my point is - what laws do you want to live by? do you want to live and have your life in the US and then live by EU rules. If we let our companies be screwed by the EU then we should should totally socialize everything like europe.
Look at it this way:
If my company sells its products in Europe (we don't), we would need things like CE qualifications to put them on the market. Our pricing would be affected by local taxation policies (read VAT), import duties, etc. It is all part of the cost of doing business in that LOCALE, even if it makes my product more expensive. I also obey the rules of that locale. If they say I don't sell on Sundays and Wednesdays, I don't. If they say having a business license with them requires that I hire 12 citizens at a given minimum wage, I do so - regardless of whether I need them or not. As long as I turn a profit I consider worthwhile, I will do so. Maybe the EU's anti-trust laws are different than the US. If so, than I abide by them IFF I want to do business in the EU. Regardless of whether I think they are unfair, onerous, anti-competitive, or whatever. It is what it is. If I really don't like it, I will take my ball and go home figuratively speaking. If there are people that still demand my product, they are welcome to come to the US, buy from me here, and figure out how they are going to get the product home themselves.
That is the way that life and business works. "Fair" has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of uneven laws in the world, including here in the US. The only thing that we ask for is that the laws be applied uniformly. And, by the way, this includes the idea that if my company will have different rules applied to them based on market share, that I can understand the changes, have a good idea when they will occur and maybe have some previous case law as a standard that I know I will have to adhere to.
If you can accept the above, then I will take it that you think Neelie Kroes is violating EU regulation in her pursuit of her great white whale, Intel. Moneyed clients do not become victims of the law, generally speaking. Especially with something that is so esoteric as anti-trust law that doesn't connect emotionally. If this is the case then Neelie is in for an embarrassing loss upon appeal - especially after her rhetoric. She'll be eating... Crow ;-)
My personal opinion is that she probably has enough evidence, according to the EU's evidentiary rules to not have her commission's ruling overturn by an appeal to an EU court. Remember that most courts operate under the presumption that they will have to have significant reason to overturn a lower court's ruling.
I also think that Intel successfully staying within US anti-trust laws in US markets does not mean that it can operate the same way in foreign markets and still stay within their anti-trust laws - especially as codified by case law in the EU. Maybe they screwed the pooch that way. |
