“MICROSOFT A IMPUS TIRANIA CORUPŢIEI ŞI A MONOPOLULUI”
“Premierul Dacian Cioloș va efectua, între 22 și 25 mai, o vizită de lucru în Statele Unite ale Americii, în care se va întâlni cu vicepreședintele american Joe Biden, cu înalți oficiali ai Administrației americane, cu reprezentanți ai mediului de afaceri, precum și cu membri ai comunității românești din zona Washington, conform unui comunicat al Guvernului, remis redacției.
Vizita lui Cioloș se bazează pe conceptul ”From shared security to shared prosperity”, adică evidențierea succesului Parteneriatului Strategic cu SUA în domeniul securității, precum și articularea unei dimensiuni economice de o ambiție similară”
“And above all, it’s important for the lives of citizens who deserve to know their voices will be heard in government, that their businesses can compete fairly without bribes, that their disputes will be adjudicated transparently by a court system that is trusted, and that no Romanian — any more than any American — is above the law. […]
Corruption saps the collective strength and resolve of a nation. It is merely another form of tyranny. And fighting corruption is more than just about good government. It’s patriotism plain and simple.” Joe Biden 21 Mai 2014
Stimate Domnule Prim Ministru Dacian Cioloş,
Articularea unei dimensiuni economice de o ambiție similară, “From shared security to shared prosperity”, este si va ramine un deziderat generos, dar numai un deziderat fara nici o sansa de reusita, atit timp cit Microsoft continua practicile sale neconcurentiale si monopoliste bazate pe piraterie, frauda si mita (Strict Secret Evanghelism).
Modelul si dimensiunea economica ambitioasa a Microsoft se bazeaza pe nerespectarea legii, si mituirea politicienilor si a serviciilor care conduc “in cimpul tactic” justitia, in frunte cu DNA, protectorul principal al Microsoft.
DoJ – FCPA si FBI investigheaza de mai multi ani, actele de coruptie comise de Microsoft in mai multe tari inclusiv in Romania.
DNA protejeaza Microsoft si grupul infractional constituit de acesta, si continua sa tergiverseze investigatiile, in contradictie flagranta cu politicile SUA, astfel afirmate de catre Domnul Joe Biden si sustinute de Dumneavoastra.
“Scandalul Microsoft” este un exemplu extrem si crucial referitor la ce trebuie facut pentru ca dezideratele generoase pe care le promovati sa devina realitate.
Va dorim succes si sa va intoarceti sanatos,
Dragoş Rişcanu
The FCPA – Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – Bribing is illegal
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, et seq.) is a United States federal law known primarily for two of its main provisions, one that addresses accounting transparency requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and another concerning bribery of foreign officials. The act was amended in 1988 and in 1998. As of 2012[update] there were continued congressional concerns.
“The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq. („FCPA”), was enacted for the purpose of making it unlawful for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business.”
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/foreign-corrupt-practices-act
The Sherman Act “conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations” is illegal
The Sherman Act is divided into three sections. Section 1 delineates and prohibits specific means of anticompetitive conduct, while Section 2 deals with end results that are anti-competitive in nature. Thus, these sections supplement each other in an effort to prevent businesses from violating the spirit of the Act, while technically remaining within the letter of the law.
Section 1 – „Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.”
Section 2 – „Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]” Sherman Antitrust Act https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/761131/download
MICROSOFT FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING SHERMAN ACT
In his 43-page conclusions of law, Judge Jackson’s final judgment on the evidence, the judge wrote that ”the court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market,” as well as ”unlawfully tying its Web browser to its operating system” — all in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Attorney General Janet Reno and other officials seemed delighted.
”Microsoft has been held accountable for its illegal conduct by a court of law,” the attorney general said. ”We are pleased that the court agreed with the department that Microsoft abused its monopoly power, that it violated the antitrust laws and that it harmed consumers.”
Tom Miller, the attorney general of Iowa, said, ”Judge Jackson’s decision is a broad-based and compelling finding of liability, of law-breaking.” Mr. Miller leads the efforts of the 19 states that are partners with the Justice Department in the case.
And another plaintiff, Attorney General Richard A. Blumenthal of Connecticut, said the remedy should be ”as far reaching and fundamental as Microsoft’s abuse of its monopoly power.”
MICROSOFT CONTINUES ITS ABUSES
Economist Milton Friedman believed that the antitrust case against Microsoft set a dangerous precedent that foreshadowed increasing government regulation of what was formerly an industry that was relatively free of government intrusion and that future technological progress in the industry will be impeded as a result. Friedman, Milton (March–April 1999). „The Business Community’s Suicidal Impulse”. Cato Institute. Retrieved February 23, 2013.
In the January 2007 edition of the Journal of Business & Economic Research, Jenkins and Bing argue that, contrary to Friedman’s concerns, the settlement actually had little effect on Microsoft’s behavior. The fines, restrictions, and monitoring imposed were not enough to prevent it from „abusing its monopolistic power and [did] too little to prevent it from dominating the software and operating system industry.” They conclude that, remaining dominant and monopolistic after the trial, it had continued to stifle competitors and innovative technology. Jenkins, Gregory T.; Robert W. Bing (January 2007). „Microsoft’s Monopoly: Anti-Competitive Behavior, Predatory Tactics, And The Failure Of Governmental Will”. Journal of Business & Economic Research 5 (1): 11–16. Retrieved February 23, 2013.