Jackie -- in every situation there is a legal reality and a practical reality. i've had people come to me wanting to sue the pants off of someone who did them wrong...then i asked how much they think could win in damages and they tell me $500. My response is, "I'll get through that entire $500 by just working 3 hours!" So, yes..you can sue..but the economic reality is it's a no-win game. Likewise here...yeah..you can enforce billions of dollars in sanctions...yes, there's apparently a legal wrong, though I admit to being fairly ignorant of WTO regulations. But you're punishing the hell out of a HUGE trading partner...the biggest kid on the block....the largest consuming market in the world...is that what you want??? Apparently not, as the article indicates. Apparently it will NOT be enforced for these very reasons.
No, it won't, but that is the nature of the WTO. But I don't like your argumentation. So the biggest kid on the block can always do whatever it wants? Isn't the whole point of having rules to prevent that? You are just basically giving good reasons why WTO rules SHOULD be enforceable.
I don't know that it's argumentation...it just is what it is. It's the reality of the situation. It's less my argumentation than it is Europes argumentation at this point...they're the ones that aren't gonna enforce it. So your beef is with them. I have no problems with WTO rules...though I do wonder if the degree of the sanction was out of line here. I admitted my ignorance to WTO standards in previous threads.
You are being too generic. Because Microsoft has a product in a particular area does not mean they are gaining market share over an EU based company because of the tax breaks. I'm sure the filings with the WTO name specific spaces they feel are being unfairly manipulated. But if Windows is the dominant o/s because of capatibility, ease of use, familiarity or whatever, it being 15% cheaper is not necessarily the reason Windows has its market share. So the tax break would be irrelevant to competition, which is the basis of the WTO suit. You are assuming MS is driving out other companies in all the spaces they are in, and you are assuming they operate in all spaces, which they don't.
C'mon.....the Euro's are pushing it big time in this regard. They have been helping their "established" Euro firms for years over American products. Not to the extent of which Japan does in cases like Kodak vs. FujiFilm, but European Union officials have on numerous occasions proposed anti-us company legislation. An example, and I think reason why the steel tariff's were started, was the nullification of the GE-Honeywell merger, because the European Union cried monopolists when it was simply saving companies like Rolls-Royce (produces airplane engines and turbines) from the onslaught of the the mega-merger.
