Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Jun 2006 21:15 UTC, submitted by brewin
Permalink for comment 137979
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
I consider it a matter of the European Commission grossly over-estimating their ability to exert control over a non-EU based corporation.
This remains to be seen. Microsoft has assets in the EU, which can be seized in the event MS decides to ignore local European laws.
I also wonder why being based in another country than an EU member state exempts you from following European laws. If this were true, I wonder why European companies even put up with United States laws. Since they are not based in the USA, they can safely ignore them following your twisted logic.
May I remember U.S. citizens about the Dmitri Sklyarov case? Sklyarov reverse engineered a DRM-ed e-book format in the former USSR, where this is perfectly legal. Upon landing in the USA, he was arrested and charged under the DMCA. Since when do US laws reach over US borders, making law abiding citizens of a foreign sovereign state criminals under US laws?
At least the EU is charging Microsofts European business in the EU. They are not pursuing them for violations elsewhere.