Microsoft Subpoenas Thrown out of Court

liliafan writes "Following Microsoft's attempt to subpoena documents through US courts, relating to their ongoing anti-trust case in the UK, the judge in California has thrown the case out of court citing: 'As a matter of comity, this court is unwilling to order discovery when doing so will interfere with the European Commission's orderly handling of its own enforcement proceedings.' as his reasoning."

Comments

Ah, the backdoor approach.

[rob_squared]

I'm glad that the judge was paying attention. On average I have more respect for judges than elected officials (mind you, not 100% of the time).

And I learned a new word, comity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comity

Comity is a term used in international law (and in the law governing relations between U.S. states) to describe an informal principle that nations will extend certain courtesies to other nations, particularly by recognizing the validity and effect of their executive, legislative, and judicial acts. This principle is most frequently invoked by courts, which will not act in a way that demeans the jurisdiction, laws or judicial decisions of another country.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[ssimontis]

Why should judges consider other countries' laws when deciding the laws of this country. Should we consider China's opinion on free speech, or Iran's position on freedom of religion while we're at it? The only difference between international law and Santa Claus is that rational adults believe in international law.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should judges consider other countries' laws when deciding the laws of this country. Should we consider China's opinion on free speech, or Iran's position on freedom of religion while we're at it?

That's a straw man approach if I ever saw it.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[eric76]

I figured they were talking about one country recognizing marriages from other countries as being valid.

It would be pretty bad if countries would not recognize marriages as valid if they were performed in other countries. If that was the case and you and your wife wanted to go abroad, you would have to be remarried in every country you entered.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[TommyBlack]

Why should judges consider other countries' laws when deciding the laws of this country

Because that leads the other country to consider our laws.

It works, empirically speaking. That's why we keep doing it.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[Ivan Pistoff]

FYI - Judges are elected.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[TommyBlack]

I really don't understand what was good about this judge's ruling. By the wording of the ruling, I'd think this sounds like stupid social posturing, and whatever way Microsoft tried to "cast" anyone should not interfere with what information they should have access to for a legal proceeding.

It seems like if they're looking for information relevant to their case, they should not be stopped from getting it by they way they characterized their opponent.

Maybe I've just been listening to the "information wants to be free" crowd too much

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[iminplaya]

It seems like if they're looking for information relevant to their case...

Or they could be just trying to delay...such is their nature. Kinda like pulling a SCO.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[utlemming]

The answer is quite simple: in this case it is a civil matter in which the United States does not have an interest or juristiction. Microsoft was attempting to use US Courts to get what they couldn't get in European Courts. The best analogy would be having your Mom tell you can't get into the cookie jar so you turn around and ask Dad (at least in my house, we learned that you don't do that because bad things happen) Also, the matter is in European Courts. If Microsoft was attempting to compel an order from a European Court it would be a whole different matter. But Microsoft wants to get into the cookie jar, and so it is asking a US Court to help when European Courts won't allow it. Frankly, I would love to see the European Commision have a hayday with it. While the Commision may not be able to do anything since the attempt happened on US soil and hence the Commision does not have jurisition, it goes to speak rather strongly about Microsofts attitudes and behaviors.

But as another poster said, your orginional post is a straw-man argument. This is a civil matter that deals with the business laws internationally. It has NOTHING to do with human rights, which by the way are protected by international law. As the world becomes more intermestic (the idea that domestic or international issues have internation or domestic implications, consquences and effects), nations respecting other nation's laws will become more and more important.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[XMilkProject]

There was no comity when Google obeyed China's laws.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[gray code]

that varies by state, in some places judges are appointed by the Governor.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[Kadin2048]

It's not about recognizing any other country's laws as being valid here, which would of course be rather ridiculous (despite this we do it quite often through international treaties, and I stand behind my judgement), but not attempting to extend U.S. law onto another nation in a way that would diminish their sovereignty. This is the international case, but it works between U.S. States as well. It's basically one court's way of respecting another jurisdiction's right to make their own laws, which apply to themselves.

Now, where your question really gets interesting is if the 'other jurisdiction' is obviously undemocratic and unjust. IMO, the notion of "comity" is based on an essential respect for the right to self-determination of others; when the laws in the other jurisdiction are obviously borne not out of self-determination but out of tyranny and oppression, it raises a valid question as to whether such courtesy and respect should be given. My feeling is that no, it should not; but this is a bit of a moot point when you're talking about relations between the U.S. and U.K. legal systems, which typically do not characterize each other as tyrannical. In fact it is possible, although not typically seen anymore, to use very old English rulings as precedent in U.S. courts. (You see this sometimes if you read old USSC or appellate court cases on particularly fundamental issues; somebody will have dragged out their Blackstone's Commentaries and found some particularly interesting Common Law case to mention.)

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[Kadin2048]

Basically what the judge said, was that Microsoft couldn't ask for the right of discovery in a U.S. court and subpoena other people/corporations for information, all because they were involved in a dispute in a U.K. court. Basically, he said "we're not going to get involved."

I think the flip side of his use of 'comity,' though, is that if Microsoft went to court in the U.K., and got whatever their equivalent of discovery powers are (power to have subpoenas issued), then the U.S. courts would honor them and might allow Microsoft to use them to get subpoenas valid in the U.S. (maybe). At least that would be my take on what would be fair, once you start saying that you're going to respect the judgment of the other jurisdiction's courts.

I don't know this, but I suspect that Microsoft may have already attempted to get discovery/subpoenas in the U.K. already and failed (which would make sense, since logically you'd try there first), and the judge is also telling Microsoft that he's not going to contradict a U.K. court's ruling on something that's going on in their jurisdiction. If this is the case, it's as if a child asked their mother for something, got told no, and then went to their father and asked the same question, hoping for a different answer. The father, not wanting to really piss off his wife, tells his kid that he already got his answer.

So depending on the situation, the ruling could be a bit of a slapdown (the latter case, where MS has already tried in the U.K.), or it could just be telling them to go ask permission first (the former, second paragraph) and then they might have a chance.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[colinrichardday]

Some state judges, yes. Federal judges (in the US) are appointed for life, and can only be removed by impeachment.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[blueflash2o]

federal judges are apointed by the prez.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[LordOfTheNoobs]

Santa? :'|

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[Gentlewhisper]

There was no comity when Google obeyed China's laws.

You got that wrong, there is no comity when US wrote its laws. If anything no other country in the world has more right to establish the global law, by mere majority alone.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[tob]

But this happens, a lot. Some countries have gay marriage. Other more backward countries do not recognize these marriages. And in these cases the people involved can't even remarry in those countries.

Tob

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[dryeo]

That would be crazy. You would get judges making decisions based on having to find a scapegoat so they can get reelected instead of decisions based on nothing more then the facts.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[Anonymous Coward]

Majority of what?

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[mpe]

Microsoft was attempting to use US Courts to get what they couldn't get in European Courts. The best analogy would be having your Mom tell you can't get into the cookie jar so you turn around and ask Dad

More like Mom's third cousin than Dad in this case :)

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[slavemowgli]

The best analogy would be having your Mom tell you can't get into the cookie jar so you turn around and ask Dad (at least in my house, we learned that you don't do that because bad things happen)

An even better analogy would be this: you're at your neighbour's house (maybe playing with their kids), and the neighbour tells you you can't raid their cookie jar, so you go to your own Mom and Dad to ask *them* for permission - and of course, they tell you they won't interfere with your neighbours' right to take care of their own affairs and manage their own cookies.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[vague disclaimer]

I suspect that Microsoft may have already attempted to get discovery/subpoenas in the U.K.

It is not a UK case, it is an EU case.

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[zsau]

It has NOTHING to do with human rights, which by the way are protected by international law.

Not in any way that counts. It still comes down to an issue of national laws, and if like me you happen to live in the only Western country without protection of human rights, well, fat lot of good the UN's going to do you.

(I know a lot of Americans reckon that their President and Congress are basically ignoring their Bill of Rights, but at least you've got one. Our present federal Government in Australia is against the idea of even bringing one in--apparently their word that they won't abuse us is good enough.)

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[Kadin2048]

You're right, but blame the article submitter:

Following Microsoft's attempt to subpoena documents through US courts, relating to their ongoing anti-trust case in the UK... (emphasis mine)

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.

[jedidiah]

What's good about this ruling is that some other corporation shouldn't have the go fishing in your private confidential documents. Microsoft is essentially trying to go on a fishing expedition into their competitors data. Of course a US court should not go along with such shenanigans.

