This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
  1. KudoZ™ Top
  2. Danish to English

kinesisk væg

English translation: Chinese wall

GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
Danish term or phrase:Kinesisk væg
English translation:Chinese wall
Entered by: Yngve Roennike

12:56 Aug 30, 2001
Danish to English translations [PRO]
Tech/Engineering
Danish term or phrase: kinesisk væg
In computer context, must be firewall, yah??
Yngve Roennike
Local time: 21:47
Chinese Wall
Explanation:
No, it is NOT a firewall!

Should be translated as: "Chinese Wall".

Please see reference!

Microsoft's counterproposal: A brief that's really brief
Company warns competing application developers not to expect a level playing field.
By Peter Coffee, eWEEK Technology Editor
May 11, 2000 9:56 AM ET
The proposed final judgment <http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2567304,0... filed Wednesday by Microsoft Corp. sends several messages at once.
By its brevity, compared to the plaintiffs' proposed final judgment that seeks to break up the company, the Microsoft filing conveys contempt for the broad sweep of the findings of fact compiled by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. Microsoft in effect is saying, "Let's stick to the subject."
Microsoft's position seems to be that since the company was brought into court for allegedly crushing Netscape by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, any legitimate remedies must be narrowly directed against that offense. Microsoft effectively admits that it squeezed out Netscape's browser by controlling the configuration of the Windows desktop, imposing Internet Explorer as the Windows interface to the Web and playing hardball with PC makers concerning their agreements to preload Windows on their machines. Microsoft offers to submit to a ruling that it can't do those things any more.
By contrast, the plaintiffs argue that the process of discovery during this case has revealed a pattern of anticompetitive practices, and that the entire pattern is subject to remedy under the law. Moreover, the plaintiffs contend that Microsoft has evaded the spirit of past behavioral remedies (its earlier consent decree), and that a structural remedy -- partitioning the company -- is forced upon the government by that evasion.
The other messages sent by Microsoft's proposal are in the detailed terms to which it offers to agree.
What Microsoft is really offering
The first of these messages concerns the speed of the software market. Microsoft proposes that the judgment's provisions remain in effect for only four years; in contrast, the government proposes a judgment with a term of 10 years, just 12 days longer than the time that has elapsed between the original shipment of Windows 3.0 and the filing of Microsoft's counterproposal.
The government might argue that 10 years is demonstrably the length of a generation of software, if the network-centric Windows 2000 is considered the generation that succeeds the desktop-centric 3.0 version. Microsoft will doubtless argue that Internet time makes four years long enough to transform the market beyond recognition, that the remedies in this case will be moot when the market that those remedies protect no longer exists.
The second crucial message is in the matter of what Microsoft knows about the process of writing applications for its platforms vs. what it chooses to share with developers of competing applications. Microsoft's filing defies the past claims of company officials -- notably Steve Ballmer -- that there was what Ballmer called a "church and state" separation <http://www.procompetition.org/research/server/section3.html&... (often termed the "Chinese Wall") between its development of operating systems and its development of applications for those operating systems.
In comments during the last eight years, Microsoft has already recanted the notion <http://www.around.com/microsoft.html> of a Chinese Wall, but Wednesday's filing eliminates any remaining doubt: Microsoft specifically excludes "information about the underlying implementation of (published) APIs" from its definition of "Technical Information" that it must fairly share with competitors.
Moreover, Microsoft merely promises to be impartial -- not necessarily complete -- in its disclosures: It defines Technical Information as what is needed "to enable ISVs to design software products that will run on ... Microsoft Platform Software" (as opposed to running well).
Crucially, the company only commits to being evenhanded in granting access to information "that Microsoft makes available to the software development community at large." In other words, Microsoft can continue to maintain secret APIs and can make any use it wishes of information on underlying mechanisms and data structures.
Microsoft merely concedes, in effect, that information on the published Windows APIs constitutes an "essential facility" -- which would make it unlawful for Microsoft to deny reasonable, non-discriminatory access <http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v47/no1/page.html>.
Unlike the plaintiffs, Microsoft omits "source code" from specific mention in the list of documents to be made available for scrutiny on demand during the judgment's span. On the other hand, the company does not specifically exclude source code from the general category of "documents ... relating to any matters contained in this Decree."
That should keep some lawyers busy, if Microsoft's language prevails.
Selected response from:

Sven Petersson
Sweden
Local time: 03:47
Grading comment
You are probaly right, in that it means separating data and preventing it from being seen by others [companies, etc.] through a wall.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
naChinese Wall
Sven Petersson


  

Answers


8 hrs
Chinese Wall


Explanation:
No, it is NOT a firewall!

