U.S. Lobbied EU Over Microsoft Fine

ukhackster writes "European commissioner Neelie Kroes has claimed that she was lobbied by the US government over the Microsoft antitrust case. ZDNet UK is reporting that Kroes 'did not appreciate' being asked to be 'nicer' to Microsoft. Given that Microsoft was fined 280m euros, perhaps this tactic backfired." From the article: "The commissioner criticised the approach. 'This is of course an intervention which is not possible,' Kroes told Dutch newspaper Financieele Dagblad this week. When asked if she was annoyed by the Embassy's approach, she said 'In my work, I cannot have a preference. I have, however, a personal opinion, but that is for Saturday night.'"

Comments

Modus Operandi

[AnalogDiehard]

M$ has either intervened or infiltrated most processes in their favor. When the antitrust trial was underway, M$ lobbied to have funds reduced for the DoJ. When the white house changed hands, the DoJ attorneys on the case were replaced with rookie lawyers who let the punishment phase get reduced to a slap on the hand that has yet to be enforced. M$ always won reversals in appeals courts on petty technical details. M$ always was involved in standard setting committees with their own business interests at stake, not the interests of the committee. The Java community reluctantly allowed M$ into their world, and their worst fears came true when they embraced/extended Java into their Windoze-eccentric version, which was forced off the market after litigation from Sun.

The EU has not forgotten that M$ was branded a monopolist in US federal court and that the appeals court upheld that judgement. M$ has few options of recourse outside the US - little chance of reversal in appeals, no lobbying channels to undercut barriers to their monopolist tactics, and a well read community with little tolerance for strong handed tactics from corrupt US corporations.

Good to see that there are level headed authorities in the EU that are not so easily swayed.

Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here

[MightyYar]

Not quite. You omitted some key facts. A simple Google search will enlighten you, but there are a couple of quick points that I'll write here. One, there was a boycott in the colonies of the British monopolist East India Company, which was quickly going bankrupt. While the alternate source of tea was in fact smuggled, the lifting of tax on the East India Company was not what got the colonists all up in a frenzy. In fact, it was the plan to escort in the East India Company's ships with a British naval guard.

Even then, the Boston Tea Party did not directly lead to war. Colonial leaders decried the act, and Ben Franklin even offered to pay for the tea with his own money. The British reaction, however, was far more serious. They closed the port of Boston and passed the "Intolerable Acts", as they were referred to in the colonies. This led to increased sympathy for the revolutionaries among formerly loyal colonists.

Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here

[246o1]

"IIRC Guatemalan government was overthrown because the leadership was going to seize the land held by american fruit interests. I think it is closely associated with the phrase 'banana republic' as in a central american government favourable to United Fruit, Dole, etc."

The Guatemalan government had announced plans to purchase and redistribute most of the land controlled by United Fruit. They would use the equivalent of imminent domain, paying the value listed on tax returns. United Fruit had, of course, been cheating and lying on their taxes, vastly underestimating the value of their land. They had some pull with the Dulles brothers and managed to get the government overthrown.

Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here

[DarkShadeChaos]

yes I believe Sun Tzu said: 'Generally in warfare, keeping a nation intact is best, destroying a nation second best... ' and also this may be pertinent: ' Therefore, to gain a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the highest excellence; to subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence.'

Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here

[iluvcapra]

John Foster Dulles, the Sec of State, had worked for a law firm that regularly defended United Fruit, and sat on its board of directors, IIRC. An overview of the whole sordid affair can be found in David Halberstam's The Fifties. The bit about compensating United Fruit for their assessed value of the land is completely true and particularly funny, but the Dulleses weren't laughing

It should be stated, of course, that United Fruit was completely incapable of ordering a war through its intermediaries in the US government, but Arbenz, by initiating a land redistribution plan, was pushing every anti-commie button the US government had at the time, particularly with McCarthy accusing the State Department of having 57 "Card-Carrying Communists" in its senior ranks. Had Dole owned the land and not United Fruit, the outcome would have probably been the same, despite Dulles having worked for their competitor.

One wonders what action the US would've taken if the land had been owned by a French or Mexican fruit company...