If MS wants information then it can ask through the relevant channels.

well

[mlehman]

that judge is the man.

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

But this judge is not merely a man, she is a female man ... a wo-man.

Re:well

[sremick]

I know it sounds sexist, but that might be part of it. I honestly think this country would be a better place if there were more women in positions of power. They have a track record of being less-susceptible to corruption and more prone to sensible thinking.

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

And suddenly you have explained why there are far less women on positions of power than men.

Re:well

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

know it sounds sexist... They have a track record of being less-susceptible to corruption and more prone to sensible thinking.

You're right, that does sound sexist. How do you statistically measure that women are more prone to "sensible thinking" ...or is this just your personal, anecdotal opinion? What evidence do you have to support your belief?

Re:well

[sremick]

It is my anecdotal opinion. I should have clarified.

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds stupid and sexist because it is.

Let's review the powerful women in America. Condi Rice, power-mad jackass bent on showing the world what Condi can do. Hillary Clinton, asshole who made a lot of noise about Hot Coffee, eventually requesting that the CDC investigate computer games. Let's see... what other prominent women do we have...

Oh yeah, then there's the lady who spearheaded the anti-war movement, and Rosa Parks. Good people.

This is just to say, being a woman is not sufficient in order to be a good person. A woman must first be a good person in order to be a good person.

Now: Why are most of our modern villains and heroes men? Probably because there are more prominent men than prominent women?

What documents?

[E IS mC(Square)]

From TFA:"A Californian judge has thrown out Microsoft subpoenas asking that Oracle and Sun Microsystems hand over documents to support its case against the European Commission."

What documents are we talking about?

Re:What documents?

[Keeper]

Communication between Oracle and Sun and the EU commission.

Re:What documents?

[aralin]

That is exactly what Microsoft would like to know.

Re:What documents?

[gstoddart]

What documents are we talking about?

Stuff they've already been told by a judge in Europe they're not allowed to have because it's been deemed irrelevant. Also from TFA ...

She described Microsoft's subpoenas as constituting "an attempt to circumvent specific restrictions the European Commission has placed on Microsoft's right to obtain certain kinds of information."

Without knowing the specific information, I suspect they got shut down in the EU, decided to try and do a little fishing in the US, and got smacked down for having tried to bypass another court's ruling. Kinda like asking your other parent if you can stay out late after the first one says no.

Some evidence was declared inadmissable and not something they were entitled to. They tried to get it anyway. In a stroke of good jurisprudence, the US judge told them to get stuffed.

Re:What documents?

[stubear]

The judge didn't say they were irrelevant, she said they were confidential and the U.S. legal system was not going to be used as an end-run around the E.U. legal system. I find if frightenign that everyoen is willing to turn a blind eye to the E.U.'s corrupt legal system simpyl because it's Microsoft at the receiving end of the raw deal here. Would people be as casual if this were Apple?

Re:What documents?

[MotorMachineMercenar]

Gotta love the irony of an USian calling another country's legal system corrupt.

Re:What documents?

[gstoddart]

The judge didn't say they were irrelevant, she said they were confidential and the U.S. legal system was not going to be used as an end-run around the E.U. legal system.

Re-read my post and TFA. A European judge placed restrictions on the kinds of information that Microsoft was allowed to obtain. A US judge said they couldn't bypass that ruling in a US court.

I find if frightenign that everyoen is willing to turn a blind eye to the E.U.'s corrupt legal system simpyl because it's Microsoft at the receiving end of the raw deal here.

Well, other than you saying the EUs legal system is corrupt, and Microsoft claiming it to be an "inquisitional" system, I'm not aware of any evidence to support that claim, so it's specious at best to say so. I would certainly disagree with the characterization that Microsoft is receiving a 'raw deal'.

Would people be as casual if this were Apple?

If Apple held a near monopoly over the computing industry, and used their position to prevent others from competing with them, absolutely. But Apple doesn't hold that kind of position.

This isn't a blind "Apple Good, Microsoft Bad" scenario -- Microsoft was accused of abusing a monopoly, and competing unfairly -- the same things they were accused of in the US before the DOJ lost their balls and stopped pursuing their own case. In fact, I believe Microsoft had already lost that case in the US, but they just never enforced it.

For the same reasons I agree that the Koreans should be able to impose restrictions on the way Microsoft does business there, I agree the Europeans have the same right. Their country, their trade laws. Microsoft doesn't get a free pass because they're a Big American Company.

Microsoft acts in a way as to impede or damage the software industries in other countries. Microsoft uses their position to make sure their products have primacy, and their competitors do not have access to that kind of influence or distribution channels -- they don't have a near monopoly. Like it or not, under the European system, Microsoft has been found in violation of antitrust laws.

Microsoft is still trying to fight those rulings, and was trying to get information they've been explicitly told by a European court they are not allowed to have. A US court agreed. In fact, that same US judge referred to the proceedings as the "orderly handling of its own enforcement proceedings".

You may be of the opinion that Microsoft does nothing but good, and should be allowed to do whatever they want without restrictions. Not everyone agrees with you.

Re:What documents?

[Achromatic1978]

How cool! You called the European legal system corrupt! And you offered all manner of evidence showing your point of view!

Except... wait... you didn't. Not one. You just called it a name and decided you were right.

Re:What documents?

[drsmithy]

If Apple held a near monopoly over the computing industry, and used their position to prevent others from competing with them, absolutely. But Apple doesn't hold that kind of position.

There are two things that need to be kept in mind when making this sort of comparison:

1. Microsoft were not found to be a monopoly of "the computing industry". They were found to be a monopoly of a very specific part of it - consumer OSes for x86 platforms (so, according to the antitrust trial, Microsoft and Apple aren't even competitors).

2. If you apply the same market definition to Apple at the time - consumer OSes for PPC platforms - it would be difficult to see how they were not a monopoly along the same lines.

Re:What documents?

[mycall]

Guess Microsoft should have asked for the documents from the US judge before the UK ruled on it as being irrelevant.

Re:What documents?

[stubear]

I never said Apple was a monopoly, I just suggested that perhaps if this situation were to befall Apple, or Google to use another example, then people's opinion of the proceedings would be the exact opposite.

I'd also like to point out that not everyone agrees with the court decisions which determined Microsoft was a monopoly. The subsequent decisions by foreigh courts have yielded little action to curb Microsoft's behaviours, netting milliosn in fines instead, which leads me to believe they see a cash cow and an easy target to boot.

Re:What documents?

[Achromatic1978]

You people being who? Me? I'm not an American, or a European for that matter.

Microsoft subpoenaed the documents. Competitors said they were irrelevant. The determining justice reviewed those documents, and agreed. Microsoft tried to find out what they were anyway - why on earth should they be able to hunt through confidential documents of a competitor that have been ruled to be irrelevant, just because they're involved in legal action? Discovery is a regulated process, not one of "All your document are belong to us."

Re:What documents?

[CrankyOldBastard]

I find if frightenign that everyoen is willing to turn a blind eye to the E.U.'s corrupt legal system simpyl because it's Microsoft at the receiving end of the raw deal here.

Is this anymore frightening than turning a blind eye to a corrupt legal system that allows people to buy what is arguably the most powerful political position in the world?

Or do you subscribe to the model seen so many times by 'The Rest Of The World (TM)', the American "Do As I Say, Don't Do As I Do" system? The same legal system that holds people in gaol for 4 years without trial, by holding them in a prison outside of the mainland USA.

Remove the log from your own eye before you complain about the splinter in someone else's.

Re:What documents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, it's a lot easier to abuse your power if you have a monopoly on cars and your only real competitor has a monopoly on unicycles.

Re:What documents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, Apple is now officially a x86 platform. It runs any x86 OS without restrictions... Even at that time, Apple was selling a whole solution (Hardware and software), whereas microsoft was selling an OS on "generic x86 hardware". Even if Apple could be ruled as a monopoly, it wasn't abusing its power, or at least there were not complaints to back such a position.