Should be translated as: "Chinese Wall".

Please see reference!

Microsoft's counterproposal: A brief that's really brief
Company warns competing application developers not to expect a level playing field.
By Peter Coffee, eWEEK Technology Editor
May 11, 2000 9:56 AM ET
The proposed final judgment <http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2567304,0... filed Wednesday by Microsoft Corp. sends several messages at once.
By its brevity, compared to the plaintiffs' proposed final judgment that seeks to break up the company, the Microsoft filing conveys contempt for the broad sweep of the findings of fact compiled by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. Microsoft in effect is saying, "Let's stick to the subject."
Microsoft's position seems to be that since the company was brought into court for allegedly crushing Netscape by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, any legitimate remedies must be narrowly directed against that offense. Microsoft effectively admits that it squeezed out Netscape's browser by controlling the configuration of the Windows desktop, imposing Internet Explorer as the Windows interface to the Web and playing hardball with PC makers concerning their agreements to preload Windows on their machines. Microsoft offers to submit to a ruling that it can't do those things any more.
By contrast, the plaintiffs argue that the process of discovery during this case has revealed a pattern of anticompetitive practices, and that the entire pattern is subject to remedy under the law. Moreover, the plaintiffs contend that Microsoft has evaded the spirit of past behavioral remedies (its earlier consent decree), and that a structural remedy -- partitioning the company -- is forced upon the government by that evasion.
The other messages sent by Microsoft's proposal are in the detailed terms to which it offers to agree.
What Microsoft is really offering
The first of these messages concerns the speed of the software market. Microsoft proposes that the judgment's provisions remain in effect for only four years; in contrast, the government proposes a judgment with a term of 10 years, just 12 days longer than the time that has elapsed between the original shipment of Windows 3.0 and the filing of Microsoft's counterproposal.
The government might argue that 10 years is demonstrably the length of a generation of software, if the network-centric Windows 2000 is considered the generation that succeeds the desktop-centric 3.0 version. Microsoft will doubtless argue that Internet time makes four years long enough to transform the market beyond recognition, that the remedies in this case will be moot when the market that those remedies protect no longer exists.
The second crucial message is in the matter of what Microsoft knows about the process of writing applications for its platforms vs. what it chooses to share with developers of competing applications. Microsoft's filing defies the past claims of company officials -- notably Steve Ballmer -- that there was what Ballmer called a "church and state" separation <http://www.procompetition.org/research/server/section3.html&... (often termed the "Chinese Wall") between its development of operating systems and its development of applications for those operating systems.
In comments during the last eight years, Microsoft has already recanted the notion <http://www.around.com/microsoft.html> of a Chinese Wall, but Wednesday's filing eliminates any remaining doubt: Microsoft specifically excludes "information about the underlying implementation of (published) APIs" from its definition of "Technical Information" that it must fairly share with competitors.
Moreover, Microsoft merely promises to be impartial -- not necessarily complete -- in its disclosures: It defines Technical Information as what is needed "to enable ISVs to design software products that will run on ... Microsoft Platform Software" (as opposed to running well).
Crucially, the company only commits to being evenhanded in granting access to information "that Microsoft makes available to the software development community at large." In other words, Microsoft can continue to maintain secret APIs and can make any use it wishes of information on underlying mechanisms and data structures.
Microsoft merely concedes, in effect, that information on the published Windows APIs constitutes an "essential facility" -- which would make it unlawful for Microsoft to deny reasonable, non-discriminatory access <http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v47/no1/page.html>.
Unlike the plaintiffs, Microsoft omits "source code" from specific mention in the list of documents to be made available for scrutiny on demand during the judgment's span. On the other hand, the company does not specifically exclude source code from the general category of "documents ... relating to any matters contained in this Decree."
That should keep some lawyers busy, if Microsoft's language prevails.



    Reference: http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2567587,0...
Sven Petersson
Sweden
Local time: 03:47
Native speaker of: Native in SwedishSwedish, Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in pair: 1738
Grading comment
You are probaly right, in that it means separating data and preventing it from being seen by others [companies, etc.] through a wall.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

Return to KudoZ list

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.

See also:
ProZ.com term search
Search millions of term translations
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search