MS finally gets screwed by it's own EULA

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=2142

Microsoft told to pay 175 million in taxes in India

A unit of Microsoft Corp. has been asked by an Indian appellate
authority in income tax to pay more than 7 billion rupees - or about US
$175 million on income earned for the assessment period of 1999 to 2005.

The amount is computed based a tax rate of 15% on royalties earned in
the country. If interest is added, the total burden is likely to go even
higher.

How did this situation came about? According to The Economic Times:

The essence of the case, which pertained to the period 1999-2004,
is Microsoft’s decision not to pay tax in India citing several
legalities, including the double taxation avoidance agreement with the
US. The company, which sells its software in India through a circuitous
route involving several group companies, had maintained that its deal
with the customers is a sale and no royalty payment is involved. It is
this position that has now been rejected.

The irony is that what nailed the case here is Microsoft’s own EULA. Tax
authorities cited a clause in the document which stated “the product is
licensed, not sold,” concluding that since the software is licensed, a
royalty is involved.

Obviously, it is not the last word on the case yet. Microsoft believes
it should not have to pay the tax, citing several legalities, including
a double taxation avoidance agreement with the United States. At the
moment, Microsoft can move on to the Income-Tax Appellate Authority
(ITAT) and the hig court to appeal its case.

A Microsoft spokesperson said, “Microsoft believes it is in full
compliance with the Indian tax laws and the income-tax treaty agreement
between India and the US. Microsoft is reviewing the order and we will
determine our course of action accordingly.”

Still, I find it interesting that Microsoft believes its products to be
licensed - as stated in its EULA, and not sold. I have never really
considered the implications of “licensing” a software versus
“purchasing” one. What do you have to say about this?

_________________

Wow, now this is just priceless! And MS is fighting it because they
want to have their cake and eat it to with their license.

--
"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

DRM and unintended consequences:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101

 

[Earle Horton]

It's like a DVD movie or a book. You can read or view it all you want, but
when you start making Xerox copies or disks to sell, that is where it ends.
In that respect you don't "own" copies of Windows, so it is paid for with a
royalty. So Microsoft should pay India. If so, they'll just get the money
from their US customers. That's how drug companies work. Ever wonder why
prescription drugs are so cheap in Canada and Mexico?

Earle

"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
<me11@privacy.net> wrote in message news:ftg250$bd4$1@aioe.org...
> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=2142
>
> Microsoft told to pay 175 million in taxes in India
>
> A unit of Microsoft Corp. has been asked by an Indian appellate authority
> in income tax to pay more than 7 billion rupees - or about US $175 million
> on income earned for the assessment period of 1999 to 2005.
>
> The amount is computed based a tax rate of 15% on royalties earned in the
> country. If interest is added, the total burden is likely to go even
> higher.
>
> How did this situation came about? According to The Economic Times:
>
> The essence of the case, which pertained to the period 1999-2004, is
> Microsoft’s decision not to pay tax in India citing several legalities,
> including the double taxation avoidance agreement with the US. The
> company, which sells its software in India through a circuitous route
> involving several group companies, had maintained that its deal with the
> customers is a sale and no royalty payment is involved. It is this
> position that has now been rejected.
>
> The irony is that what nailed the case here is Microsoft’s own EULA. Tax
> authorities cited a clause in the document which stated “the product is
> licensed, not sold,” concluding that since the software is licensed, a
> royalty is involved.
>
> Obviously, it is not the last word on the case yet. Microsoft believes it
> should not have to pay the tax, citing several legalities, including a
> double taxation avoidance agreement with the United States. At the moment,
> Microsoft can move on to the Income-Tax Appellate Authority (ITAT) and the
> hig court to appeal its case.
>
> A Microsoft spokesperson said, “Microsoft believes it is in full
> compliance with the Indian tax laws and the income-tax treaty agreement
> between India and the US. Microsoft is reviewing the order and we will
> determine our course of action accordingly.”
>
> Still, I find it interesting that Microsoft believes its products to be
> licensed - as stated in its EULA, and not sold. I have never really
> considered the implications of “licensing” a software versus “purchasing”
> one. What do you have to say about this?
>
> _________________
>
> Wow, now this is just priceless! And MS is fighting it because they want
> to have their cake and eat it to with their license.
>
> --
> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free
> speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
> creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
> rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
> - Maura Corbett
>
> DRM and unintended consequences:
> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101

 

[kurttrail]

Earle Horton wrote:

> It's like a DVD movie or a book. You can read or view it all you want,
> but when you start making Xerox copies or disks to sell, that is where
> it ends. In that respect you don't "own" copies of Windows, so it is
> paid for with a royalty. So Microsoft should pay India. If so, they'll
> just get the money from their US customers. That's how drug companies
> work. Ever wonder why prescription drugs are so cheap in Canada and
> Mexico?

