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."
Asks GWB to help win their hearts and minds with an arial bombardment.
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.
What, they take Microsoft's word for it just like that?!
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
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.
Why the hell does the government care how they're treated? I think it's ridiculous, the US says "Please be nice to Bill." What the hell? All the bullshit they pull, like getting patents awarded for stuff a lot of us know they never created themselves, all the stunts they pull to weasel their way into wherever they want more control just to have it, to try to screw over whatever alternatives in the field (you name it, from browsers to consoles.) I say screw them, let the EU be as unfair to them as they want, as if they've been fair with anybody else. About time someone pushed MS around and made them cry for fairness instead of the other way around. Besides, the EU does what it feels it should, (right?) I don't think they'll do things differently because MS requests it.
Gentoo Linux - Wouldn't have it any other way. And fuck beta.
They are wasting an enormous amount of time and effort trying to stop Microsoft crushing their competition reactively, when they could take a much more preventitive measure.
All they need to do is clearly legislate that software patents are not allowed in Europe and the rest will take care of itself. Open source alternatives will establish themselves more quickly in the mainstream and competition will accellerate like there's no tommorrow.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Shit djupedal, at least try to read the story.
This has nothing to do with the judges decision, this is about US diplomats not judges.
Interestingly enough, the next chapter in this story was published on Slashdot LAST NIGHT!
The US courts told MS to go pound sand.
"Yeah, they've outlawed buying off their legislature, so we're having to work in the back channels to get our decision barged through, but half the time these guys ain't even speakin fuckin English, so we're being blocked out from the bribery channels unfairly..."
I can see how that might be an issue.
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
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!
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.
It has also accused the commission of collaborating with its rivals in the software industry
You would get paranoid too if everyone is against you.
-- AC because everyone is against me.
It has 0 to do with the court decision, this is microsoft going through diplomatic channels, asking the EU court (not the US court) to be fair to microsoft.
Took out the F, because I don't see the need to be rude..
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
"Steve Ballmer was quoted as saying, 'I'm gonna fuckin' kill(R) Europe!' It's the final countdown!"
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
Or they are already under contract.
Get a FREE Sony PS3
Since Microsoft is still under government observation for being a Monopoly, it would be a conflict of interest to interefere. Plus, what the US Government is getting is a one sided story and as any good diplomat will know is to get both side.
Politicians may want to get involved but diplomats will not. Watch the days coming to see which politicos are dumping their Microsoft stock and that will give you a good idea of what is to come.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
What??? Is Microsoft now a ward of the state??
No, you take Microsofts money for it, just like that.
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.
EU is not playing unfairly.The only things they did is communicate the MS document about the interoperability to the competitors to check that the documentation was enough to be useful by other parties to communicate with MS windows without problems.The competitors told no, the documents are so bad that you can't understand anything, as the expert nominate by MS itself said.
You know although one always hears about politicans being bribed/lobbied in one way or another. I doubt that the US could do anything if the EU decides to impose a large hefty fine of several XX billions on Microsoft. I don't know if anyone here kept track of the dividing of the spoils after that tobacco lawsuit a few years ago? The US states were more than happy to take that money. If the EU basically puts down a fine of several billion or a flat ban on the sale of any MS OS in the EU, you'll see MS either shutting up and trying to pay as quietly as possible or yelling and screaming while paying the EU.
I hate to be really cruel, but if they really wanted to pound it into MS that they've been bad, they'd set up a percentage to be used funding open source government software solutions for nearly ever level of EU government. Actually, in several respects it makes sense for the EU to do that anyway just to stick to a US company and use the money to fund domestic EU programing groups.
I'd actually be shocked if MS didn't try to use the US government to get around other government's fines if at all possible. Part of me wants to say that it would be a bad idea preventing/limiting the sale of MS OS and Office apps in the EU, but then there is the other part of me that says that the EU has just as many able programmers as the US and should be able to come up with their own EU version of MS in 3-5 years. I'd also be interested if India or China developed their own OS and/or office products. Both markets should be able to support a lively local OS/Office suite.
Interesting question...
This will be a good time to see to what extent there is still a difference between the EU and the US concerning the entanglement of politics and business. I for one sure hope there still is one.
J.
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
Since they started dumping money into political campaigns and hired their own lobbying group about ten years ago Microsoft has become one of the most generous contributors to politicians in the country:
h tml
s _microsoft.php
s _microsoft.php
n g.html
i alsID=440
s p
t m
1 1.callahan.think.html
LXer: How Microsoft wastes its money on anything but software
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/55497/index.
Election 2004: How to Excel in DC
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0438/040922_new
A Bug in Windows GOP (Seattle Weekly)
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0522/050601_new
Microsoft And The G.O.P.: Antitrust Insurance?
http://www.time.com/time/reports/gatesbook/lobbyi
Microsoft's lobbying efforts eclipse Enron
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-835267.html
Redmond | Feature Article: Following Microsoft's Money
http://redmondmag.com/features/article.asp?Editor
News Alert 9/6/01: Microsoft
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/alertv6_26.a
Commentary: It's Back to Charm School for Microsoft
http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_45/b3654183.h
"The Think Tank As Flack" by David Callahan
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/99
This is the penalty phase of their antitrust trial. This is MS corporate whining it's not faaaaaiiiiiiirrrrrrr at the extent of their punishment.
No, it's intemperate mockery.
Racist, totalitarian, militant ... you can be all of those and not be fascist. The defining characteristic of fascism is the notion that government exists to serve corporations.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
The EU competition commissioner, Neelie Smit-Kroes, will not give in under pressure. She was responsible for bringing down the Dutch coalition government Lubbers II. She had proposed to abolish tax dedution for over 10 km daily commuting. Het own party couldn't agree. She held her ground resulting in the end of the coalition.
I think Microsoft knows by know she will not give in so they are trying other ways to get it's own way. She will be fair. She will make Microsoft to do what she told them to do. And it is clear Microsoft doesn't like that at all.
Nyh
i think it was a typo, here :
A memo written by unidentified government officials in Washington stated that addressing Microsoft's complaints could result in 'substantial donations'
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.
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.
Actrually its verry easy to buy polititions in Europe. Its just that once baught they stay baught. I thing they call it integrity :-)
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
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.
In short term, you can run unpatched. That buys you time. Microsoft usually does not bother releasing patches until the threat is already in the wild, so no big loss here anyway - it already happened, I think it was the WMF hole, that a third-party developer released a wrapper around the affected DLL that blocked the problem by eliminating the vulnerable library call. Not mentioning the possibility to screen the code with antivirus-like software directly on TCP/IP and library-call levels. That can be made within Europe virtually overnight, leveraging existing antivirus technology. See also Hogwash, a Snort-derived packet scrubber.
The critical infrastructure will stay up and running. With hiccups, perhaps, but if your crisis scenario comes, I don't expect more than little temporary discomfort followed by a blissful era without intentional incompatiBILLities, longer uptimes, and better general reliability.
Billy may throw a hissy fit and cut Europe off. All he gets in that case is pissing off and temporarily inconveniencing couple million people, creating a large-scale proof-of-concept mass migration project for the rest of the world to follow in a more leisure pace, and creating a market for non-Windows software large enough for even non-EU vendors to cater for.
What may at a cursory glance look like MAD is more likely to be a suicide.