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.'"
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. It is said the American Revolution was more about expanding trade for businessmen in the colonies which the crown sought to prevent. These days there are innumerable reports and accusations conflicts the US finds itself embroiled in have at their very foundation the interests of american business interests. What next? Admiral Perry sailing sailing into the North Sea, firing off a cannon and proclaiming he expects better treatment when he returns?
American politics and business still haven't got it that much of the rest of the world is more circumspect in it's dealings where americans enter like barbarians and don't get why everyone is so upset.
I don't expect Microsoft was directly behind this, but they sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC. Though it does seem a stretch that with so many corporations attempting to bend the ear of the US government they would take it upon themselves to do this independently.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Agreed. Didn't we help overthrow Guatemala or one of the Central American countries for bananas (literally) in the '50's. At lease we didn't threaten to invade. I wonder what that would cost. Exxon, Bechtel, Haliburton, any comments?
In my work, I cannot have a preference. I have, however, a personal opinion, but that is for Saturday night.
If only more politicians and government officials had this mind set. Bravo.
But unfortunately in America, this is rarely how it goes. We haven't had people who think that way in the last 150 or so years here. We had the founding fathers, then maybe 50 or 100 years to bask in their glow...then it all became special interest groups, big business, professional lobbying and damn the rest.
A good local example I can think of is the office where my wife used to work. It was the nearest large city's plans, permits and zoning office. They had a raging debate for hours on end. What was the debate, you may ask? Whether or not it would be a good idea to put a nativity scene on the door for the holidays!
Can you imagine adults actually having to debate that?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Other than the (dubious) 'reason' "because I hate Microsoft!" why should anyone complain that the United States government was lifting a finger to possibly help one of its interests? When we see/hear things like this it's easy to understand why the State Dept. might take a "damned-if-we-do-and-damned-if-we-don't" attitude. In wonder, though, if when Apple starts suing EU companies for using the letters "pod" in their products' names people will expect (demand) the U.S. government to rattle some sabers on their behalf...
Besides all that, I know we're supposed to hate Microsoft but, hey now, we're talking about the EU! Am I the only one who remembers all the red coats and that "rather unpleasant matter concerning tea" up in Boston? Sure, we're shoulder-to-shoulder against the world, but when it comes right down to it it's us-against-them in the oldest rivalry our nation knows ('cause it hails from our very beginnings!)
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Agreed. Didn't we help overthrow Guatemala or one of the Central American countries for bananas (literally) in the '50's. At lease we didn't threaten to invade. I wonder what that would cost. Exxon, Bechtel, Haliburton, any comments?
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 war in the Pacific, half of World War II, can be traced back to US meddling in relations between Britain and Japan during WW I. US businesses sought to colonise Japan in much the same way europe (though chiefly Britain) were carving up China.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is going to make me sound like a nut-case, but I fear that this speaks to the in-bed deal between MS and the government. Specifically, I've had the feeling that things were neatly wrapped up in the United States MS case right around the time that it became "okay" for the government to monitor its citizens. Yes, this is an uninformed opinion, but MS got off easy over here and now they're the 800 pound gorilla that everyone ignores when debating wire tapping and the government's monitoring of private information. Seems that it would be a simple effort for MS to allow government access to at least the hard drive directories of every windows user. Just to make sure things are safe. Flame away or mod me into obscurity.
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.
I'm not being anti-US, it's just that examining a lot of american history in detail reveals unflattering behaviour at the root of conflict.
One thing I don't believe any other government, or people, have done throughout history is to insist other governments should be more like their own and encouraging change with a very large military. Ironic the US gets along very well with Pakistan where the leader was installed by a coup, yet applauds the overthrow of democratically elected President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Clearly there are things said behind closed doors which would make such things appear logical, but the rest of the world notices and eyes the US warily.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The whole concept of not just outright conquering other nations whom you disagree with, and are more powerful than, is a relatively recent invention. Only since World War II has it really taken hold as a global opinion. Prior to that, it was just assumed that any great power had the right to colonize/dominate any minor country it could, and fight over territory from other great powers using whatever means it had.