Because their governments are less in the pockets of the Drug Industry
than the US gov't is.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Michael A. Covington]

This is very interesting. As for "licensing" versus "purchasing,"
"licensing" is the only way software has ever been sold. It's just that in
most other cases, the licenses are simpler than Microsoft's.

"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
<me11@privacy.net> wrote in message news:ftg250$bd4$1@aioe.org...
> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=2142
>
> Microsoft told to pay 175 million in taxes in India
>
> A unit of Microsoft Corp. has been asked by an Indian appellate authority
> in income tax to pay more than 7 billion rupees - or about US $175 million
> on income earned for the assessment period of 1999 to 2005.
>
> The amount is computed based a tax rate of 15% on royalties earned in the
> country. If interest is added, the total burden is likely to go even
> higher.
>
> How did this situation came about? According to The Economic Times:
>
> The essence of the case, which pertained to the period 1999-2004, is
> Microsoft’s decision not to pay tax in India citing several legalities,
> including the double taxation avoidance agreement with the US. The
> company, which sells its software in India through a circuitous route
> involving several group companies, had maintained that its deal with the
> customers is a sale and no royalty payment is involved. It is this
> position that has now been rejected.
>
> The irony is that what nailed the case here is Microsoft’s own EULA. Tax
> authorities cited a clause in the document which stated “the product is
> licensed, not sold,” concluding that since the software is licensed, a
> royalty is involved.
>
> Obviously, it is not the last word on the case yet. Microsoft believes it
> should not have to pay the tax, citing several legalities, including a
> double taxation avoidance agreement with the United States. At the moment,
> Microsoft can move on to the Income-Tax Appellate Authority (ITAT) and the
> hig court to appeal its case.
>
> A Microsoft spokesperson said, “Microsoft believes it is in full
> compliance with the Indian tax laws and the income-tax treaty agreement
> between India and the US. Microsoft is reviewing the order and we will
> determine our course of action accordingly.”
>
> Still, I find it interesting that Microsoft believes its products to be
> licensed - as stated in its EULA, and not sold. I have never really
> considered the implications of “licensing” a software versus “purchasing”
> one. What do you have to say about this?
>
> _________________
>
> Wow, now this is just priceless! And MS is fighting it because they want
> to have their cake and eat it to with their license.
>
> --
> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free
> speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
> creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
> rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
> - Maura Corbett
>
> DRM and unintended consequences:
> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101

 

[C.B.]

"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
<me11@privacy.net> wrote in message news:ftg250$bd4$1@aioe.org...
> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=2142
>
> Microsoft told to pay 175 million in taxes in India
>
> A unit of Microsoft Corp. has been asked by an Indian appellate authority
> in income tax to pay more than 7 billion rupees - or about US $175 million
> on income earned for the assessment period of 1999 to 2005.
>
> The amount is computed based a tax rate of 15% on royalties earned in the
> country. If interest is added, the total burden is likely to go even
> higher.
>
> How did this situation came about? According to The Economic Times:
>
> The essence of the case, which pertained to the period 1999-2004, is
> Microsoft’s decision not to pay tax in India citing several legalities,
> including the double taxation avoidance agreement with the US. The
> company, which sells its software in India through a circuitous route
> involving several group companies, had maintained that its deal with the
> customers is a sale and no royalty payment is involved. It is this
> position that has now been rejected.
>
> The irony is that what nailed the case here is Microsoft’s own EULA. Tax
> authorities cited a clause in the document which stated “the product is
> licensed, not sold,” concluding that since the software is licensed, a
> royalty is involved.
>
> Obviously, it is not the last word on the case yet. Microsoft believes it
> should not have to pay the tax, citing several legalities, including a
> double taxation avoidance agreement with the United States. At the moment,
> Microsoft can move on to the Income-Tax Appellate Authority (ITAT) and the
> hig court to appeal its case.
>
> A Microsoft spokesperson said, “Microsoft believes it is in full
> compliance with the Indian tax laws and the income-tax treaty agreement
> between India and the US. Microsoft is reviewing the order and we will
> determine our course of action accordingly.”
>
> Still, I find it interesting that Microsoft believes its products to be
> licensed - as stated in its EULA, and not sold. I have never really
> considered the implications of “licensing” a software versus “purchasing”
> one. What do you have to say about this?
>
> _________________
>
> Wow, now this is just priceless! And MS is fighting it because they want
> to have their cake and eat it to with their license.
>
> --
> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free
> speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
> creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
> rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
> - Maura Corbett
>
> DRM and unintended consequences:
> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101


