarbanes-Oxley and the fact that operating systems on up had to have some sort of compliance (FIPS, Common Criteria) in order for IT departments to show due diligence. This caused wholesale migrations to Windows just for this reasons.
I can see companies not just moving to MS, but demanding their supplies be Microsoft based, so they can show that they are compliant.
Big win for MS, big win for businesses with lots of lawyers, small businesses now are easily destroyed should they show some innovation that can't be bought up easily.
Plus, if one of the copyright lawsuits for an insane amount does go through, a company can easily owe Microsoft trillions, especially with the precedents seen with LimeWire and other cases.
Re: (Score:2)
This proposed law would instantly make Microsoft billions. If done right, companies would have to prove their supplies didn't use pirated products in order to not get sued.
And this right here is the problem. The burden of proof should not be on the company...the burden of proof should be on Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3)
Very true. However, since MS wants to buy the law, they want the burden of proof not with them. It is a lot easier to prove piracy did take place due to someone ratting a company out, as opposed to proving that no one company, from the guys who mined the ore, to the smelter, to the metal shop, to the CAD place, to the assembly plant didn't use an unlicensed copy of Windows someplace.
This might backfire on MS though. If a commercial product goes out of licensing spec, it may mean millions of fines. F/OSS
Tax (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except, this is punishing a company for the actions of its suppliers ... actions which the company at risk of being sued has no control or influence over (and quite possibly no knowledge).
This is not "if you steal our stuff and sell a product in our country we sue you" ... this is "if you buy from someone who steals our stuff, you are liable for it". This is 3rd party liability.
So, if I hire you to paint my house, and y
Labor Laws (Score:2)
No just no (Score:2)
Brilliant! I love this law! (Score:3, Funny)
This is absolutely brilliant, a stroke of genius. With a large part of everything being made in China, and piracy absolutely rampant in China this could an incredible effect on restoring jobs to this country. Microsoft has also just figured out how to resolve the outsourcing problem (that they greatly contributed to making) that has wrecked this countries economy and sold out it's future. This may be the best jobs program this country has ever seen, we should spread this idea around.
Just as many republicans contributed to Nader in 2000 to defeat Gore, we should contribute financially to seeing this law successfully implemented. Now we just need to get the AFL-CIO and similar organizations to back this.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that Microsoft is actually and legally convicted because of software piracy? This could backfire. I wouldn't buy from any shop that uses Microsoft software because SoftImage could sue me for triple damages.
you do if you're the worker that got re-hired (Score:3)
Everyone thinks cheap goods due to outsourcing is a great idea...till their own job is outsourced.
Hey Microsoft! Get responsible for your own! (Score:2)
If Microsoft knows a company is using a pirate copy of their software, I have no responsability for A) tracking another entities software use or B) their licensing status. I find this not just rediculous. It is placing Microsoft's burden on companies that may not even be Microsoft's customers. But I can tell you this. Im a Global Architect at a huge US car company. If this passes, I will be making it known on a daily basis that my employer should explore alternative solutions to Microsoft products. Now the
Suing itself (Score:3)
So, if one of Microsoft's Optical media replicators shipping company(based in China) uses pirated software to ship the media from China to Microsoft, where Microsoft sells this media in US, who would MS sue?
Good (Score:2)
Makes perfect sense.
But other things are ok, right? (Score:3)
But importing Nike shoes made by 14 years old kid is perfectly fine, I guess. Or importing Uranium mined in Namibia or Nigeria, where workers are pretty much guaranteed to die. Or iPhones made by modern slaves in factories.
Good to see that America, the land of the free, has their priorities straight.
Re: (Score:3)
high fashion? try cheap. and yes people in manufacturing overseas are pretty much like being a factory worker in 1911
Considering how software licensing works currently (Score:2)
I'm not sure what the purpose of this law is other than to act as a rather larger stick to beat companies with.
Consider this: the legalese for most software licenses is borderline incomprehensible at the best of times. It's not simply a matter of "one license per PC", you've got Client Access Licenses, you've got products which are essentially the same but the difference lies in the licensing, you've got products which explicitly allow you to install them on more than one PC in certain circumstances (hell
In the sage words of Austin Powers: (Score:2)
Well I vana toilet made out of solid gold, but it's just not in the cards now is it?
Illegal immigration hurts in the same way (Score:2)
Call me sceptical (Score:2)
My best guess is, that this will trigger contracts that say: "supplier vows to abide by IP laws". The vendor that buys products from the supplier then just claims they didn't know about it (they really don't care). Then they testify (truthfully) that they did their due diligence and acted in good faith.
