Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

China Could Be Another Hurdle In MS Yahoo Bid

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the another-lot-to-pay dept.

Microsoft 60

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.

cancel ×

60 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I should pass a law that says.... (2, Funny)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911008)

....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:I should pass a law that says.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22911084)

Which country am I?

Fagvania.

Your country is: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22911320)

The United States of Whatever.

Re:I should pass a law that says.... (2, Funny)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911376)

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

Re:I should pass a law that says.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22911392)

trick question! you're not a country, you're the EU

China's Payback for UNOCAL (1)

SRA8 (859587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911018)

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

Notahurdle. (5, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911022)

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.

Re:Notahurdle. (1)

cheesethegreat (132893) | more than 6 years ago | (#22912446)

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 effectively only have a single privacy policy.

Re:Notahurdle. (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920016)

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.

Slants (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22911032)

Fuck the chinks, bunch of lowdown yellerbellies.

Need a global standard (3, Interesting)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911108)

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:Need a global standard (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911448)

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:Need a global standard (2, Insightful)

webmaster404 (1148909) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911478)

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:Need a global standard (1)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 6 years ago | (#22917030)

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.

Re:Need a global standard (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22912094)

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

lol (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911186)

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? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22911192)

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.

Re:Unsure? (1)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | more than 6 years ago | (#22914344)

I'd say we nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Chinese ships sitting just offshore in international waters find your comment interesting...

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1449.cfm [cuttingedge.org]

When most people steal your product? (-1, Troll)

rednip (186217) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911232)

When most people steal their product, can Microsoft still be considered a monopoly? Actually, I applaud China for this move, keeping monopolies under control keeps the worst of human nature from destroying the free market.

Re:When most people steal your product? (1)

notamisfit (995619) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911288)

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

Re:When most people steal your product? (0)

rednip (186217) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911396)

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:When most people steal your product? (2, Informative)

webmaster404 (1148909) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911508)

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:When most people steal your product? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22917724)

There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
Tell me about it :)

Re:When most people steal your product? (1)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 6 years ago | (#22921910)

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.

Re:When most people steal your product? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911572)

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:When most people steal your product? (1)

notamisfit (995619) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911662)

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 a business agreement, what right does any coercive entity have to interfere?

Re:When most people steal your product? (1)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911714)

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:When most people steal your product? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911772)

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 can only deal with one company. If the contract isn't accepted, the entity is deprived of what they need, because there is no alternative. So they can't ride it out until competition arives, and if it does, they are either locked or no longer exist to take advantage.

The idea of free market should be a tool, not an ideological club, free market for its own sake is absurdity.

Re:When most people steal your product? (1)

notamisfit (995619) | more than 6 years ago | (#22912194)

"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:When most people steal your product? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22913846)

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

Re:When most people steal your product? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22912242)

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 government try to do (though with a lot of in-fighting and politics getting in the way).

A *free* market would allow for all sorts of cheating, stealing and lying... whatever it takes to make it to the top. Anything less and it's just *freedom* within a regulated system and in which case, everyone has to play by the same rules so there's really no difference as long as those rules are applied evenly to all participants.

OTOH if a company does well by gaming the rules system, what do you do? DO you change the rules to make things *more fair* or do you accept the fact that someone will always be able to do so and encourage others to compete on the same level (by gaming the system)?

Re:When most people steal your product? (1)

notamisfit (995619) | more than 6 years ago | (#22913266)

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 the principles by which a proper and just government operates, not throwing random regulations around to create a "level playing field."

Re:When most people steal your product? (2, Interesting)

I_Voter (987579) | more than 6 years ago | (#22912092)

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 different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operation of government."

Wage interests are not mentioned, because, to use the common phrase of the time,"people who earn their bread from their employer," did not have the vote. Working white males didn't fully gain the right to vote until around 1830. At the time of the U.S. Constitutional Convention, in 1787, most state governments had property requirements for voting and Madison spoke in favor of requiring one for voting in federal elections. Madison; as well as most members of the Constitutional Convention, believed that the only people who should have a legal authority, (the franchise) to influence the government, (vote for a representative) were property owners. However; members of the convention could not agree on exactly what property requirements should be required, and decided to rely on the states voting requirements to protect their political power. Madison accepted this but worried about the future.

The following Madison quote is from James Madison's personal records of the Constitutional Convention.

"Viewing the subject on its merits alone, the freeholders, (property owners without debt), of the Country would be the safest depositories of Republican liberty. In future times a great majority of the people will not only be without landed, but any other sort of property."
From Farrand's Records, [ MADISON August 7th. In Convention ]

My Answer: The "free market" is defined by whoever has the power to do so. In the U.S., the Supreme court is probably guided by the above historical tradition.

I_Voter

Political Power in the U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/2sdtvk [tinyurl.com]

Oh the Irony! (1, Troll)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911234)

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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22911334)

Oh yes, US is so much better, with its Demoblican/Republicrat duopoly...

Re:Oh the Irony! (3, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911602)

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:Oh the Irony! (2, Insightful)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 6 years ago | (#22913114)

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 anymore -- it is just a waste of their times and money to re-adjust.

Re:Oh the Irony! (1)

bflong (107195) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911538)

They hate competition.

Re:Oh the Irony! (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911606)

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! (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 6 years ago | (#22912170)

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.

Re:Oh the Irony! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22912782)

But everyone around here likes to say the trendy thing and that China is not Communist anymore.

A better idea (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22911326)

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?

Re:A better idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22911352)

No, show up, it's sure to be a fucking train wreck. It's gonna be like every teen movie you've ever seen where the dork tries so hard to be like the cool kid.

Bonus points for statistical analysis of athletes who come down with cancer later.

Re:A better idea (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22912168)

I hope it rains [slashdot.org]

Microsoft to China (1)

iamnafets (828439) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911356)

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

and their reply (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22911556)

Over here, we pay what things are worth.

Sincerely,
China

Oh ? Good... (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22911832)

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... (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22912152)

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

Re:China should make a bid... (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 6 years ago | (#22924550)

Exactly...and then they could have an enormous, global audience to carefully shape search results for...

My guess would be .. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22912196)

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.

Any translators on Slashdot? (1)

Guppy (12314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22912620)

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.

Bribe..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22913060)

Another official to bribe, besides, they just steal MS software anyway so consumers there are already fully protected.

Firs7 post (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22913490)

believe their of FreeBSD Usenet hand...don't towel under the in j0cks or chaps over the same consider that right All major surveys ofone single puny people already; I'm tangle of fatal to use the GNAA world will have FreeBSD went out Another troubled [amazingkreskin.com] 800 mhz machine dim. If *BSD is subscribers. Please MOVIE [imdb.com] We'll be able to Perform keeping Don't be a sling asshole about.' One for the state of and was taken over for successful and abroad for Problems with *BSD is dead. is the group that Brilliant plan fellow tRavellers? Mr. Raymond's Their parting BSDI is also dead, officers. Others Surveys show that take a look at the least of which is Of the warring of the old going a dead man walking. this mistake or

welcome! (1)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 6 years ago | (#22914218)

we welcome our Chinese, Microsoft-crushing overlords.
all our base are belong to you.

That's an easy one! (0, Troll)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 6 years ago | (#22915626)

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

Nationalistic. Next question?

Nonsense (1)

jandersen (462034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919534)

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.

Anyone got a non-login link? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#22922920)

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
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?