Also, to clear it up more:

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs MICROSOFT CORPORATION complaint

Some interesting points:

35. Microsoft's exclusionary contracting practices have had the effect of excluding competitors on a basis other than competition on the merits and have thereby allowed Microsoft illegally to perpetuate its monopoly in the PC operating system market. 36. Through the unlawful acts and practices described above Microsoft has harmed competition, consumers and innovation: a. Microsoft has unlawfully maintained a monopoly in the PC operating system market. b. Microsoft's exclusionary conduct has significantly impeded the ability of rival operating systems to compete in the PC operating system market. Competitors find it more difficult to convince OEMs to offer and/or promote their product and must incur greater marketing expenses to penetrate the market. Microsoft raised hurdles to fair competition even higher through unreasonably restrictive non-disclosure agreements. c. Microsoft's exclusionary licenses deprive rival PC operating systems of a significant number of sales that they might otherwise secure. These lost sales impede the ability of PC operating systems to develop an installed base sufficient to convince OEMs to bundle the new system with their hardware, to convince ISVs to write applications that run on the new system, and to convince users that the system is, and will remain, a viable alternative to the existing MS-DOS and Windows standard. d. Microsoft's conduct also substantially lengthens the period of time required for competitors to recover their development costs and earn a profit, and increases the risk that an entry attempt will fail. In combination, all of these factors deter entry by competitors and thus harm competition. 37. The harm to competition caused by Microsoft's unlawful conduct harms consumers. OEMs that do offer customers a choice of operating systems may charge customers a higher price for PCs with non-Microsoft operating systems in order to be able to pay the double royalty necessitated by the Microsoft per processor agreements. Thus, users who do not receive a Microsoft operating system are still, indirectly, paying Microsoft. 38. In addition, Microsoft's unlawful conduct has deterred the development of competing operating systems, depriving consumers of a choice of systems with possibly superior features. Similarly, the slower growth of competing operating systems has slowed the development and diffusion of applications designed to work on non-Microsoft operating systems and has limited choices of consumers and users of PCs.

And:

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs MICROSOFT CORPORATION ruling

Some interesting points:

b. Disclosure of APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical Information. Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces that Microsoft employs to enable - i. Microsoft applications to interoperate with Microsoft Platform Software installed on the same Personal Computer, or ii. a Microsoft Middleware Product to interoperate with Windows Operating System software (or Middleware distributed with such Operating System) installed on the same Personal Computer, or iii. any Microsoft software installed on one computer (including but not limited to server Operating Systems and operating system

Re:What documents?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd also like to point out that not everyone agrees with the court decisions which determined Microsoft was a monopoly.

So? Law doesn't work on the basis of what each individual believes.

Re:What documents?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not the UK but the EU who made the ruling. The UK is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The EU is the UK, France, Germany, Italy, etc etc.

Get the idea?

Re:What documents?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just suggested that perhaps if this situation were to befall Apple, or Google to use another example, then people's opinion of the proceedings would be the exact opposite

Probably true. But can you blame them? It's bad enough to blacklist someone that has been found innocent of a crime in a court of law. But, whitelisting someone who has been found guilty in a court of law twice (once in the US, another one in the EU) is absurd. Believe it or not, a court of law is the one that decides if microsoft is breaking a law. It's the same system that keeps you out of jail if someone wrongfully accuses you of something. I think you need to look at the whole matter a bit closer. And remove your MS-Glasses this time around...

Re:What documents?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here ...

Re:What documents?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, I believe Microsoft had already lost that case in the US, but they just never enforced it.

In the interest of facts, Microsoft was tried, convicted, and ordered broken up into OS and applications divisions.

A few weeks later, the judge prejudiced himself in public and the breakup portion of the penalty was tossed. This was probably rigged, as the judge was extremely experienced and had to know what the consequences would be.

A new judge was placed in charge of the penalty, and the wrist slapping ensued. With a republican in the white house, this was pretty much expected.

It's nice to see an entity like the EU have the guts to enforce the US' own laws.

Re:What documents?

[walt-sjc]

not everyone agrees with the court decisions which determined Microsoft was a monopoly

Well, you have to qualify that. There are those who TRUELY believe that, and there are those that just SAY that they believe that, such as those that hold lots of Microsoft stock, work for microsoft, or have some other vested financial interest in microsoft's continued dominance.

they see a cash cow and an easy target

The EU really wants MS to open their protocols and file formats. MS has so far has not fully complied with that. Instead they have released poor incomplete incorrect documentation with a license that is so costly and restrictive that it will do NOTHING to restore competition. MS has been doing everything in their power to delay the day of reckoning. This is not about money. It is about Microsoft's behavior. But there is no convincing a microsoft apologist / fanboi.

Re:What documents?

[KarmaMB84]

The judge that tossed the verdict seemed to think the previous judge had been doing everything but frothing at the mouth and demanding to sacrifice MS on his bench DURING the trial.

Come again?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a matter of comity, this court is unwilling to order discovery when doing so will interfere with the European Commission's orderly handling of its own enforcement proceedings.

European Commission? "Orderly handling"?

Surely they meant to say "as a matter of comedy".

Re:Come again?

[barefootgenius]

The U.S. government,"nations will extend certain courtesies to other nations, particularly by recognizing the validity and effect of their executive, legislative, and judicial acts."?

(not meant as troll, just ironic)

Use FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

it's probably easier and cheaper, though it takes forever since government agencies just ignore it.

Red Hat Linux ( I forgot my password- damn firefox feature) Visit My Blog http://history-guy.blogspot.com/

Judge Dread

[Firewalker_Midnights]

Finally someone who was knowledgeable enough in these tech law proceedings, and has a stiff grasp of both local and international law issues stepped up to the plate and knocked a superfluous request out.

Now, if only we could have this guy ruling on patent cases, things might look a bit better...

Re:Judge Dread

[MyLongNickName]

Yup. A judge is right if he or she goes with the consensus opinion of Slashdot. If they disagree, they must be wrong.

In fact, I just had an idea. Why don't we do away with all elected and appointed officials. We can just run a poll for any new law that gets proposed. Majority rules. Slashdot has the most knowledgable people in practically every area known to man. Just ask anyone here. And when we have to discuss soap (lower case) and sex, we can always hire consultants.

Of course, this means CowboyNeal wins every vote, but that is the risk he takes by being an American.

Re:Judge Dread

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Apparently you would prefer that no one on Slashdot ever have an opinion about anything, ever, but simply leave it to our Wise And Good Leaders, Who Know What Is Best For All Of Us.

Feh.

Re:Judge Dread

[Rod Beauvex]

I agree. Seriously, if this many people have the same opinion, and even half of these are knowledgeable in the subject, than I'd it's safe to say that we're right in supporting the judges descision.

Re:Judge Dread

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a true lame fuck who has so pathetic of a life that he feels the need to PAY for this garbage.

That's my opinion, hope you enjoyed it turd.

Re:Judge Dread

[vwjeff]

I vote for Judge Fudge.

Re:Judge Dread

[leenks]

Since when has a Slashdot poster having an opinion mean that they are right? I think most believe they, and they alone, are right.

Anyway, I'm right because I think longer and more carefully than all of you. I am trained in logic and philosophy. I'm right because I got my opinion from the Slashdot, and now my opinion is that the Earth is flat. I am particularly good at building on false premises, and after further studying Slashdot I know everyone else is a moron. This means you wouldn't understand the way I feel even if we did a Vulcan mind meld, so I must be right.

Re:Judge Dread

[iminplaya]

And when we have to discuss soap (lower case) and sex, we can always hire consultants.

Paging Mr. Stallman...

Re:Judge Dread

[soluzar22]

Hehe. You just made a strawman out of his strawman. That was fun.

Re:Judge Dread

[MyLongNickName]

and now my opinion is that the Earth is flat.

Dammit. When I created this place, it wasn't flat. Who let the air out of it?

Re:Judge Dread

[jb.hl.com]

Look, leave The Judge alone. he's dead now. Isn't that good enough?

Re:Judge Dread

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot has the most knowledgable people in practically every area known to man.

I've been saying this for years!

Re:Judge Dread

[rohan972]

Yup. A judge is right if he or she goes with the consensus opinion of Slashdot. If they disagree, they must be wrong.

That's like saying to someone "You always think you're right", to which the logical reply is "Of course, if I didn't think I was right, I'd change my mind"

To have an opinion means that you think people who disagree with it are wrong. You may accept the possibility you are wrong, and be open to learning, but you will live as if you are right until you are convinced otherwise. Then you will change your mind, and go on as if you are right, thinking people who disagree with you are wrong.

Re:Judge Dread

[CrimsonAvenger]

Yup. A judge is right if he or she goes with the consensus opinion of Slashdot. If they disagree, they must be wrong.

"The true test of another man's intelligence is how much he agrees with you."

Re:Judge Dread

[FluffyWithTeeth]

But the man's a bloody legend :)

Live on, Dread! Live on with your genius in our hearts!