How do you want to sue someone when they act in good faith and have no knowings of what the supplier on the other half of the word is breaking the contract? Do you want to make supplier audits mandatory? Don'
Somebody should audit Microsoft (Score:2)
Simple fact is Microsoft does have some outside software.
I would like to see some company buying a Microsoft product ask Microsoft to do a full audit of all their software for licenses under this requirement.
I want every desktop and corporate mobile device in Microsoft reported and individually inspected for what software is installed. Then I want information on the license status of all software on that device. Also as they continually buy Microsoft products Microsoft is going to have to repeat the audit e
justice (Score:2)
I'd like to propose a more equitable law. When a big company screws enough people with crap like this we take the corporate officers and the board of directors out into the street and bludgeon them.
Step right up Ballmer, you're first.
Excellent. (Score:5, Interesting)
If this passes, people relying on proprietary software will get a rude awakening.
If your suppliers are using Windows or Photoshop, how can you verify that they're all using licensed copies? Either you call the BSA in to kick their office's doors down and ransack it on your behalf, which is going to get you some "special" customer service once they find out you did it, or someone else will after you've bought from them in which case you'll be screwed when they get caught.
The only way you'll be safe under this regime is to require everyone in the supply chain uses FOSS.
Re: (Score:3)
The only way you'll be safe under this regime is to require everyone in the supply chain uses FOSS.
Unfortunately, this could, and likely would, go the other way. Having valid Microsoft licenses would likely become a standard contract term for doing business with certain large companies, so the overseas company likely would have to use MS products even if they otherwise would have just avoided them and used FOSS in compliance with the relevant license terms.
WTF (Score:5, Informative)
(Admit: Did not fully RTFA)
TFA and TFS keep focusing it on MS, as if they are the only people who can sue, but from the excerpts quoted, it sounds like any closed software can. Here's the kicker that should have been in the summary:
Exceptions. A person may not sue under this cause of action when:
1. the end product sold or offered for sale in Washington is:
a. a copyrightable work under the United States Copyright Act;
b. merchandise manufactured by or on behalf of a copyright owner and that displays a component or copyrightable element of a copyrighted work;
c. merchandise manufactured by or on behalf of a copyright owner or trademark owner and that displays a component or copyrightable elements relating to a theme park or theme park attraction; or
d. packaging or promotional material for such copyrightable works or merchandise.
2. the allegation that the IT is stolen is based on a claim that the IT infringes on patents or trade secrets;
3. the allegation that the IT is stolen is based on a claim that the use of the IT violates the terms of an open source software license; or
4. the allegation that a person aided, facilitated, or otherwise assisted someone else to acquire or use stolen IT.
So, you can sue someone for infringing upon someone's rights, as long as you aren't violating an FOSS agreement?
There are some odd ideas in there (like the exclusion for theme park operators), but I'm surprised that one flew under the slashdot radar.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL, those guys at Microsoft are quite the jokers.
So they cover their ass with an exception that says it is okay if their copyrighted material is packaged over seas by a company that pirates software so nobody can sue Microsoft under this law and then they block open source software from the same protection under the law even though the most popular open source software in use is protected by copyright.
Yep, scum bags will be scum bags, never fails.
Good for Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
This would make the use of any MS product a huge possible legal liability. Why not minimize the risk and go opensource? Companies that strive to sell complete workflow & service packages or servers might use that argument in the future. Good for Redhat, Oracle, IBM.
No Way this will fly (Score:3)
MS is not as powerful as they think (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Unfair competition laws" == Laws against unfair competition.
The problem here is that GM is not competing with Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, and the US govt should sue companies like msn that do business with China, since China doesn't allow freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:3)
As long as you don't represent a company, no.
If you own a company though, you can face a $50,000 fine or 5 years in prison for refusing to do business with an Israeli company.
The law doesn't care what your reasons are. Refuse a business request from Israel, go to prison.
Re:Good for US economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Their supplier is competing unfairly with US suppliers, though. I think we already have similar regulations for environmentally damaging suppliers? To my mind this is no different.
Yes. It's similar to safety standards and workers rights. If a clothing manufacturer for example, can outsource production to a country where workers can be denied decent health and safety or normal workers' rights, whilst a company that uses workers in the US does not, then the former company is essentially doing an end-run around the US laws. Now (more thanks to public pressure than anything else), US companies selling products to people in the US, have to be more careful about adhering to standards abroad that are set at home. The principle behind this proposed law isn't unique to this law. It's the same principle that underlies sex tourism, employee health and safety and working hours and various security laws. It's the principle that if you're a US business or citizen, selling to US citizens or business, you can't get away with illegal behaviour by just shifting the illegal part of the process to another country.
