Slashdot Mirror
Gates tried to Blackmail Danish Government
mocm writes "The Inquirer has a story about how Bill Gates tried to pressure the Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen into accepting the European Union's proposed directive on software patents by threating to terminate the 800 jobs at Navision, which had been acquired by Microsoft." Update: 02/16 00:41 GMT by T : cfelde points out a CNET story which says that "The European vice president of Microsoft Business Solutions, Klaus Holse Andersen, denied on Tuesday that the jobs at Navision were ever at risk." Believe who you'd like.
We are going to get ruled more and more by corporations, rather than governments. Since Microsoft is making more than most American states, they also wield quite a bit of power. And since politicians can always be blackmailed with the prospect of lost jobs (Siemens did that in Germany, and lots of other comapnies too), I wonder how long until our right to vote is transferred to our employers ...
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
These threats are common. However, is there really any relevant connection between where R&D/software development takes place and where one can apply for patents? Of course not. Nothing is preventing Microsoft from applying for US patents for the things they "invent" in Denmark. The question of where they can get a patent is not intrinsically linked to where they do their development.
IAAAL - I am actually a lawyer
What's next, Mafia-style "hits" on politicians who don't do what Microsoft wants?
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Whatever it is, it's ludicrously transparent. According to the FFII's translation of the original Danish story, included in their statement on this, Bill said:
"If I'm to keep my development center in Denmark, then it's a
requirement that the question of rights becomes resolved. Otherwise, I
will move it to the USA where I can protect my rights"
In fact, the location that development takes place has nothing to do with patent validity. Software developed in Denmark can be patented in the USA regardless of Danish or EU laws. Software developed in the USA cannot be patented in countries that don't recognise software patents, ragardless of US laws.
There's no way that Billis misinformed enough to think otherwise. If he showed occasional signs of honesty or integrity then he might get more respect.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
I've heard this kind of logic from the patent lobby numerous times:
"If we don't get software patents in Europe, we can't develop stuff there. We have to develop in in the US where we have software patents available."
This is pure FUD and BS. Why can't we develop stuff in Europe and apply for patents in the US? Most of the technology in patent applications in Europe was developed in foreign countries.
The smart thing to do is to develop tech where you have smart people. And apply for software patents in the US and have a free market without software monopolies in Europe. If you develop a product that happen to infringe on a forest of software patents, you can only market it profitably in Europe. Too bad for the US.
I hope politicians learn to call this kind of extortionist bluff soon.
)9TSS
Converting all Danish government IT away from MS towards OSS will surely bring far more than 800 jobs and KEEP those in the country.
Go read some Gibson "Cyberpunk" books to see what you get if you let corporations run the world.
Just my 5€Cents.
Surely they purchased the company for a reason. The staff would have been part fo that reasons.
Laying off that many staff in a fit of pique would create a perfect opportunity for a competitor to set up a company that does pretty much the same thing with the same employees.
Confusing governments over that is a major part of the pro strong patent and copyright crowds argument. Without it the whole "without the aptent laws people ahve no incentive" argument falls apart.
please wake up. it's "we, the corporations of the USA"
Privacy is terrorism.
They have a rough translation from a Danish speaker so they should be pretty accurate. That's one of the things I really like about Groklaw, they *always* cite where translations have come from, and because of their global network of volunteers eventually get a proper translation from a native speaker. Their handling this kind of language translation issue is something that Groklaw excels at, and I wish more news sources would do the same.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
How mafioso
Software patents are largely bullshit, however there is nothing nefarious about a business negotiating with government for an optimal business environment. If Bill Gates really thinks that software patents are necessary for a business unit to be viable in a political region, then he has every legitimate right to express that. The government has the right to tell him to go screw himself, and if he really thinks it's do or die then he can pull out.
This sort of tactic is absolutely classic in many other business areas. Automakers these days only build plants where the government will concede to their demands, as well as often offering up hundreds of millions in incentives.