The solution is simple. Microsoft should pay the requested fees.
Microsoft can then cease using all Indian nationals for their customer
support and technical support. The outsourced Microsoft employees can then
return to their lower paying jobs or go on the welfare rolls of the Indian
government, if the Indian government does in fact take care of their
unemployed citizens. As a matter of fact, most American companies and those
of other countries use Indian nationals for their customer support and
technical support. The Indian government could care less about this. They
want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.
It is the corporate environment in America and other countries that has
enabled millions of Indian citizens to have viable employment and the chance
to better their lives and the lives of their families. Multinational
corporations are in fact responsible for dragging the Indian economy out of
the gutter. It is the taxes paid by multinational corporations that has
enabled India to rebuild their cities and attempt to feel the Indian people.
Indian citizens will soon outnumber the citizens of China. Does anyone
think the Indian government is capable of taking care of all these people? I
think not. Will India limit the number of children allowed per family? I
think not. Where does this leave India? Where will all the employment
opportunities for Indian nationals come from?
Tit for tat, I say.

C.B.


--
It is the responsibility and duty of everyone to help the underprivileged
and unfortunate among us.

 

[kurttrail]

C.B. wrote:

> "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
> <me11@privacy.net> wrote in message news:ftg250$bd4$1@aioe.org...
>> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=2142
>>
>> Microsoft told to pay 175 million in taxes in India
>>
>> A unit of Microsoft Corp. has been asked by an Indian appellate
>> authority in income tax to pay more than 7 billion rupees - or about US
>> $175 million on income earned for the assessment period of 1999 to
>> 2005.
>>
>> The amount is computed based a tax rate of 15% on royalties earned in
>> the country. If interest is added, the total burden is likely to go
>> even higher.
>>
>> How did this situation came about? According to The Economic Times:
>>
>> The essence of the case, which pertained to the period 1999-2004,
>> is
>> Microsoft’s decision not to pay tax in India citing several legalities,
>> including the double taxation avoidance agreement with the US. The
>> company, which sells its software in India through a circuitous route
>> involving several group companies, had maintained that its deal with
>> the customers is a sale and no royalty payment is involved. It is this
>> position that has now been rejected.
>>
>> The irony is that what nailed the case here is Microsoft’s own EULA.
>> Tax authorities cited a clause in the document which stated “the
>> product is licensed, not sold,†concluding that since the software is
>> licensed, a royalty is involved.
>>
>> Obviously, it is not the last word on the case yet. Microsoft believes
>> it should not have to pay the tax, citing several legalities, including
>> a double taxation avoidance agreement with the United States. At the
>> moment, Microsoft can move on to the Income-Tax Appellate Authority
>> (ITAT) and the hig court to appeal its case.
>>
>> A Microsoft spokesperson said, “Microsoft believes it is in full
>> compliance with the Indian tax laws and the income-tax treaty agreement
>> between India and the US. Microsoft is reviewing the order and we will
>> determine our course of action accordingly.â€
>>
>> Still, I find it interesting that Microsoft believes its products to be
>> licensed - as stated in its EULA, and not sold. I have never really
>> considered the implications of “licensing†a software versus
>> “purchasing†one. What do you have to say about this?
>>
>> _________________
>>
>> Wow, now this is just priceless! And MS is fighting it because they
>> want to have their cake and eat it to with their license.
>>
>> --
>> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
>> free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of
>> the creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country.
>> Consumer rights in the digital age are not frivolous." - Maura Corbett
>>
>> DRM and unintended consequences:
>> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101
>
>
> The solution is simple. Microsoft should pay the requested fees.
> Microsoft can then cease using all Indian nationals for their customer
> support and technical support. The outsourced Microsoft employees can
> then return to their lower paying jobs or go on the welfare rolls of the
> Indian government, if the Indian government does in fact take care of
> their unemployed citizens. As a matter of fact, most American companies
> and those of other countries use Indian nationals for their customer
> support and technical support. The Indian government could care less
> about this. They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.
> It is the corporate environment in America and other countries that
> has
> enabled millions of Indian citizens to have viable employment and the
> chance to better their lives and the lives of their families.
> Multinational corporations are in fact responsible for dragging the
> Indian economy out of the gutter. It is the taxes paid by multinational
> corporations that has enabled India to rebuild their cities and attempt
> to feel the Indian people.
> Indian citizens will soon outnumber the citizens of China. Does
> anyone
> think the Indian government is capable of taking care of all these
> people? I think not. Will India limit the number of children allowed per
> family? I think not. Where does this leave India? Where will all the
> employment opportunities for Indian nationals come from?
> Tit for tat, I say.
>
> C.B.

