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.
"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.
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!
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.