While most VB hackers could make such a tool quicker than you can spell anti-trust, you have to take into account that if MS has to develop a tool that does that, you need to have at least 4 quadcores and 32GB of memory to be able to run it and they would need a development budget of around 300 million dollars.

Of course goncept knows this, but attacking someone's valid argument by attacking used hyperbole within that argument is a good way to try to discredit the entire argument itself, without actually having to counter the argument with own real arguments. After that attention is further diverted away from the original argument by stating that it's all not that much different than we already have.

That sadly actually says a lot of expected competency of government officials that the public has.

will not touch it until it has been certified by an industry independent body like ISO.

The point wasn't whether the act itself was illegal or legal, it was about the question if someone who committed a crime in country A which causes damages in country B, should be tried in country B.

I agree that if this guy broke the law he should be prosecuted. Only by the country where the crime is committed, otherwise you leave loopholes open like the example I gave.

If a party in country B has damages, they can go through the legal system of country A to claim damages. This just feels like some nationalistic 'We are americans and don't fuck with us' kneejerk reaction. I had hoped that attitude had gone with G.W.

So by your reasoning, you should be able to be imprisoned by the chinese government if you watch (by chinese government deemed) illegal content on a website that's hosted on a server in China. Even though the content of the website is perfectly legal in the country where you are browsing in? No? Didn't think so... This type of entrapment is a slippery slope.