And make India into a bigger pirate nation than it already is! ROFL!

MS made its bed, now it has to lie in it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

C.B. wrote:
>
>
> "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
> <me11@privacy.net> wrote in message news:ftg250$bd4$1@aioe.org...
>> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=2142
>>
>> Microsoft told to pay 175 million in taxes in India
>>
>> A unit of Microsoft Corp. has been asked by an Indian appellate
>> authority in income tax to pay more than 7 billion rupees - or about
>> US $175 million on income earned for the assessment period of 1999 to
>> 2005.
>>
>> The amount is computed based a tax rate of 15% on royalties earned in
>> the country. If interest is added, the total burden is likely to go
>> even higher.
>>
>> How did this situation came about? According to The Economic Times:
>>
>> The essence of the case, which pertained to the period 1999-2004,
>> is Microsoft’s decision not to pay tax in India citing several
>> legalities, including the double taxation avoidance agreement with the
>> US. The company, which sells its software in India through a
>> circuitous route involving several group companies, had maintained
>> that its deal with the customers is a sale and no royalty payment is
>> involved. It is this position that has now been rejected.
>>
>> The irony is that what nailed the case here is Microsoft’s own EULA.
>> Tax authorities cited a clause in the document which stated “the
>> product is licensed, not sold,” concluding that since the software is
>> licensed, a royalty is involved.
>>
>> Obviously, it is not the last word on the case yet. Microsoft believes
>> it should not have to pay the tax, citing several legalities,
>> including a double taxation avoidance agreement with the United
>> States. At the moment, Microsoft can move on to the Income-Tax
>> Appellate Authority (ITAT) and the hig court to appeal its case.
>>
>> A Microsoft spokesperson said, “Microsoft believes it is in full
>> compliance with the Indian tax laws and the income-tax treaty
>> agreement between India and the US. Microsoft is reviewing the order
>> and we will determine our course of action accordingly.”
>>
>> Still, I find it interesting that Microsoft believes its products to
>> be licensed - as stated in its EULA, and not sold. I have never really
>> considered the implications of “licensing” a software versus
>> “purchasing” one. What do you have to say about this?
>>
>> _________________
>>
>> Wow, now this is just priceless! And MS is fighting it because they
>> want to have their cake and eat it to with their license.
>>
>
>
> The solution is simple. Microsoft should pay the requested fees.

I agree.

> Microsoft can then cease using all Indian nationals for their customer
> support and technical support.

And hopefully bring those jobs back to the US, as well as Dell, HP, et. all.

> The outsourced Microsoft employees can...
<snipped OT stuff>

> The Indian government could care less
> about this. They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.

Doesn't everyone?!

I think it's high time that MS start following the laws and rules of any
country they practice business in or sell their products in. If India
has a law about royalties, and MS's products fall under that law, then
MS should comply instead of fighting it. This is yet another reason for
the rest of the world to dispise Americans more than they already do.

> It is the corporate environment in America and other countries that
> has enabled millions of Indian citizens to have viable employment and
> the chance to better their lives and the lives of their families.

Yes, and at the same time laying off thousands of hard working Americans
that had those positions.

> Multinational corporations are in fact responsible for dragging the
> Indian economy out of the gutter.

And helping to dump the US economy into the gutter.

<snip>
> Tit for tat, I say.
>
> C.B.
>
>


--
"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

DRM and unintended consequences:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101

 

[Adam Albright]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:10:57 -0400, "C.B."
<notreallyc.b.mullen@windowslive.com> wrote:

