Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft turns to U.S. for EU Antitrust Help
An anonymous reader writes "The NY times reports that Microsoft has asked U.S. goverment officials to intervene on their behalf in the EU antitrust case. The US (through diplomatic channels) has asked the court to be 'fair'." From the article: "Microsoft has complained frequently in recent months that it has been denied the right to a fair defense in the continuing antitrust case with the European Commission. It has also accused the commission of collaborating with its rivals in the software industry and denying it access to what it contends are vital documents it needs to prepare its defense. A memo written by unidentified government officials in Washington stated that Microsoft's complaints raise 'substantial concerns' about the way Microsoft is being treated, according to a person close to the commission who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the memo."
Because the judge said no in an earlier story are they now hoping the government officials will somehow help them? I do think they should have rights to see any information relevant as long as it strictly conforms with the trial.
Why doesn't M$ just defends itself with good arguments instead of requiring help from US government. If you're sure of your case, don't need to be scared ;-)
who lies more? the government or microsoft. beats the crap out of me. but if they are both saying the same thing, then this is easy.
Interestingly enough, the next chapter in this story was published on Slashdot LAST NIGHT!
The US courts told MS to go pound sand.
Yeah, sure. I'll listen to them as soon as I can send them a memo asking them to start "being fair" with their pricing schemes and monopolistic practices, and they actually listen to it. Until then, forget it.
Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
Yes this was reported earlier, though I do not remember if Microsoft "formally" requested help from the U.S. An official from the DOJ was telling the EU that they should treat Microsoft fairly and that official held up the U.S.'s Anti-trust case as an example on how to treat Microsoft.
Thankfully the EU, so far, has told the U.S. (in some many words), to go F@$# itself. Rolling over is not the way to treat Microsoft. The EU has legitimate gripes with MS. MS failed to deliver documentation explaining one of their APIs, with which program can be made to work with Windows. This is gross negligence on MS's part.
The irony is it takes a foreign governmental body to discipline a mis-behaving U.S. company.
Oh Teddy Roosevelt where are you when we need you!
Nonsense. They have already been found guilty for illegal monopolistic practices in Europe. They have to comply with the punishment, but they are dragging their heals and doing everything they can to avoid it. Now they are being called into line about it. If they continue to carry on they way they are, they can be closed down across Europe. You see, there are a lot more people to buy off in Europe, quite unlike here in the US, and they don't like it.
Well, which success are they speaking about? Has Microsoft monopolistic behaviour changed anyway since this "successfull" rulling has taken place? In some PR speech perhaps.
The DOJ settlement was only successfull for Microsoft, its shareholders, and for nobody else.
Has anybody heard of any positive effects it would have had?
I am not so sure the EU will buy such a weak argument. At least I hope it does not.
I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
So when Microsoft plays unfairly with it's competitors it's fine. But when the EU does it to them, they run to daddy?
I think you suffer from a serious prospective problem. You sound like my 5 year old cousin whining after he gets caught.. "but he hit me first". Just because they have done Bad Things(TM) in the past doesn't give anyone the right to do Bad Things(TM) to them in the present. Their hearing should be fair... and I don't think it's too much to ask. The entire point of "freedom" and "liberty" is that things are fair for all, even those with whom we disagree... cheering and hoping for injustice against your opponents is borderline facism.
That being said, until I get something other then vague generalities about "documents", it's going to be impossible to convince me that anything unfair is actually occurring.
Yeah, but we're talking about Microsoft.
Microsoft: If you can't beat em, buy em
Government: Bomb em first, then try to beat em.
MS + Government: If you can't beat em, bomb em.
Is there anything that could possibly be more relaible than a story submitted by an anonymous reader about unidentified officials relayed by some anonymous person? That's about as iron-clad and trustwrthy as you can possibly get...
Seriously, I bash Microsoft about as much as any Mac user, but that summary was so free of content that it might as well have been penned by the bureaucrats of the Neutral Planet on Futurama.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Given the current public opinion in Europe about the current US Administration, i kinda doubt that what amounts to a request from the Bush administration to "Cut some slack with Big American Company" would actually produce any positive results.
Most likelly it will make no difference.