Re:Judge Dread

[jb.hl.com]

Indeed :) Big 5 still cracks me up.

Whats next?

[carlosGames]

at my point of view that was an intelligent step done by that judge, but sincerilly i don't belive microsoft will stop at this point, at least they have time enough now beffore Windows Vista release at 01-07 (january 2007).

Mod that judge up!

[AndroidCat]

Hmm... politics with mods and metamods, friends, freaks, fans and foes lists. Sounds good to me.

contempt

[Anonymous Coward]

pissing off the court by trying to avoid or subvert the process is not something judges look upon favourably, perhaps jail time for a few execs would would bring home that they are in court not kindergarten
sometimes you have to spank a child so they know what it feels like

Re:contempt

[sremick]

Right. Like anyone from Microsoft will ever go to jail.

Microsoft has the entire US government so pussy-whipped that basically the laws of the land aren't applied to Microsoft any more than they're applied to the government. The whole reason the incident in this story came up was because Microsoft is so used to getting away with absolutely anything that it figured it could run to daddy and daddy would help him out. For some reason, this judge chose not to be a "team player". No doubt some congressman is already working to get this judge replaced, since being against Microsoft is being against big-business which is being against the US, which is un-patriotic and makes you a terrorist.

Re:contempt

[mwm123]

It is refreshing to see someone who thinks like I have been for the past few years. Micros??t is too big for its pants and should be brought back to reality. I have great reapect for the judge in this case, I hope more judges, local, state, and federal will do the same. They probably will, but then again this is an election year. Also, a monopoly goes against the very basics of our society. I agree with what another respondent said "If you play in someone else's yard, you have to play by their rules". Lets keep IT competitive, it makes for better products and services that way!

SCO

[microbee]

No, he should be on the SCO case instead.

Maybe they can give this guy a call.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever knows anyone that fits this profile, needs to accept the case. This guy makes Harvey Birdman look like Birshawt!

May God bless all the sex-addicts and cure them without the FDA

Yes!!!!!!!

[netguardianii]

Score one for the good guys!!!

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.-: D

[greginnj]

Geez, mods, parent is not a Troll! (Metamods, please fix...) You're only partially right, though. 'Comity' is more about the politeness of diplomacy, and is not always spelled out in treaties. It's more of a 'we're all gentlemen here' type thing.

Gay Marriage, on the other hand, was explosive (in the USA) because of the 'full faith and credit' clause in the constitution. This meant, in effect, that any decision of a judge in one state had to be respected by all of the other states. Stronger than comity, this principle has the force of constitutional law in the US. Not only marriages, but things like arrest warrants, rulings on evidence, etc., were national in scope. I don't know what the equivalent principle in the EU is -- I imagine it's somewhere in between comity and full-faith-and-credit. You don't see Italian guys going to Holland to get married, then coming back home demanding their marriages to be recognized, for example.

Subpoenas NOT Thrown out of Court

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I heard it was chairs.

Hmmm...

[NotQuiteReal]

A huge bureaucracy playing politics is now the good guys?

Re:Hmmm...

[pallmall1]

A huge bureaucracy playing politics...

... Are you referring to Microsoft?

Re:Hmmm...

[chocotof]

I'm sure you would like to be governed by a single dictatorial autocracy ... then thins can go REALLY fast ...

Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[NotQuiteReal]

I know these are "stupid" questions, on many levels (especially in this venue), but does MSFT even make 200-million Euros a day in sales to the EU? No.

That seems like a rediculous amount, no matter how evil MSFT may be. Isn't that more than 2x MSFT world-wide REVENUE, much less, EU PROFIT?

What if they don't pay?

What if they said "screw you, I'm going home" and stopped officially selling product in the EU?

Of course, there would still be "grey-market" sales, and "3rd party" support, etc.

As much as many do not like MSFT, this stinks of some sort of politicical extortion, plain and simple.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[killjoe]

"What if they said "screw you, I'm going home" and stopped officially selling product in the EU?"

That would be a happy day for me. It would mean that nobody in europe could read MS office documents and all web sites in europe would have to work with firefox. Happy Happy day.

"Of course, there would still be "grey-market" sales, and "3rd party" support, etc."

Nah. Most likely thing that would happen is that the EU would stop recognizing MS intellectual property and void all NDAs. At that point windows would pretty much be open source and MS would get the shaft. Their only recourse would be to bribe enough politicians to wage war on europe. I am pretty sure Rumsfeld would salivate to wage war on "old europe" but I don't think that even the biggest war pig in washington would take on that cause.

"As much as many do not like MSFT, this stinks of some sort of politicical extortion, plain and simple."

Well it's aboutpunishing the guilty. Since they are not allowed to put corporations in jail fines are the next best thing.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[hebie]

I wish they would. Next solid version of Windows (not Vista) is still long ways off.
Maybe, More effort will be put into getting linux up there (drivers, usability)

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[soupforare]

?
Why bother when you've got win2k-tan :3

I'll run win2k until parts makers stop writing drivers for it, then I'll buy an x86 mac; I plan to run 2k for a long time.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[iminplaya]

Since they are not allowed to put corporations in jail fines are the next best thing.

Wouldn't revoking their corporate charter be the next best thing? Or actually the best thing? Fines mean nothing to them. That just raises the price of their product by...what...a dollar? They don't pay the fines. Their customers do.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[chris macura]

In points:

1) Europe saying fuck off won't make Office uninstall itself. Firefox isn't the only browser besides IE.

2) Not recognizing MSFT's intellectual property would be a very, very stupid move. It would put in doubt all the other company's IP security.

And what legal basis is there anyway? MSFT has secured copyrights, you can't remove them unless there is a copyright infringement or some other IP-related issues. Dropping IP just because the company won't sell in your market, is stupid, stupid, stupid.

3) Windows wouldn't be open source because... who would have the source? It would be free.

Wage war on Europe? Why? There are lots of ways MSFT can fix this. Like... have a few people go off and make a new company that just sells office. They would need no capital: Guess what? You "open sourced" Office. Surely Europe wouldn't have a problem with a company just selling IP like the next guy.

Punishing microsoft by fine is stupid when the problem is perceived to be so large (I say perceived because I don't want to take a stance pro/against Microsoft in this post), a goverment-enforced prohibition on selling the product is more appropriate. It make life better for the other companies, and is very fitting considering the crime. Its also going to be pretty expensive (in a forward looking way).

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[blueflash2o]

didn't the source get leaked a few months back

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[amliebsch]

Most likely thing that would happen is that the EU would stop recognizing MS intellectual property and void all NDAs.

What about the Berne convention?

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[IHSW]

I know these are "stupid" questions, on many levels (especially in this venue), but does MSFT even make 200-million Euros a day in sales to the EU? No.
Does that matter? (No. That was a rhetorical question.)

That seems like a rediculous amount, no matter how evil MSFT may be. Isn't that more than 2x MSFT world-wide REVENUE, much less, EU PROFIT?
Where are you getting your numbers? Do you even have sources? Or are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?

"What if they don't pay?"
Their assets within the EU will be seized and auctioned off to pay for related debts, treated as though the company were to go bankrupt. The employees of said assets would be left to look elsewhere for companies to remain loyal to, ergo lose their jobs at EU-MSFT.

What if they said "screw you, I'm going home" and stopped officially selling product in the EU?
See above, as well as their stock price falling sharply because their stock holders wouldn't like their company to refuse business with an entire continent.

As much as many do not like MSFT, this stinks of some sort of politicical extortion, plain and simple.
It has been debated until the cows eventually came home that MSFT deserves this punishment. I don't know how you managed to get modded up to 3, Insightful.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fines are 2 million Euros a day (retroactive from mid December 2005), not 200 million. It is also likely the EU will reduce the fine of MS shows productive work on the specifications for interoperability.

Vista is another story.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[ScriptedReplay]

I know these are "stupid" questions, on many levels (especially in this venue), but does MSFT even make 200-million Euros a day in sales to the EU? No.

Here's another 'no' - as in 'stupid article typo' no. The fine seems to be in fact up to €2.4M/day (see here for instance) I mean, this has been going on for quite a while now and the fine had been brought up even on /. several times. €200M/day should have looked suspicious to anyone vaguely tracking the thing.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[pembo13]

I'm not losing any sleep over it. Sorry if you do. Would be nice if a court cut them down to size, may threaten any potential evil out of others such as Google.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[CrankyOldBastard]

2) Not recognizing MSFT's intellectual property would be a very, very stupid move. It would put in doubt all the other company's IP security.