If at least you would have read the article, you would have seen that Microsoft is not the only one company in the entire universe to do this. So no, is does not show how low Microsoft can go, it just shows how low any company can go.
Stop putting all evil on Bill's shoulders.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
The only way this could be construed as immoral or objectionable activity is if you accept the premiss that Microsoft's monopoly dominance is absolute and that there are no acceptable alternatives
Actually, this has nothing to do with monopolies. It's immoral because Gates is threatening to lay people off. 800 people out of work is not something a politician wants, nor does it help an economy. What Gates was doing was using the 800 employees welfare as leverage which is immoral.
Jason Lotito
The only way this could be construed as immoral or objectionable activity...
Rubbish. I'll decide what I do and don't find objectionable, thank you. I find threatening people's livelihoods in order to bully their governments into enacting the legislation you want to be very highly objectionable.
Describing natural consequences of legislation is acceptable. That isn't what they are doing here. The place in which software is developed has no impact on whether it is patentable in any given market. This is a threat, pure and simple, it's a threat against innocent employees as a way of pressuring others, and it should be resisted.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
Generally, something "arm twisting" like this is commonly considered "racketeering", meaning "if you don't do what we/I want, 'something bad' is going to happen".
stuff |
Change the players to something more politically correct, like a Hybrid Car factory, and watch exactly the same thing play out. Big companies always look to put their people, their money, and their wake-generating activity in a place (or tax framework) that best suits their bottom line. Why do you suppose that Japanese car manufacturers have partnership plants in Kentucky? Because Michigan was out of room? No, because they dangled issues like jobs in front of political decision makers, and the best deal won. Did the editors of this posting just fall off a turnip truck or something? That headline is gratuitous. Come on, now.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So you are saying that since some other companies may do this, too, that it's not low of Microsoft to do so? No matter how many companies may or may not do this, doesn't make it right and Microsoft should be slammed for attempting it (along with any other company). Since Bill Gates calls himself the Chief Architect at Microsoft, then any wrong-doings, evil or not, most definately are on his shoulders.
Why should we not hold microsoft accounable for doing something 'evil' like this? I'd like to hold every company that does this accountable, but most of the time we don't actually hear about it.
Your logic is astounding --- I guess we have no grounds to ojbect or complain about anything unless it violates a natural human right. Now genius, why not define natural human right for us.
Here is one for you. The corporation doesn't have a natural right to make a profit, nor use the roads that taxpayers pay for, nor the airwaves for communications that are owned by the people, etc. etc. etc. You corporate apologists make me want to puke.
They aren't the same, obviously. But it's a matter of degree and custom, not that they're totally different. Coercion is coercion is coercion.
Unfortunately, multi-national corporations have a great deal to gain with such practices, and their expected value is actually fairly high, even taking into account the legal fees, fines and embarrassment of getting caught now and again.
Unfortunately, the public, as compared to the vested business interests, is generally apathetic, since they have less to lose individually, than the corporations. This means that the corporations will merely continue their efforts until the public loses interest and they succeed in converting their selfish desires into government policy. This may take years, but they have the focus to see it through to the end.
In the particular case, software patents, there has been public outcry in Europe against them and the politicians have generally listened. Each time we think the issue is close some massive business entity resurrects the discussion, in spite of the public opinion. Obviously this hasn't yet met with success and now Microsoft is attempting some innovative (sic) and repulsive tactics.
What should we as individuals do?
- Spread the word and name names. Tell your friends,
your co-workers, you boss, or even better, your
neighbor the elected official, that Microsoft has
attempted to co-opt the democratic process in
Denmark.
- Wite letters to newspapers, journals, and elected
officials explaining why software patents are a
bad idea in Europe.
- Vote with your feet. Stop buying/using products
from companies that engage in unfair
business and political practices.
- Donate to the EFT, Groklaw and other similar
institutions.
- Remain vigilant.
If you dont know much about the arguments surrounding software patents, have a look at: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.comNote: I'm not against big business, provided they play fair. Unfortunately, my experience has been that large corporations tend to use their size advantages in ways that make it difficult for smaller (and in many cases more innovative) business to compete. It's up to the small guy to fight back (in a fair way :).