Re: (Score:3)
Very true. But now please tell me how I should check whether $street_vendor or $big_warehouse has its licenses in check to avoid being sued. Because it is NOT the street vendor being sued, it's ME who buys from him.
How should any company check whether their $foreign_country supplier has its licenses in order? Oh, sure, they could put it in the contract. Yeah. Great idea. Try to sue a Chinese company over a licensing problem. If it was easy, MS would not try to shift the burden on someone else!
Re: (Score:3)
Guess what will be MS's concern? The copyright infringement case with I4I, in which this new MS-pushed law can be used directly against them.
Unfair competition??? (Score:3)
What's 'unfair' about this scenario?
Competitor: Pirate copy of Office, value: $500
GM: Guaranteed government bailouts no matter how crappy their cars, billion dollar bonuses for CEOs that bring the company to ruin despite record income, value: Priceless
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. I am a linux users and arguably fanboy, I dislike MS and their products. I do not allow their products in my home, outside of their mice. This seems like a good idea, American companies should not have to compete with people who pirate software to lower their costs. No reason those companies can't switch to FREE software if this were to become law.
Re: (Score:3)
GP and I discovered a new element yesterday and named it Adhomineum. Of course, I have no proof of this, as, while experimenting to determine of the stuff could get me high, I ingested all of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Five dollars is all my shareholders allows me to spend.
Okay! Ten dolla each.
What do we get for ten dollars?
Ubuntu you want.
Everything Ubuntu?
Everything.
Well, old buddy, feel like spending
Re:Good for US economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, how is a business supposed to know if its suppliers are running pirated software?
This basically says that Microsoft now demands that anybody buying a widget from anywhere in the world effectively enforces a software audit on its suppliers. You know what happens if you tell your supplier they need to open up their stuff to you for scrutiny just in case they're doing something offensive to a 3rd party? They laugh at you, and cancel the deal.
If I'm buying foam packing peanuts from China, do you really think I have the clout to get them to prove to me they haven't pirated Excel? Because, that's what this bill is asking for. This is a stupid law, and one that tries to make enforcement of Microsoft's products the responsibility of people who might not even be in the computer industry.
It's just not practical or feasible.
Re:Good for US economy (Score:5, Funny)
Also, if you are buying XYZ from China and selling it to MS, do they sue themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad there's not an "Insightful + Funny" mod, because if anyone has ever deserved it, you do. :)
Re: (Score:2)
A company sued itself? Pls give an example.. Seems interesting :)
Go crazy (Score:3)
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/13/1727218/Wells-Fargo-Bank-Sues-Itself [slashdot.org]
Re:Possession of Stolen Goods (Score:5, Insightful)
You really think that copyright law should be on the same level as basic human rights? Human rights should be universal on compassionate grounds. Even animals have compassion to an extent. Copyright law is something we as humans completely made up, and if some country chooses to not see "intellectual property" as US law proclaims it, it should not matter.
Re:Good for US economy (Score:5, Insightful)
In that case, Microsoft should no longer be able to blame business partners, contractors, customers, or whatever for their own problems, either.
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2011/01/20/244979/Microsoft-blames-third-party-for-excessive-Windows-Phone-7-data.htm [computerweekly.com]
http://theregoesdave.com/2009/10/15/microsoft-goes-schizo-starts-blaming-danger-for-lost-data/ [theregoesdave.com]
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/70560,microsoft-blames-vista-insecurity-on-third-party-applications.aspx [itnews.com.au]
You can't have it both ways, Microsoft. You want GM liable for software piracy in China, then you should be liable for Windows 7 phone phantom data usage.
Not a good idea, really... (Score:2)
> this prevents even more work force and money going out of the country to cheap countries like China
I totally agree, in fact, I think the chilling effects might be so vast as to prevent US companies from even daring to do business with any foreign companies. This of course depends upon how the damages will be computed: will they be like the $75 trillion Livewire damages proposal, in the case where the foreign company actually shared Microsoft products via P2P?
> and puts US companies to a better posit
Re: (Score:2)
Good for Linux adoption (Score:2)
Seriously, this is a great thing for Linux adoption. Tons of companies are going to switch to pure-(F)OSS environments to avoid the issue entirely, like that guitar accessory company that got reamed by the BSA (Ernie Ball). [cnet.com] This will counter the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" attitude nicely. Nobody ever got their ass sued off for running (F)OSS.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Novell. Oh, and Google. Filtering down to a company near your in 3... 2...