And what legal basis is there anyway? MSFT has secured copyrights, you can't remove them unless there is a copyright infringement or some other IP-related issues. Dropping IP just because the company won't sell in your market, is stupid, stupid, stupid.

What's stupid is using the term "intellectual property". Do you mean "copyright"? If so say "copyright", for which there are ample laws. Or do you mean "patents", for which there are laws, even if not very good ones.

There is no such thing as "intellectual property". There are no laws about "intellectual property". There are no "IP-related issues", as you can have things existing that are all related to something that doesn't exist, unless the relation is non-existant - i.e. there is no such thing as "intellectual property".

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[k98sven]

I know these are "stupid" questions, on many levels (especially in this venue), but does MSFT even make 200-million Euros a day in sales to the EU? No.

Stupid is relying on The Register as a source. It's Euros a day.

Does that really matter? No. What matters is that the law is enforced. What's your bright idea to get businesses to follow the law then, if not to fine them?

What if they don't pay?

Then they can expect even harsher penalties.

What if they said "screw you, I'm going home" and stopped officially selling product in the EU?

Then they don't have to follow EU laws. Fine by me.

As much as many do not like MSFT, this stinks of some sort of politicical extortion, plain and simple.

Bullshit. Or do you really think foreign companies shouldn't have to follow US laws in their US operations? They do. And there have been antitrust suits against foreign companies in the US. And in case you missed it, Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust violations in the USA too.

You assert that the thing is "political extortion" without any proof - as if it's obvious that any foreign court which takes action against an American interest must be doing so for purely political reasons. As if the USA had a monopoly on justice and fairness. That's a blindly nationalistic and xenophobic form of reasoning.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[NormalVisual]

And what legal basis is there anyway? MSFT has secured copyrights, you can't remove them unless there is a copyright infringement or some other IP-related issues.

I'm not a lawyer and I know precious little about European law, but Microsoft (and other companies) insist on treating copyrights, patents, and such as intellectual property with characteristics similar to that of real property (has value, can be owned, bought, sold, etc.). I'd ask that if they levied fines against MS and MS refused to pay, is it not possible that the UK government could simply look at the Windows and Office copyrights as seizable property with real value?

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[duffahtolla]

ditto here.

Can't stand most MS crap, but they did pretty good with Win2K.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[rohan972]

If the amount was not enough to force compliance with the orders, wouldn't it be rather a waste of time?

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[mpe]

Most likely thing that would happen is that the EU would stop recognizing MS intellectual property and void all NDAs. At that point windows would pretty much be open source and MS would get the shaft.

It would only be open source if Microsoft couldn't remove/destroy all copies before they left.

Their only recourse would be to bribe enough politicians to wage war on europe. I am pretty sure Rumsfeld would salivate to wage war on "old europe" but I don't think that even the biggest war pig in washington would take on that cause.

Even with the US having military bases in Europe this wouldn't be the kind of pushover that Afghanistan and Iraq were.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[ScouseMouse]

You have missed a fundemental point.

They broke the law.

To disuade them from doing it again a fine was determined that they *would* take notice of.

It *may* be the biggest fine ever imposed, but its the biggest company that such a fine has been imposed on. Microsoft have nearly $50Bn in cash reserves, its will not cripple them unless they leave compying with the request for a very long time, however I suspect Shareholders will want some answers.

Its not as if even they didnt have an easy way to get out of it.
They have 22,000 engineers and programmers working for them. If they cant split off 100 or so of them to produce documentation on the protocols and API's that the majority of the world run on. I find the fact that they *dont* appear to have this documentation already pretty close to criminal negligence, and wonder how they have managed to do this with SOX about, but thats a seperate discussion (We had to document *everything* for SOX including internal single use communication protocols between applications, and I only work for the *subsidurary* of a US company)

I personally due to the naked contempt MS seem to have for anyone who *dares* to investigate them, the browbeating of witnesses, the attempts to manipulate support through third parties, including members of the Senate, I think the fine should have been higher.

As for the threat to withdraw from the EU, Well even Microsoft havent tried that one on yet. The EU may be a smaller market than the US, but its not so insignificant that it can be ignored in such a manner, The shareholders would really make them suffer if they tried that.
However, I dont even think this would be a huge issue, but i am a terminal geek :-)

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with the US having military bases in Europe this wouldn't be the kind of pushover that Afghanistan and Iraq were.
This is the stupidest thread 've seen in ages, but this last point is funny just as a thought experiment. I'm european myself but a quick look at the facts makes it pretty clear that the EU wouldn't last a week against the US in a conventional war. The US had to fix even the internal european affair in former Yugoslavia. After that the notion that the EU has any military force is just laughable.

Besides, you think the average European would risk his life defending his nation, let alone the EU?

Afghanistan and Iraq are filled with heavily armed fanatics that will even blow themselves up in pure hatred. The last violent Europeans are the soccer hooligans, and sice the Americans don't care about soccer, the hooligans won't fight either. ;)

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[chris macura]

Intellectual property usually refers to copyrights, patents, and trademarks.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?searched=in tellectual+property&type=3&submit1.x=92&submit1.y= 9&submit1=Look+up
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[JeremyGL]

The EU may be a smaller market than the US

Are you sure about that ? I don't have any facts and figures but I'd guess things are the other way around, if only because there are more EUians than USAians,

Jeremy

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[ScouseMouse]

No, but I did read somewere that the US is responsble for 50% of world IT spend, however, I cant put my finger on any references at the moment and could very easilly be wrong.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[snaz555]

r do you really think foreign companies shouldn't have to follow US laws in their US operations? They do. And there have been antitrust suits against foreign companies in the US. And in case you missed it, Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust violations in the USA too.

Samsung execs plead guilty, receive prison terms

I think a couple of nice little prison sentences for Gates, Ballmer, and company, to be served in some vintage Polish penitentiary would help the problem immensely. I bet Samsung isn't going to flaunt U.S. law again anytime soon. 2M EUR to the likes of Ballmer is just the cost of doing business, not a deterrent.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[CAPSLOCK2000]

first, the article is wrong, its 2M/day, not 200M. But as this has been going on for over 100 days, the total fine is over 200M .


What if they said "screw you, I'm going home" and stopped officially selling product in the EU?


The EU would instantly stop using all computers, and everyone will die.
No, stop, wait, that's not what would happen. In the beginning nothing would happen, all those computers running MS would continue to work just fine.
But new computers will not be running Windows. They will run something else, probably Linux or Mac OS. As soon as the EU starts using anything else, a lot of companies will start writing software for the new platform. This would instantly solve the (perceived) problems with the availability of applications and support.
Retreating from Europe (or any other big market) would be the best gift Microsoft could give there competitors.

Besides, MS would still be required to support there older products. Contract is contract. If they didn't the EU would sue them again, and the US would probably agree that MS has to stick to there contract, and help the EU to punish MS.
This way the EU would become a pure money sink, without any rewards whatsoever.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[Anonymous Coward]

by who?

The EU courts don't really have an enforcement system behind them - You'd have to get the various nations in which Microsoft's assets are located to steal them, and since it would probably put thousands of their own people out of work, most governments (whose responsibility is to their own people first) would be fools to do that.

Sadly, the only people strong enough to stand up to a government are major corporations, most of whom are just as, if not more, evil.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

2) Not recognizing MSFT's intellectual property would be a very, very stupid move. It would put in doubt all the other company's IP security. And what legal basis is there anyway?

Let me give you an analogy. Fining Microsoft would be a very, very stupid move. It would put in doubt all other company's money having security.

They broke the law and are being punished. If they refuse to comply with the court's punishment, the EU courts are well within their rights to toss the executives in jail and confiscate funds or property, including intellectual property. If someone in the US is convicted of breaking the law and then refuses to comply with the court orders we do the same thing. They are challenging the authority of the courts on their home turf. Not giving them the bloodiest nose ever would make everyone think the courts have no power.

Windows wouldn't be open source because... who would have the source? It would be free.

Several European countries have access to the source for Windows as well as a number of companies and presumably the source is stored somewhere in at least one MS facility. I doubt the EU would open source it anyway though. They would probably order MS Europe to split off from MS USA and form several new companies who hold the copyright on all the same intellectual property. These new companies, made up of former MS USA execs would compete fairly against one another and other companies in Europe because none would have a monopoly to abuse.