>
>
>"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
><me11@privacy.net> wrote in message news:ftg250$bd4$1@aioe.org...
>> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=2142
>>
>> Microsoft told to pay 175 million in taxes in India
>>
>> A unit of Microsoft Corp. has been asked by an Indian appellate authority
>> in income tax to pay more than 7 billion rupees - or about US $175 million
>> on income earned for the assessment period of 1999 to 2005.
>>
>> The amount is computed based a tax rate of 15% on royalties earned in the
>> country. If interest is added, the total burden is likely to go even
>> higher.
>>
>> How did this situation came about? According to The Economic Times:
>>
>> The essence of the case, which pertained to the period 1999-2004, is
>> Microsoft’s decision not to pay tax in India citing several legalities,
>> including the double taxation avoidance agreement with the US. The
>> company, which sells its software in India through a circuitous route
>> involving several group companies, had maintained that its deal with the
>> customers is a sale and no royalty payment is involved. It is this
>> position that has now been rejected.
>>
>> The irony is that what nailed the case here is Microsoft’s own EULA. Tax
>> authorities cited a clause in the document which stated “the product is
>> licensed, not sold,” concluding that since the software is licensed, a
>> royalty is involved.
>>
>> Obviously, it is not the last word on the case yet. Microsoft believes it
>> should not have to pay the tax, citing several legalities, including a
>> double taxation avoidance agreement with the United States. At the moment,
>> Microsoft can move on to the Income-Tax Appellate Authority (ITAT) and the
>> hig court to appeal its case.
>>
>> A Microsoft spokesperson said, “Microsoft believes it is in full
>> compliance with the Indian tax laws and the income-tax treaty agreement
>> between India and the US. Microsoft is reviewing the order and we will
>> determine our course of action accordingly.”
>>
>> Still, I find it interesting that Microsoft believes its products to be
>> licensed - as stated in its EULA, and not sold. I have never really
>> considered the implications of “licensing” a software versus “purchasing”
>> one. What do you have to say about this?
>>
>> _________________
>>
>> Wow, now this is just priceless! And MS is fighting it because they want
>> to have their cake and eat it to with their license.
>>
>> --
>> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free
>> speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
>> creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
>> rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
>> - Maura Corbett
>>
>> DRM and unintended consequences:
>> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101
>
>
> The solution is simple. Microsoft should pay the requested fees.
>Microsoft can then cease using all Indian nationals for their customer
>support and technical support. The outsourced Microsoft employees can then
>return to their lower paying jobs or go on the welfare rolls of the Indian
>government, if the Indian government does in fact take care of their
>unemployed citizens. As a matter of fact, most American companies and those
>of other countries use Indian nationals for their customer support and
>technical support. The Indian government could care less about this. They
>want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.
> It is the corporate environment in America and other countries that has
>enabled millions of Indian citizens to have viable employment and the chance
>to better their lives and the lives of their families. Multinational
>corporations are in fact responsible for dragging the Indian economy out of
>the gutter. It is the taxes paid by multinational corporations that has
>enabled India to rebuild their cities and attempt to feel the Indian people.
> Indian citizens will soon outnumber the citizens of China. Does anyone
>think the Indian government is capable of taking care of all these people? I
>think not. Will India limit the number of children allowed per family? I
>think not. Where does this leave India? Where will all the employment
>opportunities for Indian nationals come from?
> Tit for tat, I say.
>
>C.B.

I remind you that you're just a babbling idiot. LOL!

Now for some FACTS. Microsoft has a long history of either breaking
the law or skating right up to the edge of the ice. The amount
involved is chump change for Microsoft. Yet Ballmer will likely blow
millions in legal fees trying to not follow Indian law. Classic
Microsoft BS.

Damn, I swear, you true blue Windows nut jobs NEVER hold Microsoft
accountable for anything.

 

[C.B.]

"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
<me11@privacy.net> wrote in message news:ftgdtu$vtm$1@aioe.org...
> C.B. wrote:
>>
>>
>> "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
>> <me11@privacy.net> wrote in message news:ftg250$bd4$1@aioe.org...
>>> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=2142
>>>
>>> Microsoft told to pay 175 million in taxes in India
>>>
>>> A unit of Microsoft Corp. has been asked by an Indian appellate
>>> authority in income tax to pay more than 7 billion rupees - or about US
>>> $175 million on income earned for the assessment period of 1999 to 2005.
>>>
>>> The amount is computed based a tax rate of 15% on royalties earned in
>>> the country. If interest is added, the total burden is likely to go even
>>> higher.
>>>
>>> How did this situation came about? According to The Economic Times:
>>>
>>> The essence of the case, which pertained to the period 1999-2004, is
>>> Microsoft’s decision not to pay tax in India citing several legalities,
>>> including the double taxation avoidance agreement with the US. The
>>> company, which sells its software in India through a circuitous route
>>> involving several group companies, had maintained that its deal with the
>>> customers is a sale and no royalty payment is involved. It is this
>>> position that has now been rejected.
>>>
>>> The irony is that what nailed the case here is Microsoft’s own EULA. Tax
>>> authorities cited a clause in the document which stated “the product is
>>> licensed, not sold,” concluding that since the software is licensed, a
>>> royalty is involved.
>>>
>>> Obviously, it is not the last word on the case yet. Microsoft believes
>>> it should not have to pay the tax, citing several legalities, including
>>> a double taxation avoidance agreement with the United States. At the
>>> moment, Microsoft can move on to the Income-Tax Appellate Authority
>>> (ITAT) and the hig court to appeal its case.
>>>
>>> A Microsoft spokesperson said, “Microsoft believes it is in full
>>> compliance with the Indian tax laws and the income-tax treaty agreement
>>> between India and the US. Microsoft is reviewing the order and we will
>>> determine our course of action accordingly.”
>>>
>>> Still, I find it interesting that Microsoft believes its products to be
>>> licensed - as stated in its EULA, and not sold. I have never really
>>> considered the implications of “licensing” a software versus
>>> “purchasing” one. What do you have to say about this?
>>>
>>> _________________
>>>
>>> Wow, now this is just priceless! And MS is fighting it because they
>>> want to have their cake and eat it to with their license.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The solution is simple. Microsoft should pay the requested fees.
>
> I agree.
>
>> Microsoft can then cease using all Indian nationals for their customer
>> support and technical support.
>
> And hopefully bring those jobs back to the US, as well as Dell, HP, et.
> all.
>
>> The outsourced Microsoft employees can...
> <snipped OT stuff>
>
>> The Indian government could care less about this. They want to be able to
>> have their cake and eat it too.
>
> Doesn't everyone?!
>
> I think it's high time that MS start following the laws and rules of any
> country they practice business in or sell their products in. If India has
> a law about royalties, and MS's products fall under that law, then MS
> should comply instead of fighting it. This is yet another reason for the
> rest of the world to dispise Americans more than they already do.
>
>> It is the corporate environment in America and other countries that
>> has enabled millions of Indian citizens to have viable employment and the
>> chance to better their lives and the lives of their families.
>
> Yes, and at the same time laying off thousands of hard working Americans
> that had those positions.
>
>> Multinational corporations are in fact responsible for dragging the
>> Indian economy out of the gutter.
>
> And helping to dump the US economy into the gutter.
>
> <snip>
>> Tit for tat, I say.
>>
>> C.B.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free
> speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
> creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
> rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
> - Maura Corbett
>
> DRM and unintended consequences:
> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101