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, unfair competition laws? Don't you think it's only fair if companies can't buy from companies using pirated software who sell at lower price because frankly they don't need to pay as much costs as lawful companies?
No. It is possible for a company to keep track of its own licenses, though it's often difficult, but expecting them to track *other* companies' licenses as well is simply insane and idiotic.
Tell me, is there anything in, say, the latest MacBook Pro from Apple that was manufactured or assembled by a company using "pirated" software? now let's see you prove it.
If something this prevents even more work force and money going out of the country to cheap countries like China and puts US companies to a better position again.
And watch as the price of all kinds of gadgets, from watches to cars, rise a whole order of magnitude minimum. Not that the anti-offshoring crowd cares
Re: (Score:2)
Have you even started to think this through? Any law that prosecutes one person for the crimes of another is madness and will do more harm to American businesses than the little gain that Microsoft will make from this. The only people that will really profit will be the lawyers (as usual). Very soon you will have lawyers searching through the records of any random company to find out who they are supplied by and they will search for an infringement without regard to whether or not there was any knowledge
Re: (Score:2)
So whats next.... if a thief sells some watches, and then uses the money to buy a soda, you think its fair that the stores bank gets made to pay fines for accepting deposits from someone who made his money selling to thieves? Or maybe the store should be fined?
Or maybe, companies are supposed to audit eachother? Now is this infringement under US law... or local law? What if the two are incompatible?
I think this is ridiculous but.... maybe good. I hope it leads to more use of free software worldwide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you think it's only fair if companies can't buy from companies using pirated software who sell at lower price because frankly they don't need to pay as much costs as lawful companies?
No, because the response is utterly out of proportion with the offense. Say a web guy at Foxconn brings in a pirated copy of Photoshop. Your logic would indicate that MS should be able to sue Apple for unfair competition, even though 1) Apple didn't do it, and 2) the act of piracy contributed absolutely nothing to Apple's product.
Basically, you're advocating the death penalty for a jaywalking ticket. Maybe that seems fair and just in your tiny little world, but it comes across as pretty damn insane for ever
Re:Good for US economy (Score:5, Insightful)
China wants to hamstring a US defense industry supplier like, say Lockheed Martin.
Chinese company A makes software.
Chinese company B is supplier to Lockheed Martin.
Chinese company B uses pirated copy of software from company A.
Chinese company A sues Lockheed Martin in the US.
Or try this: Airbus vs. Boeing.
${foreign car manufacturer} vs. GM or Ford
${foreign airline} vs ${US airline}
Re: (Score:2)
If you continue to maintain that view, please present some evidence in favor of that. Microsoft has not succeded with that.
Re: (Score:2)
oh they keep saying it is but they don't want to actually tell anyone what because they know damned well that the next day updates would be pushed out with everything they claim to own replaced.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good for US economy (Score:5, Interesting)
there are limits. you have to be selling more than 50 million worth of stuff per year before the law kicks in.
funnily enough it completely exempts software.
If microsoft use pirated software to develop code for windows then they get off completely scot free.
Likewise if they use a pirated copy of photoshop to make their ads for windows then they're also in the clear.
open source violations are also excepted so if a company ignores an open source liscence they and their downstream customers also get off scot free.
isn't that convenient.
Re: (Score:3)
I am curious, how is it that people in US get worse treatment from call centers in India, than people living in India itself. Personally I have not really had any bad experience with Indian call centers(though for some reason calls to MS seem to be routed to a US based call center from India.. weird)
Re: (Score:3)
Getting a fake name. This really bugs the hell out of me. Don't come on with a thick-as-fuck accent and then claim your name is "Jim" or "Bob" or "Susan." We know you're lying to us and as a customer, once you lie to me and I catch you in it, I'm going to assume you may be lying about anything else you say.
I may be wrong, but I assume the point is to give the costumer a name they can pronounce easily, which might not be case if you only speak English and are talking to someone called e.g. Adithya or Bhagavateeprasaad.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good for US economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats and Republicans are both populists.
An anarchist wants government out of everything. A populist wants government to control everything. An actual liberal wants government to control business but not morality. An actual conservative wants the opposite.
I think it's clear that both Democrats and Republicans want business laws that promote their own agenda, and equally, they both want to say what you can or cannot do in your home. Neither party is the party for less government involvement in any aspect of life; they simply both wish to tell you how the government will control you.