---- It won't be as bad as you fear or as good as you hope, but it will take twice as long as you plan.
What you said is fine, but to be blunt excusing behaviour because others do it when it isn't right isn't right in the first place.
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
Al Capone was not the "only one person in the entire universe" to do criminal stuff. Actually in his days a *LOT* of people did it. This doesn't make it right and whoever pulls stuff like that deserves to be punished.
... ?!?!?
>Stop putting all evil on Bill's shoulders.
Oh, come on, he personally travels around, threatening people, and this should not be on his shoulders, because
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
You see, sw patents are only a problem when you are starting up new business - if you are IBM (or Microsoft to some extent) already, then they are useful.
My point here being, that software patents are only 'stifling' if you intend to start up new business.
And you are only likely to realize this, if you realize that starting up new businesses is important for an economy to grow.
Back in the late '90s our government found out that Denmark should be a country of innovation, a high-tech economy so to speak - we cannot compete with china on industrial production costs anyway. So, in order to "boost" research they shut down the only government super computing center we had, sending researchers elsewhere to go beg for computing power.
To further strenghten our position as a nation of researchers and scientists, we have one of the most expensive but crappiest primary school systems in the western world - which is one thing, but the fact that anyone refuses to do anything about it underlines how important it is to the government to really position our country with a high-tech economy. Or not...
Copyright law was changed last year, to make it illegal to use or develop debuggers and disassemblers. I wrote to the minister in change of that decision letting him know that I and anyone else developing software would be breaking that law. Got some bullshit answer back which didn't address the problem, so now I'm practicing my right to "civil disobedience" every day on the job, along with everyone else in the software business in this country...
800 jobs is money right here right now. "Stifling" is in the eye of the beholder. For a government which is determined to break any initiative or start-up business, either indirectly thru neglect or directly thru law, it seems like it is not such a tough decision to make.
Oh, and add a photo opportunity with Bill and it's a done deal.
Navision was a successful company bought by Microsoft (last year if my memory serves me right, but could be wrong about that). Gates (and Microsoft) hasn't created it and even less sustained it. Their own work did that.
You mean the ones Gates himself employs?
Yes. As so many have already explained, this is a disgusting threat because where software is produced doesn't have any correlation to legal protection it has in market in which it sells.
Just make sure that public understands that the choice to lose those jobs is done by Microsoft. I assume that the company was doing pretty fine until Microsoft bought it and if Microsoft is now threatening to fire those people, it's their choice.
We have had a couple of similar situations in Finland where large companies asked for lower taxes or "they would be forced to fire people". Okay, they got the lower taxes and now they are firing people to increase profits. As a result, I don't trust local for-profit entities a little bit.
_________________________
Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
Your Honor, my client stands accused of cutting deals to harm his neighbor, bribing the investigating officer, strong-arming witnesses, and launching "initiatives" in which he vows to indulge in more of the same.
Far from reflecting personally upon my client, these charges merely show how low any human being can go!
Stop putting all evil on Bill's shoulders.
Furthermore, my client is tired of these accusations, which have been repeated on a regular basis for over a decade. Hasn't my client suffered enough?
Navision historically has sold its wares in europe. So patent/copyright laws in europe are very much relevant in europe.
Also, the denmark office was an aquisition which afaik is a separate company, Microsoft Business Solutions, that may be incorporated separately in Denmark for historical reasons.
let's be clear - I definitely think gates is saying something along the lines of "if you're not going to make an effort to protect software, i wont make an effort to continue investing in your economy". That seems like a reasonable thing to say, doesn't it ?
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
How can we repay the Polish and Danish governments - in _real_ terms - involving patent-free software?
ideas, anyone?
In response to the "so what?" posts, let's play a game:
Suppose I, catbeller, in my civilian life, told a representative of Microsoft that I would personally unemploy, say, his family members by making a couple of phone calls, barring his cooperation in paying me a few million dollars, and signing a few contracts granting me much power.