I agree.

C.B.


--
It is the responsibility and duty of everyone to help the underprivileged
and unfortunate among us.

 

[Sal M'Nella]

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:2OOKj.6225$8Z4.702@fe79.usenetserver.com...
> C.B. wrote:
>
>> "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
>> <me11@privacy.net> wrote in message news:ftg250$bd4$1@aioe.org...
>>> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=2142
>>>
>>> Microsoft told to pay 175 million in taxes in India
>>>
>>> A unit of Microsoft Corp. has been asked by an Indian appellate
>>> authority in income tax to pay more than 7 billion rupees - or about US
>>> $175 million on income earned for the assessment period of 1999 to
>>> 2005.
>>>
>>> The amount is computed based a tax rate of 15% on royalties earned in
>>> the country. If interest is added, the total burden is likely to go
>>> even higher.
>>>
>>> How did this situation came about? According to The Economic Times:
>>>
>>> The essence of the case, which pertained to the period 1999-2004,
>>> is
>>> Microsoft's decision not to pay tax in India citing several legalities,
>>> including the double taxation avoidance agreement with the US. The
>>> company, which sells its software in India through a circuitous route
>>> involving several group companies, had maintained that its deal with
>>> the customers is a sale and no royalty payment is involved. It is this
>>> position that has now been rejected.
>>>
>>> The irony is that what nailed the case here is Microsoft's own EULA.
>>> Tax authorities cited a clause in the document which stated "the
>>> product is licensed, not sold," concluding that since the software is
>>> licensed, a royalty is involved.
>>>
>>> Obviously, it is not the last word on the case yet. Microsoft believes
>>> it should not have to pay the tax, citing several legalities, including
>>> a double taxation avoidance agreement with the United States. At the
>>> moment, Microsoft can move on to the Income-Tax Appellate Authority
>>> (ITAT) and the hig court to appeal its case.
>>>
>>> A Microsoft spokesperson said, "Microsoft believes it is in full
>>> compliance with the Indian tax laws and the income-tax treaty agreement
>>> between India and the US. Microsoft is reviewing the order and we will
>>> determine our course of action accordingly."
>>>
>>> Still, I find it interesting that Microsoft believes its products to be
>>> licensed - as stated in its EULA, and not sold. I have never really
>>> considered the implications of "licensing" a software versus
>>> "purchasing" one. What do you have to say about this?
>>>
>>> _________________
>>>
>>> Wow, now this is just priceless! And MS is fighting it because they
>>> want to have their cake and eat it to with their license.
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
>>> free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of
>>> the creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country.
>>> Consumer rights in the digital age are not frivolous." - Maura Corbett
>>>
>>> DRM and unintended consequences:
>>> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101
>>
>>
>> The solution is simple. Microsoft should pay the requested fees.
>> Microsoft can then cease using all Indian nationals for their customer
>> support and technical support. The outsourced Microsoft employees can
>> then return to their lower paying jobs or go on the welfare rolls of the
>> Indian government, if the Indian government does in fact take care of
>> their unemployed citizens. As a matter of fact, most American companies
>> and those of other countries use Indian nationals for their customer
>> support and technical support. The Indian government could care less
>> about this. They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.
>> It is the corporate environment in America and other countries that
>> has
>> enabled millions of Indian citizens to have viable employment and the
>> chance to better their lives and the lives of their families.
>> Multinational corporations are in fact responsible for dragging the
>> Indian economy out of the gutter. It is the taxes paid by multinational
>> corporations that has enabled India to rebuild their cities and attempt
>> to feel the Indian people.
>> Indian citizens will soon outnumber the citizens of China. Does
>> anyone
>> think the Indian government is capable of taking care of all these
>> people? I think not. Will India limit the number of children allowed per
>> family? I think not. Where does this leave India? Where will all the
>> employment opportunities for Indian nationals come from?
>> Tit for tat, I say.
>>
>> C.B.
>
> And make India into a bigger pirate nation than it already is! ROFL!
>
> MS made its bed, now it has to lie in it.
>