Possible it might actually make things worse for MS.
Additionally that they even asked just reinforces the widespread opinion here in Europe that the US administration (and by association the Americal people) believe that the whole world should play by made-in-US rules except themselfs.
I agree that's not how MS got where they are, but their traditional anti-competitive practices are not effective against their main competetion in the OS space (i.e. open source distros)
Patents however will do. That's what I mean when I say they the EC are concentrating too much on what has already happened, and not enough on what different tactics are open to MS for future abuse.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Their hearing should be fair...
Yes, but...
That being said, until I get something other then vague generalities about "documents", it's going to be impossible to convince me that anything unfair is actually occurring.
Exactly. They are being treated fairly. They just claim that they aren't. Just their latest attempt at making the EU fall over like the US did. They hope that somewhere, someone will whisper in the right ears that after those accusations, the punishment should not be too stiff, because it would confirm the (baseless) accusations.
Diplomatic games, that's all.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
As far as I can see, the DOJ did not drop the case for juridical reasons, but for political ones. As in the new adminstration didn't want this case to go any further.
Why might one ask? Well ... one consideration might be that on the whole it wouldn't be in the US interest at all to see its great software champion cut up into "Opsco" and "Appsco" (an Operating System division and an Application Software division). So that competition laws would have to take a backseat to National Interest (which certainly would be a legitimate point of view). I'm sure though that conspiracy theorists could come up with other, less savory, alternatives.
Therefore, err ..., might the EU be justified in expressing "substantial concerns" about "US" motives for having such 'substantial concerns about the whether Microsoft is being treated fairly'?
My second point is that this whole charade began 2 years ago. In 2004. After Microsoft was found guilty of violating EU competition laws and was ordered to disclose publish the API's that allow Windows Clients to interact with Windows Servers, so as to allow others (SUN, IBM, HP, and Samba) to make their OS act as Windows Server to Windows Clients and to allow their clients to log into Windows Servers.
Does that seem reasonsable? I think it does. Because if that sort of inter-operability isn't available then anyone trying to sell a competitor to Windows Server will have to convince their prospect that their (ubiquitous) Windows desktop machines will be running crippled when logging in to their proposed servers. And because anyone pushing Linux desktops will have to explain why it isn't important that they won't be able to work well with their prospect's (widely used) Windows Servers. Either way Microsoft would be using its current monopoly position as a competitive weapon, which is illegal.
Therefore requiring the API's to be published, open, and usable sounds like honest enforcement of competition laws to me. Now Microsoft had 2 whole years to come up with the required documentation.
And what did Microsoft do? They:
Now does that sound as if they were trying to comply with a reasonable request or if they were just trying to get things done their way? I think the latter.
And now that they seem to have lost traction in the EU courts and have reached the deadline they chant that "fines are not the solution" and bring in their big brother to apply some pressure. Well ... it would be a good stunt if they get can away with it, but I'm not sure if this is something we should be happy with.
Want "Freedom" and "Liberty"?
Don't AGREE to exchange them for priviledges.
When Microsoft BEGGED PERMISSION to operate a business in a particular jusridiction, THEY AGREED to abide by the REGULATIONS therein.
NOW "THE RULES" are too onerous? Boo Fucking Hoo, and Caveat Emptor, MSFT...
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
What MS are after is the same fair treatment that received in US courts, they find it unbelievable that they should actually have to PROVE compliance with a courts decisions and that being found as a monopoly engaged in deliberately predatory approaches should have any punishment doesn't make sense for an organisation used to dealing with the good ole DoJ.
Its quite simply ridiculous that the EU should find a company guilty of being a monopoly that uses that position to crush its opposition AND THEN require the company to change its behaviour. This is a very childish position for the EU to take in this globalised era, sure it might have been okay back with Standard Oil and Bell to force monopolies to change, but that was a different time when goverments actually had some say in how the world worked.
The EU should clearly back down, pay Microsoft compensation for wasting their time, sign software patents into Law and give Microsoft the job of validating them.