Punishing microsoft by fine is stupid when the problem is perceived to be so large

A fine is an almost mandatory part of the punishment. It gives MS execs hard data on how much breaking the law costs them. It also gives the EU millions of dollars of incentives to not take bribes from MS. Mind you it only makes sense as one of several punishments.

...a goverment-enforced prohibition on selling the product is more appropriate.

That would be too disruptive to normal business in Europe. The world is operating under a monopoly with huge barriers to entry. The whole point of MS's lock-in is that they have made it very hard to do business without their software. The courts need to address this in some way. One way is by ordering MS to document their secret interactions with other products, so that they can't leverage their monopoly and those secrets to gain yet another monopoly.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[paving-slab]

...the EU wouldn't last a week against the US in a conventional war...

So how long did it take to pacify Iraq? Oh, it's not over yet...

I personally think many Europeans would fight if the USA invaded, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't remain a conventional war if either side started losing.

It would also be a chance for other countries with a grudge or with ambitions to stick the boot in. In the end both the EU and the USA would be stuffed.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[Afty0r]

What about the Berne convention?
Dude, Berne is in Europe!

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

"What if they said "screw you, I'm going home" and stopped officially selling product in the EU?"
...No, stop, wait, that's not what would happen. In the beginning nothing would happen, all those computers running MS would continue to work just fine. But new computers will not be running Windows.

Actually, none of the above would happen. What would happen would be the MS shareholders would hold an emergency meeting and fire whoever made that decision. Then they would put a new person in charge who would apologize for his predecessor's insanity and go back to business as usual. No one passes up billions in profit to avoid less than a quarter of that in fines. No one strategically gives one of the largest markets in the world to their competitors.

Even if they did, they would still be violating EU law and refusing to comply with a court order, they'd just be breaking more laws as well. If ever there was a more blatant antitrust violation than refusing to do business with all of Europe, I've never heard of it. MS has people and a huge number of assets in Europe. The people can be thrown in jail if they don't comply. The assets can be seized. MS can't move their property out of the EU. They can't convince all their employees to illegally emigrate somewhere. They certainly can't somehow move their "intellectual property" out of the EU, since it is controlled and enforced by the EU governments.

Most likely in that event, MS europe would be ordered to divorce themselves from their parent corporation and would operate as a separate company (or companies). They would be forced to abide by EU law or they'd be tossed in jail. The intellectual property rights owned by MS would be granted to them within the EU.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[Anonymous Coward]

Concurred and infact EU conventional ground forces are in some respects superior to US ones and they are in home turf here while the US camps are at the long end of a near certain unmaintainable supply line if a war started. There is little chance that any such conflict would be probably long and extremly bloody for both sides, expecially there the US couldn't depend on having air superiority EU air defences while inferior to the US are to sophisticated and extensive to easily obliterate.

When combine with inevitable carrier engagements and sub engagements etc etc, there is definite risk that the US could lose one or several carriers in such a conflict as well, EU subs have in anycase been known to occasionally be able to penetrate carrier screens, though those have since been improved again I believe.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[chawly]

The stink here - at least to my European nose - comes from refusal to comply with the law; with a court order. The stink is the stink of CONTEMPT OF COURT . This stink couldn't be plainer and couldn't be simpler. Might add a little something though - like attempted bribery and/or corruption. But, as stinks go, this is a humdinger !

I was somewhat awestruck by this:-

"What if they said "screw you, I'm going home"

and I have a simple question. Like they did in South Korea a short while back ?

Have to admit that you have a fair question here:-

"What if they don't pay?"

I'd like to ask you a question. What would happen to you yourself should you be hauled before the courts in your home-land, fined for some offense that we wouldn't try to guess at here, and then you refused to pay ? Would the judge give you a big kiss for being a righteous and courageous citizen ? Or do you think that you might hear the words "CONTEMPT OF COURT" being used with regard to your good self ? Please understand these questions arise only from plain and simple curiosity on my part. Be assured that I will be most interested in your answers - if you want to share them with me.

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[NotQuiteReal]

As it happens, you caught me on a Saturday morning, cleaning up a few odds and ends on my desk, so I'll give the the courtesy of a reply.

First, I am not really following the case closely at all - I will just come right out and admit to being a troll who finds it humorous to post now and again just to see what will happen. So, I have no idea what the MSFT / South Korea deal is - maybe I'll google it when I am done here, if I don't forget. I have a short attention span.

As far as the court fining one for some offense, it really does depend on the offense, how just you think it is to be a crime, the severity of the penalty, the likelyhood of enforcement, etc. Here in the US there are literally millions of people who are in contempt of court, and/or other outstanding warrants for which there are no practical consequences if simply ignored (parking tickets, ignoring jury summons, and other various minor offenses. There are millions more who have taken up illegal residence here, lie to take jobs, etc.) A recent poll found that 20% of the people thought it was not wrong to cheat on your taxes, which implies a lot more felons on the loose.

I personally, would never find myself in a position to be standing before a judge for anything we both thought was wrong. If I were hauled up on charges I didn't think were right, then the severity issue comes into play. I'd pay a small fine for, say watering my lawn while conservation laws were in effect, but I might very well flee the country if I were facing jail time for something like illegal use of encryption (just to make up some random crime that is not morally "wrong".)

Just because government authorities do something doesn't make them right. How do you feel about the French pressure on Apple to "open" iTunes? (Another thing I don't know much about, just at first blush, it seems that the French are wrong.)

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[chawly]

Why am I not surprised ?

Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day?

[tolkienfan]

If Microsoft DOES pull out of the EU market, I'm moving back!

I heard that about Ballmer

[peektwice]

I always heard he liked coming in the back door, now M$ tries to take the back door approach to their EU problem. Good thing the judge saw through M$'s BS.

The point is...

[NotQuiteReal]

I really don't know who is worse - MSFT or Brussels.

Compare and contrast: ruthless business, ruthless politicians... ewwww!

Well, Microsoft wins

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but I think Microsoft wins because that judge has now given them an out by rejecting their attempts at discovery.

Even if they lose, they can always say "Well, corrupt California judiciary kept us from showing what evil perfidy our competitors are up to."

Re:Well, Microsoft wins

[mark_hill97]

This "corrupt" California court is not obligated to do anything as far as discovery goes since its not a U.S. trial. Also, I am pretty sure that the EU woult give a rat's ass about thier attepmpts at discovery here in the states. If anything they could hold them in contempt for atempting to subvert the authority of the EU's Judiciary.

Which I am sure every MS-hater here on /. would love, myself included.

Re:Well, Microsoft wins

[Adriax]

Wait, what? Really, what are you talking about? Microsoft tried to subvert the EU's procedings by asking a different contry's courts to grant them discovery in the case.
They were told that they couldn't have the documents by the EU court because they were irrelevant, so they went to the US to try to get their hands on the documents. The judge saw what MS was trying to do, and said no.
That's like running to your neighbor's house and asking them if you can have a brownie you mom just baked, because she already said no.

Re:Well, Microsoft wins

[ledow]

Unless those evil competitors also trade in the EU, then the EU commission really don't care and actually CANNOT take it into account. This is about competition in Europe, not anywhere else. If their competitors DO trade in the EU as well, then bring it before the EU court and ask to see the relevant records. Chances are, if they haven't already done it and it's relevant to the case, the EU will let you have what you need straight away, to the full extent of EU law.

But, as someone else points out, the EU have already told Microsoft to Go Fish and this was just about MS trying to bring in home interests/friends/law into a foreign case.

Hitchhiker's Refrence

[rdoger6424]

Brussels, cause it's in B*l**m.

Re:Hitchhiker's Refrence

[Achromatic1978]

Beljum?

Sorry, that's the closest guess I could make, `cause BELGIUM sure as fuck doesn't fit.

Re:Hitchhiker's Refrence

[rdoger6424]

Eye appolojizze fore mi speeling.

CowboyNeil for Galactic Emperor

[jd]

What's the worst that could happen, if CmdrTaco takes over the world? Well, besides all construction projects being duped, traffic jams being replaced with the Slashdot Effect and SSN's being replaced with the person's UID?

Re:CowboyNeil for Galactic Emperor

[Anonymous Coward]

... A new translation of the English language will emerge, and with it, everyone will have their number branded on their hand, and the world will vote for one true leader, and his/her number will be 666666666.

They should know by now

[MrNougat]

The way to gather information on US soil is to ignore the courts. Surely the security of the nation hinges on Microsoft continuing to thrive as a company, especially in this time of war. That makes it a matter of national security, which means the feds should invoke the PATRIOT Act to demand whatever information they need without bothering with courts or subpoenas.