Even within the last fifty years, while the US has been nowhere close to the shining pillar it attempts to pass itself off as, the former soviet union did much worse. Ask the people behind the iron curtain, or living under the chaos that has been the dictatorial aftermath of communism in africa, about forcing governmental systems on a people.
While the American approach is quite honestly hypocritical (we are going to force you to be "free" by our definition of free), it is no less so than the communist line of a state run by the workers.
I understand that bashing America is the "in" thing to do right now, and I am in no way condoning our current foreign policy. But please have some sense of history before you go spouting off nonsense.
There are rules. They're called LAW.
But maybe in the US they're meaningless?
Din't think so. Break them and suffer the consequences.
Privacy is terrorism.
It's fining a company doing business in the EU. The "US company" just reflects to where it was founded. If you do business on EU soil, you have to obey EU laws. Even if you only are doing *just* import.
It's the same where I would start a daughter-company in the US. I wouldn't have a "European company", European law wouldn't apply. US law would. If in that case, the US courts would fine me, the EU shouldn't meddle with the US courts unless international laws are being violated.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
From what i understand, anti-trust issues are not comsumer harm, but come about when a company gains a monopoly, then uses that position to force competing products out of bussines (like what m$ did with IE to netscape).
A wrist slap, in this case, was just what it sounds like, a small "dont do that, now go on with your bussines". M$ was convicted of monopoly practices, and got a relatively small fine (since they are still in bussines), and had to do some other things, none of which stopped or prevented m$ from doing all this again in the future, and with all the big $$$ they are raking in, they are not likely to not do those practices again, knowing full well the courts probably cant hurt them. For what m$ has done, they should have broken m$ up into smaller companies, this would break and prevent lots of anti-trust issues in the future, as the OS and applications would belong to seprate companies, and as such, would no longer be bundeled together, and hidden API's wont give the applications from this new break-off company advantages, as they would only know as much as anyother application company programing for Windows. But, in the end, they where not broken up (even tho there was talk of this), and essentially allowed to go about their bussines, altho m$ laid low for a bit, the ruling never stoped them from using their monoply unfairly (anti-trust issues), and amounted to what is essentially a small slap on the wrist, a warning, but not a real punishment, and m$ neeeded a punishment, not a warning, they knew full well what they where doing, and tried to slip around the legal system (look at IE intigration in Windows, its unnessesary, but m$ made it nessesary to claim that it is part of Windows, and cant be removed. The real reason for bundeling IE with Windows was to use its Windows OS monoply to force netscape out of the browser market, it worked. To avoid anti-trust issues with this, they made IE part of the OS at the core level, then claimed they dident do it to force netscape out of bussines, but that it was a core component of their OS (which, it wasent really, they only made it that way to claim it was. This is why any IE valnerability today can be used to pwn your OS)).
My wife and I have taken the Foreign Service day long verbal exam. She got to defend dolphin drowning tuna fishing by one of our fictitious allies in a scenario. I got to try to negotiate a meeting with government ministers to discuss cigarette imports into their country.
I think testing for traces of scruples is just something the State Department does routinely.
"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."
No. The principle reason is that we are willing to use that power. We have no qualms about killing as many people as we want and causing as much damage as we want to get what we want.
There are other powerful countries in the world like china, germany, france etc that have armies that can invade and occupy most weak countries (like iraq) but they don't do it.
The US has been involved in some war or another every three to seven years for all my life. We are a country of warmongers. We can't go a decade without killing somebody or another and that's a stark difference between us and china.
evil is as evil does
I think the big problem is that we had the first real chance to be the originators of a whole new kind of behavior, but chose not to.
newsflash for you. terrorists are *shock* people with their own thoughts and rationales. they're not like another race or something. the mulims i know do not want to see america destroyed. they are however understandably angered by america's foreign policy, just like every sane human being would be.
the word terrorist seems to mean a soldier in a war where he is technologically totally outclassed by the enemy.