Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
I don't understand what the issue is -- if Siemens or Airbus or Glaxo gets into some regulatory issue in the US, you think their countries' embassies don't try to pull a few strings?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Guess the EU isn't used to dealing with a corporate based government.
If they played by the rules, they wouldn't have anything to worry about. If every other company was allowed to break anti-trust rules, then Microsoft lose!
Microsoft are a bunch of hypocritical, low-life bastards, a complete fucking joke!
Since the days of the Yankee Traders the US government has meddled in the politics of other nations to ensure access to favourable trade for its merchants.
Yeah, because governments never did that type of stuff until the inception of the US and no other governments have done that stuff or do that stuff now.
If you're going to be anti-US, at least have the good sense to slam us for the things we do that every other government on earth doesn't do. Thank you.
"Our morality is good, theirs is repressive."- Partisanship Rule #3
They pay taxes. So their tax dollars are used to lobby against them! Eg Novell, Red Hat, etc.
Can you imagine adults actually having to debate that?
:-(
A large proportion of adults still worship a god who advocates slavery, religious genocide, and the inherent inferiority of women. Then they yammer on and on about how great, loving, and compassionate their God is.
Based upon that evidence, I can believe just about anything. Being adult just means your body stopped growing, not that you're free of prejudices or that you are in any way rational, objective, or impartial in your views of the outside world. It's a mistake to think that "adults" are very different from "children". By and large, they're just older teenagers.
Because I don't want the Federal government supporting a company's unethical business practices, even if that company is an American company. Is that unreasonable?
I may be crazy, but I'm the sort that believes the US Federal government should generally keep itself out of private business concerns unless necessary, and act ethically whenever possible. I don't see any reason to believe that the EU's case some unjustified politically-motivated witch hunt, so I don't see a reason for the intervention.
Please get off your soap box for a moment. Not that I support everything the USA government does on behalf of corporate interest, but let's not pretend the US is the sole practitioner of such tactics. The imperialists of Europe have been using their military might to enrich monetary interests since way before there even was a USA.
If the 'rest of the world' has any issues with the tactics taken in cases such as these, perhaps it is only that the USA is too successful at the game they invented.
Don't hate the player; hate the game.
We had the founding fathers, then maybe 50 or 100 years to bask in their glow
It says a lot about your understanding of US history that you think it was like that.
We haven't had people who think that way in the last 150 or so years here. We had the founding fathers. . .
.tea merchant. This just might have had some influence on his political point of view.
John Hancock was America's largest . .
KFG
It has a lot to do with how much said company contributes each year to taxes.
Usually it has more to do with how much the company contributes to election campaigns, not taxes.
Those taxes fund government programs such as welfare, foodstamps, education, defense, etc.
So what? If a billionaire pays a million dollars in taxes each year should we ask the EU not to convict them for armed robbery when we convicted them of the same offense two years ago?
Sure, it may not be what you want but the govt is actually looking out for its bottom line, not the company it's lobbying for.
Nope. They are looking out for their slush funds and bribes. Both the companies who asked the EU look into this issue and who are the victims whose money is being unlawfully redirected are American companies whose taxes also fund the US government. How does MS paying taxes on their portable document and antivirus tools businesses benefit the US any more than Adobe and Symantec doing the same?
Rubbish. Not even the Golden Horde or the Nazis were simply murderous. They'd wipe out armies, and occasionally cities that resisted, but otherwise just wanted to enslave their opponents. More successful empire builders like the Romans made efforts to assimilate their former enemies.
The only reason that the U.S. is different from most other countries in this regard is because the U.S. has a lot more power than most.
I expect that when China "lobbies" one of it's neighboring countries -- or virtually anyone else -- from a position of power, they apply all the same pressure. There I expect it's probably even stronger, since politics and industry are so closely intertwined.
The states that complain most about the U.S. using its power for its (by which I mean, its citizens) own advantage are mostly those states that are less powerful, and it smacks more of jealousy than it does of real moral outrage.
The government of the United States is elected by the citizens of the United States, and has its only mandate to them. If Americans as a whole wanted a kinder, gentler foreign policy, they'd vote for people who were in favor of that; however, such stances are quite unpopular.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I should probably add, I wouldn't have said a word had you not made the implications that we were the originators of this behavior, or that we are the only ones who do it now. Hell, I agree with you that what we are doing is wrong, but you are very very very wrong to say that we invented that behavior. Not morally, just factually. That allegation betrays an ignorance of history and a very anti-US prejudice. And you're entitled to both your ignorance and your prejudice, just don't mistake them for anything else.
This is a really good example that despite the fact that I am strongly against the direction my country has taken, I also recognize elements of what's wrong here in the anti-US crowd. You guys are not making reasoned statements based on documented history when you say things like this. You sure as hell aren't leading by example. Why should a republican care about learning from history and being accurate in his allegations about other nations, if the people criticizing them don't? And sure, why should you care when they don't? Hey, let's all not care and find out if Ghandi was right about eye for an eye. Sounds like a plan to me.