How long until the armored black farmboys smash my door down with a ram? How long would I be in FMITA prison?
But Microsoft can do it. And no one is responsible. The corporation has civil rights as an individual, but has no civil obligations. Even if a crime is somehow proven, no one goes to jail, not for theft of billions, Enron style, or death of thousands, Dupont/Bhopal style.
All power and priviledge, no responsibilty for its own actions. The very thing that makes conservatives quiver: no consequences for individuals for their own actions. Fake corporate "persons" front for real people committing real crimes. The current setup is organized crime.
I've come to the conclusion that corporate personhood is a concept that has to be eliminated. People should answer for their crimes. If Bill made the decision to extort the Danes, then he should have to answer for it at a trial after extradition from the U.S. But in the real world...
All right, this is where I step in...
Just to get the preliminaries out of the way: I am a Dane and an historian. That means that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, you should assume that I know what I'm talking about here.
Now, the parent of this thread presents several hypothetical ideas regarding this (although they look more like assertions, given the tone of the post):
1) One would expect Microsoft's ploy to "blow up in their faces".
2) The Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen could respond by adopting non-MS software in government departments, as a retaliatory measure.
3) Anders Fogh Rasmussen might conceivably do so.
4) "Danes are not noted for caving in to agressive ultimatums".
Those are the points I'm going to address.
Short version:
No. Never in a million years. Forget it. End of story.
Long version:
The flights of fancy presented above represent a glorious mix of misinformed wishful thinking. While I suppose I ought to be quite flattered by the picture they paint of Danes, the fact is that they are, historically and contemporarily/politically, simply untrue.
Let me respond to each of these points individually:
1) One would expect Microsoft's ploy to "blow up in their faces".
Why? When has Microsoft (or any other major corporation) ever suffered a serious and permanent backlash from using strong-arm tactics? Small setbacks, yes - but what reason would Bill Gates have for believing that such an outcome is in any way likely?
2) The Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen could respond by adopting non-MS software in government departments, as a retaliatory measure.
No. The Danish PM doesn't have that sort of comprehensive influence over government purchasing policies. Certainly, he could push for legislation in such matters, and instruct his cabinet to push for adoption of non-MS solutions within their ministries, but even if he were likely to do so (which he isn't, see point 3) the time frame for a switch-over would be long. The wheels of bureaucracy grind slowly.
3) Anders Fogh Rasmussen might conceivably do so.
No, he wouldn't. In fact, I don't hesitate to use the word "inconceivable" in that context. Rasmussen is a liberal-right ("liberal" in the Danish context meaning "laissez-faire capitalist") politician, and his entire political career is built on the conviction that free market forces and less government are the panaceas whereby all economic and social evils will be eradicated. In fact, I think he actually believes that. For ideological reasons alone, it is highly improbable that he would do so.
Leaving aside the ideology, Fogh Rasmussen would be a pretty irresponsible public official if he chose the path of outright confrontation. Such a move could (and would) be interpreted by the U.S. as a form of protectionism, and become the opening move in a trade war. No responsible PM would involve his country in such a situation. He'd be more likely to knuckle under.
4) "Danes are not noted for caving in to agressive ultimatums".
It pains me to say this, but this is relatively untrue. Although Denmark has sometimes resisted ultimatums (such as the British demand that Denmark surrender her navy in 1801), the fact is that any confrontation has eventually led to the Danes capitulating and giving the foe what he wanted. We didn't invent the term "appeasement", but by damn, we live it.
The parent post cites the Danish evacuation of the Jews in 1943 as an example of Danish refusal to cave in - but the evacuation was largely carried out by private individuals. The government was not involved in any significant degree. In fact, when Denmark was invaded in 1940, the government rapidly chose to capitulate and enter into a policy of cooperation with the Nazis. Honestly, the only reason Denmark was not treated as a collaborator nation after t
- Peter Ravn Rasmussen