theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 24, 2011, 14:29:
I think you have to look at how each respective system works in practice. The US failed to address the anti-competitive behaviour of companies like Microsoft and Intel, whereas the EU took a very strong stance in favour of the consumer. It was similar with regards to telcoms and roaming charges. You also see much greater scrutiny over large mergers in the EU, where the US tends to have much lower requirements.

The DoJ has a mixed record but it has done well with things like dealing with Intel's anti-competitive practices (forced to "invest" in AMD) and Samsung's price-fixing (giant blanket penalties), as well as corporate break-ups (better than it was). Really it is a matter of history as you have to look at the anti-trust progression to see that there are very real limits to what is deemed acceptable. I can't disagree that the US sucks on implementing standards as fast as Europe does, but to be honest, it's always worked out better in the long-run, HDTV being the best example. Fact is, it's better to see how it works in other countries before implementing it yourself; that's how China has caught up with the Western world, after all. It's more efficient to learn from other people's mistakes while enjoying a "free" market in the meantime.

I agree completely and I find it very disappointing how the UK so closely models the US lawsuit culture, as we're usually only 3-5yrs behind. The trouble is a legal system that rewards ridiculous claims.

I deal with people in the UK regularly so I must say I have a particularly good perspective of things. I find it to be a reflection of Europe as a whole, actually, just a bit time-lapsed; a region that is still grappling with the problems that come from immigration and dissent while trying to exert their institutional ideals. The problem is that not all resources are created equal; while space is at a premium in Japan, forcing JIT (just-in-time) manufacturing, the US has space to spare, creating warehouses out of Home Depots and Walmarts. You simply cannot apply the same solutions to different geographies, and as the UK is discovering, to different cultures.

That's simply not true. Companies have a distinct legal identity that protects them from liability, which is why the owners and shareholders of a company cannot be held personally responsible for injuries or fatalities that occur within the business. They are still financially responsible where determined in court, yet that is a separate issue. Companies are made of individuals and businesses should not be allowed to use their collective power to restrict the rights of consumers, as is the case with EA and Sony.

It is true; companies are legally represented as individuals. That is what protects the leaders of the company and NOT the shareholders, and it is why the Enron incident occurred. Responsibility is measured in dollars and history has shown us, in that event and others, who came out on top. That fiasco in fact heralded a new age of whistle-blower protections and benefits specifically designed to overcome limitations in that paradigm.