Then comes Kurt, after all the BUTT and ASS he can find!

> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Former Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
>

 

[Sal M'Nella]

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:4kenv3h0umjco1v6j91l1g9vmti8fb3ek7@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:10:57 -0400, "C.B."
> <notreallyc.b.mullen@windowslive.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
>><me11@privacy.net> wrote in message news:ftg250$bd4$1@aioe.org...
>>> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=2142
>>>
>>> Microsoft told to pay 175 million in taxes in India
>>>
>>> A unit of Microsoft Corp. has been asked by an Indian appellate
>>> authority
>>> in income tax to pay more than 7 billion rupees - or about US $175
>>> million
>>> on income earned for the assessment period of 1999 to 2005.
>>>
>>> The amount is computed based a tax rate of 15% on royalties earned in
>>> the
>>> country. If interest is added, the total burden is likely to go even
>>> higher.
>>>
>>> How did this situation came about? According to The Economic Times:
>>>
>>> The essence of the case, which pertained to the period 1999-2004, is
>>> Microsoft's decision not to pay tax in India citing several legalities,
>>> including the double taxation avoidance agreement with the US. The
>>> company, which sells its software in India through a circuitous route
>>> involving several group companies, had maintained that its deal with the
>>> customers is a sale and no royalty payment is involved. It is this
>>> position that has now been rejected.
>>>
>>> The irony is that what nailed the case here is Microsoft's own EULA. Tax
>>> authorities cited a clause in the document which stated "the product is
>>> licensed, not sold," concluding that since the software is licensed, a
>>> royalty is involved.
>>>
>>> Obviously, it is not the last word on the case yet. Microsoft believes
>>> it
>>> should not have to pay the tax, citing several legalities, including a
>>> double taxation avoidance agreement with the United States. At the
>>> moment,
>>> Microsoft can move on to the Income-Tax Appellate Authority (ITAT) and
>>> the
>>> hig court to appeal its case.
>>>
>>> A Microsoft spokesperson said, "Microsoft believes it is in full
>>> compliance with the Indian tax laws and the income-tax treaty agreement
>>> between India and the US. Microsoft is reviewing the order and we will
>>> determine our course of action accordingly."
>>>
>>> Still, I find it interesting that Microsoft believes its products to be
>>> licensed - as stated in its EULA, and not sold. I have never really
>>> considered the implications of "licensing" a software versus
>>> "purchasing"
>>> one. What do you have to say about this?
>>>
>>> _________________
>>>
>>> Wow, now this is just priceless! And MS is fighting it because they
>>> want
>>> to have their cake and eat it to with their license.
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
>>> free
>>> speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
>>> creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
>>> rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
>>> - Maura Corbett
>>>
>>> DRM and unintended consequences:
>>> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=435&tag=nl.e101
>>
>>
>> The solution is simple. Microsoft should pay the requested fees.
>>Microsoft can then cease using all Indian nationals for their customer
>>support and technical support. The outsourced Microsoft employees can then
>>return to their lower paying jobs or go on the welfare rolls of the Indian
>>government, if the Indian government does in fact take care of their
>>unemployed citizens. As a matter of fact, most American companies and
>>those
>>of other countries use Indian nationals for their customer support and
>>technical support. The Indian government could care less about this. They
>>want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.
>> It is the corporate environment in America and other countries that
>> has
>>enabled millions of Indian citizens to have viable employment and the
>>chance
>>to better their lives and the lives of their families. Multinational
>>corporations are in fact responsible for dragging the Indian economy out
>>of
>>the gutter. It is the taxes paid by multinational corporations that has
>>enabled India to rebuild their cities and attempt to feel the Indian
>>people.
>> Indian citizens will soon outnumber the citizens of China. Does
>> anyone
>>think the Indian government is capable of taking care of all these people?
>>I
>>think not. Will India limit the number of children allowed per family? I
>>think not. Where does this leave India? Where will all the employment
>>opportunities for Indian nationals come from?
>> Tit for tat, I say.
>>
>>C.B.
>
> I remind you that you're just a babbling idiot. LOL!
>
> Now for some FACTS. Microsoft has a long history of either breaking
> the law or skating right up to the edge of the ice. The amount
> involved is chump change for Microsoft. Yet Ballmer will likely blow
> millions in legal fees trying to not follow Indian law. Classic
> Microsoft BS.
>
> Damn, I swear, you true blue Windows nut jobs NEVER hold Microsoft
> accountable for anything.
>