"Our morality is good, theirs is repressive."- Partisanship Rule #3
Although you dont outright claim it - it is obvious - you are claiming Europe enjoys peace because the US is doing "all" the dirty work?! Americans so often fall back on that old joke about you "saving" Europe during WWII. You Yanks only showed up AFTER the British had done the hard work anyway. And today I rightly claim that Europe does more than its fair share of peace keeping missions in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. You probably wouldnt know where anyway so I will refrain from listing them. We dont invade nations without UN approval, sure makes for better relations afterwards. Now, for the REAL reason Europe has enjoyed peace and growth is because we sought to end the in-fighting in the family by creating the European Union. And, yes, this time peace is permanent for European Union citizens.
Creating "peace" and democracy in Iraq sure has been effective, I must say. The draft, coming soon to a city near you!
Ok, maybe we should. But next time you have a terrorist attack, don't think it was because the terrorists hate your freedom or because their religion tells them to do it. It will be because of that very same asshole attitude of yours.
Amusing, and most of it is crap. First off, the EU's anti American stance, actually probably very true, only problem with applying it on this case is virtually all major partys involved in both sides of the case are American. Which actually makes the EU impartial by default as it "likes" neither of them (though some could argue a slant in favor of MS as they provide more EU jobs than any of the others) Then lets take the EET article, especially the bit where MS accuse Professor Neil Barrett of not being impartial and lets backtrack a bit, who recommended Barrett in the first place to the court? Oh yeah ...Microsoft (seems they forgot to make sure he was dishonest before putting his name on the list of potential Trustee's)
Sure he talked to the other side, just as he talked to MS, it is afterall his job.
Really what the EU has demanded of MS is not OTT nor to hard to deliver and no they did not ask for all the source code no matter what the MS marketing machine claims, rather they demanded that the equivalent of the API's be released so 3rd partys could operate/integrate with MS software,
This is in the markets interest, other companies interest, the consumers interest and even potentially MS's interest because the more 3rd party apps that can integrate and integrate well with MS products the more reason there is to use a MS product at the core of the setup.
But MS does not want this because they are stuck in the mindset of "lock everyone else out except those we pick to make the most money from additional/complimentary software"
No, we didn't.
In the US they were convicted of antitrust bundling. In the EU they were convicted of antitrust bundling. Both cases focused on different instances of bundling, but it was the same crime.
Niether case was black-and-white and the two can not be compared. For example, the EU is particular about some details that are simply unreasonable (i.e. crippling the user experience by not allowing the packaging of a media player with a modern OS).
That is perfectly reasonable in my opinion. MS should no more be handed dominance in the Media player market because they have dominance in the desktop OS space than the electric company should be handed a monopoly on cookies because they have on one electrical distribution.
As for "crippling the user experience" MS sells product primarily to OEMs like Sony, Dell, Lenovo, HP, and Gateway. They are the ones mostly hurt by MS's bundling. They are the ones who should choose what media player to bundle and it would enhance the user experience not cripple it. The OEMs are motivated to pick the best player or combination of players because otherwise their customers might move to another company. MS is not motivated to pick or develop the best player if they are given the choice. They are motivated to pick the one that makes them the most money.
In particular, most consumers rip their CDs to DRM-constrained Windows media format, because of MS's bundling action. This results in loads of consumer frustration since it means a significant number have to re-rip their music when they find out they can't move it to another computer or onto their portable player (not supported by the iPod which has 70% or so of the market). If the OEMs had been given an equal choice as to which player(s) to include consumers would have not only gotten a better player, but MS would have been motivated to make a better player to influence their decision. There is a good chance it would rip files to MP3 or at least non-DRMed Windows media format.
I think you need to revisit this issue and read up on the effects and laws surrounding monopolies and anti-competative bundling.
You people really should be happy we haven't killed you yet.
Which is precisely why some people like Osama and his friends have decided that it's in their best interest to kill you first, before you change your mind.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Police training manuals state that an amount of money around $2 - $3k is enough to inspire murder (you could be murdered if the other person expected to gain 3 grand).
Now think about how much money Trey has. For example, the President of China stopped and met him BEFORE meeting George Bush on a recent trip.
With the crooks and liars in the White House now, I am surprised they didn't give him the medal of freedom.
Ok, but does that make it right? "but he did it too!" is the favourite excuse of every 5 year old in the playground. The more relevant question is, what advantage does this tactic ultimately give, and how often can you use it before it becomes "abuse" ?
Terrorists do not attack and kill 3000 people simply because they don't like the people's attitude. They attack because they hate the people and want them destroyed.
No, al Queda wants us out of the middle east in general, and Saudi Arabia in particular. You don't see them attacking Canadians or Germans so much, do you?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"