Slashdot Mirror
New Blow for Microsoft in EU Row
twitter writes "The BBC is reporting on a stinging rebuke to Microsoft and their last defensive move in the EU anti-trust trials. Boston district court judge Mark Wolf accused Microsoft of trying to 'circumvent and undermine' European Law by requesting Novell documents. The story reminds us that last month, a federal judge in California denied subpoenas of Oracle and Sun for the same reasons, that a New York judge is currently considering a request against IBM and that Microsoft will be appealing their March 2004 conviction next week and may face millions of dollars of fines a day. New complaints were made just two months ago."
So close.
... subpoena to Novell would circumvent and undermine the law of the European Community concerning how a litigant may obtain third-party documents," judge Wolf said in his 12-page decision.
Anyway. FTFA:
"Enforcing Microsoft's
Now that was a profoundly unexplained statement. Does anyone know why this is the case?
+++ATH0
Even if their subpoena gets denied in Europe, they can later use the denial as a grounds for appeal (again, in Europe).
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Not a fair chance? By what standards? By the American constructs of justice, they might have been given the short end of the stick. But according to European constructs, they may have been given a fair shake. When Microsoft entered European markets, they accepted the implications of it. When you go over to another country you implicitly accept their constructs of justice and law. That is why the State Department won't step in and save you when screw up in another country. Arguing and asking that Microsoft be given a fair chance by American definitions is just like asking that someone who is in another country recieve an American trial even though the crime is committed in another country.
The real issue here is that American's view other constructs of justice and social laws as being backwards and wrong. Who is to say that guilty until proven innocent is anymore right or wrong than innocent until proven innocent. I don't agree with the European method, but I am an American.
It is extremely myopic to argue that Microsoft, albeit an American company should be allowed to operate in Europe and at the same time only have to use American laws. If Microsoft is Europe and selling in Europe then Microsoft should be subject to the laws of that nation, regardless of whether or not Americans consider those laws to be just. It is not up to Microsoft to change those laws, and trying to use backhanded methods to compell what they want is not right.
If the constructs of justice are so maligent and repugnant, than why don't the Europeans change them? If Microsoft doesn't like the laws, then Microsoft can withdraw. No one is holding Microsoft in Europe; they are choosing to stay in Europe. And when their behavior is not to the liking of the European Union, it is not the place of an American to say that the EU is not treating them fairly, especially when most Americans, including myself, do not understand how Europe handles such issues. The world does not revolve around America, and American's need to respect the laws of another country, even when we percieve them to be unfair by our standards.
Now I realize that everyone is going to flame me about China, Iran and other countries that violate human rights. But this post is not referring to human rights. That is a whole different story. This is just about the social constructs of justice.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
I am if I want to be able to watch Windows Media format videos, which is increasingly the case (most likely due to the influence Microsoft has gained through its Windows monopoly)!
In fact, I am now a second-class citizen, because I can't use some government services (i.e. downloadable audiobooks from the public library) due to the fact that they only support Windows Media DRM. Given that my taxes paid for that content, I ought to have a legal right to use it!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
*Please don't pretend the Clinton administration wasn't corporate friendly, it's just flat out wrong. The only difference was that Cliinton, being a Democratic Leadership Council owned democrat, at least put up an appearance of acting in the public interest, while the Bush administration has basically bent the united states over a table and made the whole country scream "Thank you Sir! May I have another?"
What the United States needs is the reincarnation of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a slavishly loyal Congress, a meteor to fall on the Supreme Court, and about 20 years.
MS is required to provide "meaningful" API documentation. Now, anyone who's ever worked for a large corp knows one thing: These docs don't exist. Never did. Never will. You know how it goes, you write software, it is late, you get pressure, you somehow patch it together and you finally check it in then fall into coma. Documentation? Read the effing source!
Now, RTFS works in house. Where you can, to some extent at least, hand over the source or at least the more important parts of it. Including "documentation" that goes along the lines of "and as the second argument, pass a structure to fill in so you know if the hack throws a fit worse than Balmer".
Can you hand out that kind of "documentation"? And is it "meaningful"?
Hardly. It would be, at best, an oath of disclosure of your inaptitude.
MS is indeed with its back to the wall. They simply CANNOT produce those docs. They most likely don't exist. Hell, the people who COULD write the docs most likely don't exist anymore there. Not even with "more time" they could give the essential information required. So they're playing the game of stalling, appealing, calling for aid to whoever is available and tries to grasp for straws.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Most obvious reason: the EU is the world's biggest market. The MS shareholders would go berserk on the spot.
More subtle reason: if MS left, in an attempt to blackmail the EU... 'right, you don't like us, try doing without Vista!' one of two things would happen:
1) it turns out that the EU can do just fine without Vista. So why should anyone else cough up for the 'upgrade'? MS loses money.
2) it turns out that the EU economy is crippled without MS products. Very well: issue an edict, all Microsoft copyrights within the EU are revoked. End of problem. Microsoft screams in agony as every geek across a very heavily wired continent puts Vista up on FTP. Legally.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.