Microsoft's Big Stick in Peru

An anonymous reader points out a Wired story on the continuing Peru saga. In this latest episode, Wired notes that the U.S. Ambassador to Peru has chimed in in support of Microsoft and in opposition to Dr. Villanueva's bill which would have mandated open source software be used by the Peruvian government. On the one hand, sure, our diplomats have a national goal of promoting U.S. enterprise, but do we have to promote companies which we are simultaneously pursuing in court for numerous violations of our laws? Isn't that a bit counter-productive?

Comments

Re:Stock market

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now, the US needs Microsoft.

But does Peru?

ugh, it doesn't make sense

[Dr. Awktagon]

In his June letter, Hamilton said that while the United States doesn't oppose the development of open-source software, it prefers to support a free market where the quality of the product can determine the issue.

This makes no sense, on many levels! First of all, any company can supply open-source software. In no way does this create any barrier to any company. Even Microsoft can submit software for this purpose.

To me this quote is the same as: "Hamilton said that while the United States doesn't oppose the development of green army tanks, it prefers to support a free market where the quality of the product can determine the color." Makes no sense! Anyone can write open-source software.

Microsoft is a monopoly, an illegal one at that, so hearing them talk about free markets is damn funny.

On another level, open-source software is closer to a situation where there are no copyrights, in other words, a true free market. Copyright monopolies are exactly that, monopolies. If you need your software serviced, you have to call exactly one company for permission (or even to have the work done). You have more freedom with open-source than proprietary software. Governments should be supporting freedom!

Of course, I'm not surprised. Microsoft did the same thing in Mexico. Free markets, my ass. Microsoft is just buying their way in and taking advantage of poorer countries.

The land of the free, indeed

[jvmatthe]

Why is a government official stumping for the interests of a single company? Yeah, they can play it off as if they were talking about a whole industry, but it is obvious that there is really only one company with real political and money interests that is making waves here.

It used to be that the U.S. was known for promoting freedom, in the guise of democracy and free markets, to other countries. Now, we have our diplomats promoting to keep those same countries in the grasp of a predatory monopolist that we ourselves convicted.

They can say they're not against free software all they want, but the industry they're promoting is not one that is known for giving freedoms to its users and it one that is clearly afraid of the true freedom that free software can give.

Re:The land of the free, indeed

[akb]

Why is a government official stumping for the interests of a single company? ... It used to be that the U.S. was known for promoting freedom, in the guise of democracy and free markets, to other countries.

When was this? Maybe before the US backed execution of Allende in Argentina to the great benefit of ITT but after installing a friendly dictator for United Fruit (Chiquita) in Guatemala?

Those are the examples that come to mind that combine both the stumping for single companies and the deaths of thousands of people instead of promoting freedom, the world is littered with more.

A recent gem in the stumping for individual companies department that comes to mind is the Bush administration putting pressure on India for an Enron power plant.

I think you need to read some more history.

I call him Bill Gates...

[Inexile2002]

Maybe it's a nuance of translation from Spanish to English, but Mr. Villaneuva constantly refering to Bill Gates as "the Bill" was confusing. And I disagree with many of the things Villaneuva had to say about him.

"The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever", "The Bill protects equality under the law", "The Bill makes it compulsory for all public bodies to use only free software" - As far as I know, Mr. Gates doesn't do any of these things, strange that the Peruvian government thinks so.

Re:Microsoft is more than just Microsoft

[1010011010]

The world's leading computer manufacturers (Dell, HP, Compaq, etc.) ship Microsoft-based systems.

They still can, and will, if Peru adopts an open-source mandate.

If you cut out Microsoft from *consideration*, you cut out huge areas of the US service industry.

Why should Peru make that a primary consideration? Or any consideration at all?

Let free trade and market forces determine which technology to choose, not some ideology.

As was pointed out in the article, Microsoft doesn't respect free trade or market forces.

Are their Linux IT companies to help the Peruvian government manage their systems? Yes. Are they chances good they'll be around in six months?

Yep. "IBM"

Re:Stock market

[1010011010]

protecting existing companies and ensuring that they don't falter like WorldCom and Enron is essential

This is wrong on several levels. Companies like Worldcom and Enron should falter, and the government should do nothing to help them. Soviet-style economies are known for propping up decreipt corporations rather than letting them fail -- it's letting them fail that helps ensure competition and free markets. Propping up an otherwise doomed company may make things better for some people in the short term, but it's disasterous long-term.

Re:Microsoft is more than just Microsoft

[Flamerule]

If you cut out Microsoft from *consideration*, you cut out huge areas of the US service industry.

No one is cutting Microsoft out of consideration. No one was speaking, specifically, of Microsoft. Microsoft got into this when their regional president sent that letter to Congressman Villanueva. The bill encourages the use of Free software in the government to achieve:

• Free access to public information by the citizen.
• Permanence of public data.
• Security of the State and citizens.

i.e., the bill says "we think this kind of software best suits our needs at this time". Microsoft isn't being cut from consideration more than any other company is; Microsoft just doesn't choose to produce the kind of software the Péruvian government is interested in.

Think about exactly how much of our technological economy is based on Microsoft. The world's leading computer manufacturers (Dell, HP, Compaq, etc.) ship Microsoft-based systems. They provide support (which means jobs) for those systems.

Many of those companies (plus IBM) ship free software-based systems as well. The more people that adopt Linux, the more money there is to be earned in the support industry.

Are their Linux IT companies to help the Peruvian government manage their systems? Yes. Are they chances good they'll be around in six months? It's iffy, given the poor track record of open-source company management and the relative unprofessionalism that the industry (perceptionally) seems mired in.

So the Péruvian government shouldn't use Free software because their vendor would collapse in six months? That's extreme. Is IBM going to collapse in six months?

A summary of your post: the U.S. economy relies on Microsoft (paragraph 2); Linux companies are all going to be bankrupt in half a year (paragraph 3); let different products compete for the business (paragraph 4). I don't see how [2] and [3] are true, first of all, and as for [4], Congressman Villanueva has let free software and Microsoft products compete: he compared them, and chose what looked like the best choice to be the government standard in his bill. Microsoft argued with his conclusions in the aforementioned letter, and Congressman Villaneuva promptly annihilated those arguments in his response.

Please explain to me..

[Kwil]

..how having a requirement that you will only use open source programs is shutting out Microsoft any more than a requirement that the software have some feature X (say the ability to properly handle right-to-left writing) is shutting out Microsoft?

The legislation leaves the door entirely open for Microsoft to develop open source applications and sell it to the Peruvian government. Should Microsoft choose not to bid in that field, is that the Peruvian government's fault? In fact, they are letting market forces decide and it is the American Ambassador who is getting in the way of that.

In fact, if anything, this is the embodiment of the capitalist mentality. Entity A desires a product with various features. If entity B does not or can not supply those features, they do not get the business, and some entity that can does, and more power to that other entity.

Part of the Peruvian government's desired feature list (if the legislation goes through)is a product that they can inspect, modify, and alter themselves. The Ambassador is saying "Please change your requirements so we can compete" without giving any reason to do so other than without the change, they won't (not can't)compete.