Oh, the information is in the hands of a foreign land? And they don't want to give it to us? Must be terrorists; we'd better invade right away.

(I know, way way off topic. Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.)

Re:They should know by now

[David Off]

> Must be terrorists; we'd better invade right away.

The US (or at least Pentagon) already considers the UK as little more than terrorists which is why the UK will get a dumbed down version of the new F35 joint jet figher as the Brits are deemed a "government where US technology may fall into terrorist hands". Of course the Brits are expected to fess-up all the good tech they have to the US.

It is a bit like the recently signed extradition treaty where UK citizens can be sent to the US if the US justice says they are wanted terrorists but the US won't send terrorists (remember that US citizens were major funders of the IRA one of the world's most ruthless terrorist organisations) to the UK.

Re:They should know by now

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you should say this but the Patriot Act does gives the US the power to demand of US registered companies any information they hold off shore.

IANAL but I have explicity asked our companies laywers, who are so expensive I could cry, for their legal opionion on this, as it is very relevant to some work we're doing, and the answer was "we're not sure because the actual words in the various relevant acts are a complete kludge and it has never been tested in court, but it does appear that if a US company hold data on behalf of a client the US government could demand that the US company turn it over to an appropriate US authoritie even if the data is off shore". I paraphrase about 10 pages of legal opinion.

So the US yet again extends its view on where the US border stops and the rest of the world starts.

Re:They should know by now

[MK_CSGuy]

Surely the security of the nation hinges on Microsoft continuing to thrive as a company

Actually you've reminded me a Sliders episode where they travel to a world where Microsoft collapsed, triggering a Mexican invasion... So there you go.

Re:They should know by now

[sremick]

Ah, so much like my other post on here. Kudos.

In many ways, Microsoft is like the space shuttle... a big, lumbering monopolistic beast that has gotten out-of-control, consumes way too many resources, doesn't do its job well, and should be replaced... but no one dares replace it because too many people (goverment themselves, and taxpayers) depend on it that everyone is too scared to touch it (or flat-out don't want to and LIKE the beast because it gives them a nice big fat paycheck and/or re-election).

Quite likely.

[jd]

They probably make more than that a day in sales. If you include how much additional money they make in stock - well, if you've 200 million shares, you only need them to go up a euro a day. This doesn't include how much they have in an investment account - a high-interest business account would probably give Microsoft that amount of cash in interest alone off whatever spare change Microsoft has invested.

But what if they never sold a single program again, their stock froze in value, they had no investments whatsoever and their land value stayed constant? Then they'd have enough reserves to last about 50 to 60 years, assuming they paid every single day and neither side backed down.

If we assume the youngest employee at Microsoft is in their early 20s, that would be enough cash to see them through their entire career and the first 15 years of retirement and pensions.

Given that a fine is unlikely to alter behaviour if it inflicts no effective consequences, I'd argue that this fine is not nearly enough. I'm not sure a stronger penalty would help much, though - Microsoft is at the point where their reserves are so vast that it is utterly impossible to exact a penalty that would change their conduct without utterly destroying their business in the process.

The only possible way I can see this doing any good is if the EU rolls some reasonable percent of all the fines collected into a fund for Open Source development/sponsorship of some kind. It won't hurt Microsoft directly, but at least it can mitigate the anti-competitive actions by boosting one of the more dangerous competitors Microsoft has.

(As much as I have developed a dislike of some of the OpenBSD developers for their trolling tendencies on Slashdot, I would be the first to encourage the EU to donate perhaps 10% of the first day's fine to the OpenBSD group. I think that could make a real difference to IT security worldwide and - because it's from a fine - it wouldn't effectively cost the EU anything to do.)

Re:Quite likely.

[NormalVisual]

But what if they never sold a single program again, their stock froze in value, they had no investments whatsoever and their land value stayed constant? Then they'd have enough reserves to last about 50 to 60 years, assuming they paid every single day and neither side backed down.

200 million euros at the current exchange rate is about $1.20 or so, meaning MS is looking at a fine of $240 million per day. MS's market cap is about $281 billion, meaning that if they could somehow completely convert all of that into real money right now, they'd last less than 3.25 years at that rate.

No matter what happens, I think MS is looking at having to shell out a lot of money soon.

not to defend Microsoft or anything...

[thewise1]

but if this was any other company that slashdot didn't hold so much hate for, it seems likely to me that the judge would have been denounced as an idiot in collusion with the EU. Sure, maybe they aren't the best company, I'm not arguing that at all, but the EU is raping them.

Re:not to defend Microsoft or anything...

[pembo13]

Okay. So what's your point. This isn't little red ridding hood. Dislike for MS didn't grow out of thick puffs of smoke. There is real reason for it.

Re:not to defend Microsoft or anything...

[thewise1]

My point is that dislike for MS should not trump logical thinking.

Re:not to defend Microsoft or anything...

[NormalVisual]

Sure, maybe they aren't the best company, I'm not arguing that at all, but the EU is raping them.

I disagree. MS knew what the European laws were, and chose to conduct business in Europe anyway. Having broken said laws, the European governments are now holding the company accountable for its behavior (a somewhat rare occurrence in the US). A US judge has rightly said that the matter is not within US jurisdiction or otherwise before a US court, so it's not something the US court system needs to be involved in. No one forced MS to do business anywhere, and they apparently were betting on the EU being as pliable as the US was in regards to anti-trust matters. The EU seems to take anti-trust issues seriously, so it looks like MS lost that bet. I fail to see a problem, and I would fail to see a problem whether it was MS, Apple, SCO, RedHat, or any other American company. If you play in someone else's yard, you have to play by their rules.

Re:not to defend Microsoft or anything...

[chawly]

I thought you summarised it nicely and completely with:-

"If you play in someone else's yard, you have to play by their rules."

Hereabouts the law is supposed to be the same for everybody - even the richest man in the world. Big mistake to literally "give the finger" to European courts - it gets the judicial system all excited. Some of its members will even give up their siesta just to find a way to be unpleasant. Bribery is considered to be in bad taste, also - so best not to get caught.

Just to offer my opinion, since lots of other people are offering theirs:- This is no longer about which Microsoft thingy is bundled with whichever other Microsoft whatsit. This never was about Anti-Americanism. This is about a company (and ultimately a man) who thought itself above the law of the land where it was functioning and, when brought before the local courts (or brought to local justice, if you prefer) decided to use every possible trick (some of them quite filthy) to prove that it was a law unto itself. Courts all over the world - most especially in America - are very quick to sanction this kind of conduct, for it has a name, it's called CONTEMPT OF COURT.

In conclusion, I see some references to rape in the comments here. The word is lightly used. For information, just hang around and see the result of continued, reiterated CONTEMPT OF COURT on this continent. Rape is not the word - the judicial system will "rip you a new one" and they will not hang back because the affair concerns (gasp)Microsoft and/or (gasp, gasp) "the richest man in the world" . Hereabouts, justice is not for sale (at least, not today)

Re:not to defend Microsoft or anything...

[chawly]

Contempt of Court ?

Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.-: D

[Anonymous Coward]

Full Faith and Credit has limits though. The Gay Marriage debate is an excellent example. My state, Ohio, changed the state constitution to read that Ohio only recognises the union of a man and a woman as marriage. So a gay couple married in Massachusetts would not be recognised as married in Ohio.

Now, why doesn't his violate the Full Faith and Credit clause?* Basically because it isn't discriminatory. It is analogous to Ohio saying that "we will no longer recognise drivers licenses." Ohio, if we wished it, could prevent everybody from driving in the state. The only way Ohio's gay marriage amendment will be declared unconstitutional would be for the Supreme Court of the United States to come out and define marriage differently.

Personally, I don't think the government should recognise gay marriage. It's a definitional thing. I don't think the government should recognise "marriage" at all. Marriage is granted a couple by their religious body. The government should recognise marriage as a type of civil union - and anybody should be allowed the more generic "civil union" from the government.

*Don't get me wrong. Someday this issue is going to be litigated and if the attorney is worth his salt, one of the contentions he raises will be that it does violate FF&C.

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably make more than that a day in sales Did you even read the parent? MSFT does NOT make that in a day - not in the EU, not world-wide.

If you include how much additional money they make in stock What? shareholders own the stock - not "they" (the company).

ass figures

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent article quotes 200-million euros a day.

Apparently wrong, but there's a source for ya.

Solution - Just make Wal-Mart sell software!

