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.
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.
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
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.
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