Its either that or Microsoft would have to operate legally.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
This is how things work, though. As the observers dissect each piece of news more exhaustively, the newsmakers try to fine-tune the news they make. For example, once upon a time, the Fed would get together and shift the prime by a point. Now it's a quarter point and they have to put out a dozen press releases prior to actually doing it so as not to startle the financial pundits. Imagine if the Fed made no announcements prior to their next meeting, then raised the interest rate a full point without warning. Twenty or thirty years ago, this probably would have been insignificant. Today, it'd be a sign of the Second Coming.
In this case, whatever government officials are getting their kickbacks from Microsoft got together and figured out how to nudge the EU in the direction they want it to go as much as they can to make Microsoft happy without looking too much like they're getting those kickbacks from Microsoft and following a protectionist foreign policy agenda. In this case, the nudge was an "anonymous" press release.
Then, the standard procedure would be to see how far that nudge flies, who it pisses off, etc. If they can go back to Microsoft and say, "Well, we tried, and, oh, by they way, can we have another donation?" and that works, then this is the last you'll hear of it.
If Microsoft pushes harder, though (which they probably will), then you'll see maybe another such news item from an "anonymous" government official. Depending on how the EU reacts, we may even see something official, like from the ambassador to Liechtenstein or something.
One day, a year or so down the road, Condi Rice may slip it into her interview with one of those Sunday morning news shows that normal people don't watch, but in which most American policy is set.
Then maybe, just maybe, if Microsoft keeps pushing (taking bets now at 4:1 in favor), Bush will claim the EU is being protectionist and American firms are suffering, and American jobs are suffering, and Mom and Apple Pie are suffering...
And that's the way it is...
It's a sad, sad game they play.
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
The entire point of "freedom" and "liberty" is that things are fair for all, even those with whom we disagree... Uhmmm... war in Iraq - is fair (for all)? We disagree with the way things are run there (Sadam Hussein and his regime), but is it fair to invade their country and spread democracy upon its people? Yes, I agree that the MS suit should be fair, but interference of US govt into EU's business makes it fair how? Plus, who said that it wasn't fair to begin with? Maybe MS was just whining cause it wasn't getting what it wanted?
Exactly when is it a good defense? When you know the kid you're messing with doesn't have a knife in his pocket? And how do you know that?
Umm, "Self Defense" is always a valid defense, regardless of the size/type of the weapons of your opponents. "Self Defense" refers to whether you should punish the victim, like the GP apparantly feels about his cousin.
You can make an argument about escalating violence, but in general you are justified in self defense for raising the violence level by one degree. IANAL, so I don't have all of them memorized. Maybe someone can dig up a good link for you. Basically, if someone hits you with their fists, punch him back (same level), or whip out the pepper spray (non lethal weapons). Then you're cool legally, and as far as I am concerned, morally as well.
Up until the point they show you the weapon, I would definately say you should fight back. At that point they've raised their own bar to attempted murder, and you need to decide whether you are capable of defending against the weapon in question. If you took the aforementioned martial arts classes, with a proper focus on self defense, a knife should be no problem. Depending on your skill level, a handgun probably isn't a problem either. If you're not capable of the requisite level of defense, then run. In either case however, it is the aggressor who is guilty, not the kid getting bullied.
If you're going to just cower and get beat on because someone might have a bigger weapon in hiding, you need the martial arts class just as bad as the poor kid in the GP post.
Further, even the way you phrase it shows you are a product of this ridiculous parenting method. The kid that "might have a knife in his pocket" is messing with you, not the other way around.
~Rebecca
Utter rubish.
The EU citizens have a great deal to gain from preventing Microsoft or others from abusing their monopoly position. Increased competition will encourage innovation and lower prices. In the case of the EU, unlike the US, the prices issue not only affects individual businesses, health services, local government, education etc. but also affects the overall economy and balance of payments, because the MS tax is permanently removed from the EU economy and transplanted to the US economy.
This alone (ignoring the welfare of individual businesses) is reason for the EU to be interested in preventing monopoly abuse that locks in and artificially bolster prices, and for the US government to try to influence the EU to allow that monopoly to continue its abusive practices.
US tells company to grow up and deal with it like everyone else.
Only in your wildest dreams as long as there's a republican in the white house.