[NotQuiteReal]

If the EU courts mandate that only Wal-Mart can sell Microsoft products, then the problem will be solved, right?

Cool people will no longer buy it, and Wal-Mart will beat the price down to where Microsoft makes no profit, so all the un-cool buyers will not be ripped off!

win-win-win!

Re:EU just wants the money

[Conor Turton]

I think they just want money

Huh? Europe consists of some of the richest countries in the world and the economy of some of those countries has been doing far better than the US for many years now.

You just can't get your head around the fact that there's actually a State/Government that can't be bought.

Seriously, this is stupid

[Kreigaffe]

As was the US antitrust case.

From TFA:
"Rejection comes as Microsoft squares off with the EC in Brussels over a potential 200-million-euro-a-day fine for failing to comply with the terms of a 2004 anti-trust ruling by the Commission on Microsoft's bundling of Media Player with Windows."

Heaven forbid they bundle a FREE program that they make with their OS. That, if you don't like, or if isn't sufficient for what you need, you can replace with many, many other FREE programs.
My goodness, just imagine if they bundled IE for FREE with their OS! I don't think I could ever go download another FREE web browser!

No sir, one FREE program at a time for me. ... seriously, this is stupid. They're not blocking any other FREE programs from working with Windows. Yeah they're bundled. So what. There's a plethoria of options available. For free.

Re:Seriously, this is stupid

[ledow]

Trolling to one side for a moment...

This has NOTHING to do with price or what the consumer *could* do if they were knowledgable enough. Don't forget - we still have warnings on packets of nuts that say "may contain nuts". This has everything to do with competition law and monopolisation.

MS bundled apps of a certain type *unnecessary and extraneous to the operating system* which has destroyed/limited/damaged the business actions of companies in a seperate part of the industry. This is a complete misuse of monopolistic power (using your monopoly in the OS market to enforce monopolies in other computer software markets).

The browser issue destroyed Netscape, not because IE was technically superior, not because IE was cheaper, not because IE was "chosen" by more people but purely on the fact that it was put into Windows as the default and *people reasonably assumed that it was the only/best browser to work on Windows*.

Windows Media Player similarly seriously injured places like Real Networks, Quicktime etc.

It isn't about what a consumer *could* do, it's about how easy it is to do it and whether MS gets an unfair advantage from having a monopoly in the OS market - it does. With Microsoft bundling antispyware now, this will have damaged the sales of companies that were not competing with MS and now, instantaneously, cannot compete fairly because MS can push antispyware automatically onto millions of PC's worldwide.

Monopoly is bad on many scales - on the scale of the little people who "have to" use IE because they have it already and it would take (to them) enormous effort/skill to install other software that does exactly the same tasks. On the scale of small business which, overnight, can lose their entire business because MS "owns" several millions PC's and the people who use them. On the scale of large businesses who see massive losses based not on MS's innovation but on the power of their existing installed base IN ANOTHER PART OF THE INDUSTRY. On the scale of governments and nations who watch all their computer industry fade and die and their IT costs rise because a foreign company has made it impractical to use ANYTHING but their software.

Monopoly is not good for anyone but the monopolist. Unchecked, they just get more and more powerful until you're buying Microsoft Barney Cereal to go into your Microsoft Breakfast Bowl with your Cowsoft (a subsidiary of Microsoft) Milk. Or until your local Microsoft Law Enforcement Officer comes to knock on your Microsoft Door.

Monopoly stifles innovation (you can invent the best browser in the world but 90% of people will never even SEE it in an unfair market, let alone install it or use it in preference to their browser), destroys competition (what's the point in fighting for the 5% of the market you *can* get when you could just let yourself get taken over by MS or sell the product to them instead?), limits new business startup (where do you even BEGIN to break into a monopolists global industry if they can do all that they can to stop you even starting up?), raises prices (MS can pretty much charge what they like because you "have to have" MS) and continues to reinforce the monopolists position.

I work in a primary school (ages 5-10) - the kids call any word processor software Word or Microsoft Word. They only ever look for a "blue e" to get on the Internet. Changing the icon blows their mind. Unfortunately they do this because THE TEACHER HAS TAUGHT THIS. Every teacher in my area teaches like this and every adult who works in a primary school works the same way and gets similarly confused (I've met one person who knew what Opera was and one who used OpenOffice out of approx 200 adult staff?).

As far as they are concerned, Word is the only wordprocessor, Excel the only spreadsheet, Outlook the only email program (apart from Hotmail). I tell them I don't run Windows at home and they are absolutely dumbfounded as to what other options there are! Some don't even understand what I mean by that because Windows *is* computers in their mind.

Can you not see just how dangerous that is, from a social, economic or teaching our future kids viewpoint?

Re:Seriously, this is stupid

[Fanboy Troy]

They are leveraging a monopoly they have in one field to provide an unfair advantage for their products in another field. Let's make this simple: Let's say I work at CNN and want to provide my users with videos from my reporters. I want my video to be as small as possible, to minimize the download time, I want it to have fairly good quality, I want it to be seeable on the majority of systems (Windows+OSX >95%, stats pulled out of my ass) with it providing minimal hassle for my users. This means, if avoiding a codec download is possible, I'll go for it. So, what you have is MS giving an unfair advantage to their products using the sheer number of windows installations and not innovation. If I wasn't sure wmp was on all windows systems, or better yet: if wmp shipped with all media codecs, (which would even be better for you as the end user), this would be a whole different situation. I would actually choose the _best_ format to distribute my media based on merits of the format (even if that end up being wmv again), without weighing it against a decision to hassle him with an extra download... As it is to today, I will almost always choose a slightly worse format, over forcing my users to know wtf a codec is, let alone wait through the download and install it...

Are DivX, Quicktime, Real, 3gp codecs automatically downloadable by wmp? I smell a political decision on MS's side here...

Re:Seriously, this is stupid

[LeRandy]

Actually, the main thrust of this antitrust case is Windows Networking protocols. It is not possible for a server OS vendor to sell a server OS that works as well with Windows clients as Windows Server. Yes, you can release third party drivers, but it would be very hard to get them certified, and many companies won't touch third-party drivers because they can wreak havoc with systems, or system security. The ruling essentially covers the fact that MS is using its dominance of the desktop market to push server OS sales. So the antitrust ruling says that MS have to release full documentation of their networking protocols to anyone who wants them. Problem is, so far, they've tried releasing their own source-code - which is about as helpful as giving a Home Depot customer the instructions on how to cut the pieces of wood that make up their furniture, rather than the instructions of how to put them together.

Windows Media Player is a red-herring here - MS have ALREADY COMPLIED with that section of the ruling.

Re:Seriously, this is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Already compiled? MS You have to use Windows we're a monopoly. We want you to use Media Player. So we'll add the price of media player to Windows and "give you it free"! EU That's cheating sell them separately! MS Ok you can have windows without Media Player but it will still cost the same (i.e. you won't get it, but you'll still pay for it). EU O.K.

Re:Seriously, this is stupid

[irlkersten]

Point well made!!!

Re:EU just wants the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we all know it can be bought. It's just that microsoft seems to have misinvested their money there. (They funded the chief of the anti-trust department indirectly, but now she refuses to do something for the money she got from microsoft).

That's the problem of bribing: You cannot sue for what you bought, especially if both claim it was not bribing but just normal money transfers for unrleated buisiness.

MS's real problem

[Midnight Thunder]

Truth is, with Balmer at the helm of Microsoft and with the incapability to get their next generation OS right, or out of the door in a timely manner, I think Microsoft may be its own worst enemy right now.

is it that clever to attack the courts credentials

[Anonymous Coward]

Trumball said Microsoft had wrongly tried to cast the European Commission's directorate general for competition as an "adversary."

Trumball said the court presumes the neutrality" of both the directorate general for competition and of the European Commission.

"Microsoft alleged that EU officials, software companies and Barrett colluded before the charges were filed, saying it knew of secret meetings and needed to see correspondence to see if its suspicions were right.

Google slashdot.org for microsoft + "tony soprano" returns .. 138

The meaning of 'Inquisitional'

[Anonymous Coward]

Per Wikipedia, 'Inquisitional' has a specific legal meaning. Whether you consider it to be a good thing or not is another matter.

ObPeterGriffen

[sharkey]

I am pretty sure Rumsfeld would salivate to wage war on "old europe" but I don't think that even the biggest war pig in washington would take on that cause.

But what you have to remember is that anyone who doesn't want to go to war, is gay.