Even if you believe in a difference between the parties and don't see it as an elaborate game conceived to convince the masses that there is someone representing your interests, you have to see that both parties want total control over your life.
Re:Good for US economy (Score:4, Insightful)
In my experience both liberals and conservatives both want to control morality but disagree on what the morals should be.
Re: (Score:3)
A rising tide lifts all
Re:Good for US economy (Score:4)
Uh, I think we've pretty clearly demonstrated we can't afford to take the hit, as our economy is in shambles.
But perhaps more importantly, the workers in other countries, despite what they tell you, are not doing any better. They are working for microscopic wages, in unsafe conditions, without any medical care or benefits or anything. Often they are slave labor.
You want to help those people, get a job paying $30,000 a year and donate $5,000 to a fucking charity dedicated to helping there. Don't let their companies put you out of work, and hire them for $100 a year and keep $29,900. Neither of you is better off, the only people who came out better from that deal are the superrich.
Although perhaps someday the money will 'trickle down' when they hire you to give them a foot massage...or, wait, they'll just get an illegal immigrant to do it. They're cheaper and can't complain to the police about abusive conditions or violations of labor laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the world would kill to live in this "shambles economy". Our homeless are better fed than most of the world's middle class. With what I can pull out of a dumpster here in the US, I'd be upper class in some parts of the world.
I think you miss the point about foreign workers. Yes, they have it a lot worse than we do. Yes, it is practically slave labor. But they are getting paid. They are n
Re:Good for US economy (Score:5, Insightful)
But instead of being poor people working 14 hours in unsafe factories, they could be poor people working 6 hours a day on land they own growing food.
See, I don't want to call you ignorant, because this is pretty typical for someone who grew up in a big city, and never left except for flying to a resort for a vacation. I would suggest that you do some research on the subject of farming, especially as it's generally practiced in low-tech agrarian societies. I can't discuss the subject with someone who honestly believes that farming is a 6-hour-a-day job.
Working in a factory is inherently more work
See above. There's a reason why these factory jobs are sought out by the locals.
so it's up to you to demonstrate factory workers are better off
Sure! It's quite simple: with the exception of forced labor, people generally choose the best work they can find ("best", of course, being a balance between money and effort that's different for each individual). If there are people working at these factories, and they aren't being forced to be there at gunpoint, then it means that the factory jobs are better than whatever other alternatives these people have. QED.
but apparently you cannot read the word 'slavery', and think I'm just making that up.
Oh, I know you're making it up. That's not even worth discussing. It's your other ideas that I'm curious about.
Says the person who snipped every single historic reference I made
Yep - none of your historical references were relevant to the discussion at hand. Moreover they're selective; you overemphasize the dangerous conditions in the factories, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the workers were there willingly because their alternatives were worse, and ignoring the fact that one third of deaths during the "industrial revolution" were caused by disease. You have no grasp of what the situation was actually like at the time, because you can't fathom a society where malnutrition and the lack of awareness about basic hygiene are the norm. I mean, sure, maybe you've read about these things, but you clearly don't understand them if you're making these claims. To compare conditions during the industrial revolution to factories in China is so pigheaded that it's truly mind-boggling.
Re:Good for US economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, you realize that NAFTA was signed by George Bush 1 month prior to Clinton taking office, right? And that Clinton was just honoring the agreements and treaties already signed, right?
Don't let facts get in the way of your delusions, now.
Re: (Score:3)
They can't imagine any problem that isn't on their fucking script, they have no idea what to do when the problem isn't on the script, and when you ask to speak to their supervisor they either lie and put the guy from the next folding-table over on the line "yes this is supervisor" or else they just fucking hang up on you.
To be fair, and speaking from experience, this is usually a matter of common policy when it comes to call center. And it's not a US-only problem, or a problem just with outsourced services. I have worked in call centers located in several countries, and I know for a fact that the people at the phone very strong guidelines about what they can and cannot do: this includes deviating from the script. As a matter of fact, deviating from the script can and WILL get you fired if anyone learns about
Re: (Score:2)
Not all U.S. companies are huge corporations that can do this. Non-profits can't afford this either.
Re:Free Market Economy (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what these giant corporations want.
Big corporations _LOVE_ regulation, because the costs keep smaller, smarter, more innovative competitors out of the market. Big business and big government are not enemies, they're symbiotic organisms.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, under this new law, if your suppliers are violating open source copyright will be ok, you can't be sued because of that.
Re: (Score:3)
In brain, Soviet union explodes YOU.