If your memory hasn't yet succumbed to alzheimers, you'll recall that when he came to power, justice was just a few more hearings from issueing a probable breakup order that would make Judge Greens AT&T order look like THE precedent setting order of the century.
He gets sworn in on the 20th of January, and by Feb 1, justice has been told to stand down in no uncertain terms.
Then, just because 'he needs to finish this war' he gets another 4 years to play God from the sheeple. Methinks theres some confusion in his mind as to just who is God, him or the real one.
I didn't vote for him the second time, and I damned sure hope the dems can come up with a candidate that doesn't come with all the baggage the last 2 had a huge excess of, even turning off diehard deomcrats because they were actually seen as the worst of 2 evils.
So the sheeple here voted for the lessor of 2 evils, not fully understanding the depths of the ranking on a true scale.
As a senior citizen who may not have that many more elections to exersize my right to vote in, I am truely sad for my country.
And I would hope, probably futily, that washington will have the decent good sense to stay the hell out of this dogfight, its not theirs, although their past in-actions HAVE certainly allowed it to become one. Its been business as usual in Redmond for 6 years that should never have been allowed to happen IMO.
--
Cheers, Gene
To uphold the law?
Prosecutors felt they had enough evidence. Last I heard, a bad economy was not a defense against criminal behavior.
That is all.
No person can treat their finances the way our government does without going bankrupt and to jail.
damaged by dogma
Microsoft still has to understand that EU is not a vulgar copy of the US.
...
...
... only US administration, and Microsoft but I don't have to specify that ;)
A lot of Americans, and visibly not only the average citizen, still thinks that we in Europe are trying to build a European copy of the US with the same economical model and its influence on the politic. How can they be so wrong
Let's take a simple example, in US if you say you're a socialist people will look at you like you have some strange disease while in Europe half od the countries are actualy lead by goverments where the Socialists have the majority.
With that in mind, you are probably more prepared to understand that Microsoft is seen as "The Devil" by lots of the EU citizens and therefore by a lot of the guys they've elected to represent them at the European parliament.
Combine this with the actual image that people in Europe have in mind when you're talking about the US administration and you'll probably have a clearer picture of how people will react to this in Europe. And by people I mean the peoples and their deputies
EU will just see this as one more attempt from the US administration to influence the EU domestical affairs; and seriously, peolple are just fed up with this attitude.
PS: note I'm not blaiming "America", or "US"
The whole point of anti-trust law is to improve competition in the economy, to make the market more effective. Thus, unless you somehow believe that letting a monopoly freely expand its monopoly power to other markets is good for the economy, the conclusion must be that the administration did in fact make a decision that impacted the economy in a negative way, and keeps on doing so.
Oh, the EU have a whole lot of other options that might very well happen.
For example, if the US went berserk and threatened the EU with economic sanctions if poor, poor Microsoft wasn't met with a bit more forgivingness the EU could settle the case with a slap on the wrist and then ban software (and related) patents in any form, commence a continent-wide government IT switch to Linux/BSD/OS X, decree that each and every document used for conversation between/with governmental bodies has to be in Open Document format (or another open standard where apprpriate) without vendor-specific extensions of any kind and set money aside to subsidize FOSS and companies deploying/switching to FOSS solutions.
Entirely unquestionable, entirely doable and entirely a huge raised middle finger. Not to mention that a lot of ISVs would see this continent-wide switch to *nix as a reason to port their software to *nix, which would not only weaken Microsoft's position in the OS market but also take away one of Windows' biggest strengths.
In the end the result is always the same: Microsoft has to make sure they don't anger the EU enough to warrant serious action against them, even if it would save them in the short term. Microsoft is big but not nearly big enough to stand up against a continent.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
For a few systems. They'd undoubtedly nail a few non-Europeans and piss them off, too. Then:
It's just a fantasy, anyway, but if the EU did stop enforcing Microsoft's copyrights, MS would be have to be very, very dumb to respond by sabotaging Europe's Windows boxes with Windows updates. Partly for the reaction, and partly because it would be ineffective anyway. Enterprises and critical infrastructure machines aren't updated with Windows Update anyway. Home users and small businesses are the ones who would be hit.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.