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.

[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.

[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.)

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?

[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?

[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?

[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."

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".

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...

Subpoenas NOT Thrown out of Court

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I heard it was chairs.

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?

[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?

[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.

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: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: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: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 :-)