You are so full of yourself. Are you sure you can fit in the news group?
Maybe we should start microsoft.public.windows.vista.general.adam.almighty

 

[kurttrail]

Sal M'Nella wrote:

> Then comes Kurt, after all the BUTT and ASS he can find!

Wouldn't that be redundant?

As for you lame attempt at a joke, I didn't know that Microsoft had an
ass, but now I stand corrected. They named their ass, Sal M'Nella.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[kurttrail]

Sal M'Nella wrote:

> You are so full of yourself. Are you sure you can fit in the news
> group? Maybe we should start
> microsoft.public.windows.vista.general.adam.almighty

Go right ahead and try.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Sal M'Nella]

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:K_PKj.6258$8Z4.5034@fe79.usenetserver.com...
> Sal M'Nella wrote:
>
>> Then comes Kurt, after all the BUTT and ASS he can find!
>
> Wouldn't that be redundant?

No, you are redundant. Day after day, post after post.
>
> As for you lame attempt at a joke, I didn't know that Microsoft had an
> ass, but now I stand corrected. They named their ass, Sal M'Nella.

Look who is talking Mr. Microscum the pubic windows gonorrhea master !


>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Former Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
>

 

[kurttrail]

Sal M'Nella wrote:

> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:K_PKj.6258$8Z4.5034@fe79.usenetserver.com...
>> Sal M'Nella wrote:
>>
>>> Then comes Kurt, after all the BUTT and ASS he can find!
>>
>> Wouldn't that be redundant?
>
> No, you are redundant. Day after day, post after post.

As opposed to Frank and his repeating that there are more distro than
linux users?

>>
>> As for you lame attempt at a joke, I didn't know that Microsoft had an
>> ass, but now I stand corrected. They named their ass, Sal M'Nella.
>
> Look who is talking Mr. Microscum the pubic windows gonorrhea master !

Yep, I'm my own ass. Not the ass of a soul-less corporation, like you
and your fellow MicroSycophant, Frank.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[HeyBub]

Earle Horton wrote:
> It's like a DVD movie or a book. You can read or view it all you
> want, but when you start making Xerox copies or disks to sell, that
> is where it ends. In that respect you don't "own" copies of Windows,
> so it is paid for with a royalty. So Microsoft should pay India. If
> so, they'll just get the money from their US customers. That's how
> drug companies work. Ever wonder why prescription drugs are so cheap
> in Canada and Mexico?

Prescription drugs are not cheap in Canada and Mexico. Proprietary drugs are
generally less expensive outside the U.S., but generic drugs usually cost
considerably more.

 

[Kevpan815]

Run For King Adam Not So Bright, Just FYI

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:4kenv3h0umjco1v6j91l1g9vmti8fb3ek7@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:10:57 -0400, "C.B."
> <notreallyc.b.mullen@windowslive.com> wrote:
>

>
> Damn, I swear, you true blue Windows nut jobs NEVER hold Microsoft
> accountable for anything.
>

Maybe You Should Run For King. Just FYI

 

[Frank]

Re: Run For King Adam Not So Bright, Just FYI

Kevpan815 wrote:

> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
> news:4kenv3h0umjco1v6j91l1g9vmti8fb3ek7@4ax.com...
>
>>On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:10:57 -0400, "C.B."
>><notreallyc.b.mullen@windowslive.com> wrote:
>>
>
>
>>Damn, I swear, you true blue Windows nut jobs NEVER hold Microsoft
>>accountable for anything.
>>
>
>
> Maybe You Should Run For King. Just FYI
>
>
He proly fell off the wagon (IOW's he's drunk once again!) and that is
why he's back...LOL!
Pathetic!
Frank