Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Governmental Regulation Madness (and other stuff)

Well, the last article might have been a little misleading, so I've to smash governmental regulation on a broader base.

Let's say, you manufacture cars and one of your customer runs over a kid. Should the government be able to fine you for that?
If you produce paper and someone produces fake money with it, should you be the one who is responsible for that?

Well.. If you sell online Ads and someone breaks your terms of services by selling fake medication online, should you be fined?
How about half a billion dollars?

In fact, you seem to be responsible for what people are doing with your products, even if you clearly stated that any kind of illegal activity is prohibited. So you have to control everything your customers do.

If you sell matches, better be sure that your customers don't own a meth-lab if they buy regularly from you.

Sure, if you have the option to control every step of your customers, do it. But if the number of customers outnumber the number of your employees by 1:10.000, it is a little stupid to expect a check of every single customer (and make sure that he doesn't do something illegal once he has been checked)

European regulation is about as much fun.
Imagine you have a natural product called

"Liver Protection Capsules" - 9,99€ for 60 capsules
and another one that is called
"Capsules to protect the liver" - 11,00€ for 30 (!) capsules

Would you expect that only ONE of both is illegal now?
Guess which one?
Of course it is the cheap one. Because it has a "misleading description".

No, that's completely reasonable. I can understand that.

Well and the interesting definition of monopoly:

Choice is not an option, at least not for some.
You can use the Internet just with Google. Yeah, didn't you know? In fact Google IS the internet. Every person who touches a computer for the first time knows that.

There is no Bing, no Yahoo, no Dogpile, no Lycos. They are just disguised versions of Google, obviously.
So it's fine to file an Antitrust.

I'm just waiting for someone to sue Google because Chrome is the standard-browser of ChromeOS

Back to Europe:

Every herbal medication/nutritional supplement (I don't mean homeopathy -.-, I don't care about homeopathy) that has studies to prove a medical benefit has to be taken off the market instantly.
Because it has to be redeclared as a pharmaceutical product and can't be sold freely anymore.
(which would make it more expensive too, as the standards for pharmaceutical products are way higher than those for supplements)

Back to the US:

Apple has not a monopoly on it's system, even if they state in their TOS, that their OS can only be used on their hardware... and their hardware only with their OS. (yeah, I know about unsupported boot camp). And Apple simply loves 3rd party app stores, don't they?
They love their competition so much that they ban the word "Android" from the appStore. And apps that are about Android.
No, that would never be something that could cause reason for the big mighty antitrust. 

Let's hop to china:
Microsoft partners with Baidu, China's largest search engine to provide censored search results for the Chinese citizens. Very American dear Microsoft. Freedom and such? Who needs that?

Back to the US:
Microsoft pays institutions hundreds of thousands of dollars to use their Office365 stuff. Interesting from a legal point of view. Stupid from an economical point of view, because the trial period will run out at some point, but what do I know.
Does anyone know the definition of a bribe?
Hmm... Interesting.

Let's stay in the US.
So it is totally ok to form a cartel against a rival to bid on a pack of patents that will be used against this rival?
Yeah, that is totally fine. Of course. How could I ever question that?

Also it is perfectly fine to patent something someone else has invented. Obviously. You just have the money (or the immodesty) to do it first.
So, in fact: you can copy something, patent it and then make big money. Or sabotage others to get rid of rivals.
I could never see how that could promote anti-competitive behavior.

The governmental supported free media is forced to empty their online news archives. 90% of all video and audio data has been deleted. Why? Because they are a threat to traditional media who make money from archiving news and information. So they just forced the government to issue a law that puts pressure on the free, governmental supported media to delete everything that exceeds a certain age.
Depending on the type of content, information is just allowed to stay online for either:
  • 7 days
  • 6 months or 
  • 12 months
Our world is sick.

No comments:

Post a Comment