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
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...
What sweet revenge after the failed antitrust case; try and lobby a foreign court into being easy on Microsoft knowing they'll do the precise opposite.
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.
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
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?
Because it was the politician's interest, not the American people's. We convicted them of the same crime and after certain lobbying suddenly our corrupt politicians replaced the people overseeing the case and did not punish MS for their guilt. The US is supposed to look out for the people as a whole, but here they are spending our tax dollars to work against the interests of the US people by trying to get criminals, who coincidentally donated lots of money to them, off the hook.
I don't know about you, but I sort of dislike obvious corruption and abuse within our government.
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...
This is such a straw man I won't even go into it.
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...
Do you really think like this? Is everything in your beliefs based not upon "right and wrong" or "just and unjust" or "beneficial versus detrimental" and instead based upon "us versus them?" Do you really pick sides on an issue based entirely upon who is on each side? A few of us actually look at each issue and make up our minds based upon the facts, rather than who is arguing. I agree with a lot of things the EU does and disagree with a lot of them. The same goes for the US. I'll not support corruption, bribery, or dishonesty whether it is being done by a Republican, Democrat, American, European, christian, voodoo priest, or illegal alien. It is not who is doing something that determines if it is right, it is what they are doing.
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.
Has it been that long since world war II? Certainly it's been a while. But Europe has a much longer lineage of threating the world than the US does...
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
"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.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
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
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.
"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
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...
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
"As an American, I just hope that the next empire is as kind to the US as the US has been toward the last empire."
Ah...for a moment there, I thought you were going to end with "towards Iraq".
"I'd love to live in Europe right now and enjoy empire living standards without having to do any of the dirty work."
Dirty hands, you mean. Yes, obviously, it's thanks to the imperialistic tendencies and unilateral arrogant attitudes on worldlevel, that Europe enjoys good living standards. If you hadn't supported rebels - though now described as terrorists - and dicators alike, where would we be?
Didn't the US do some good as well? Certainly, just like any other country. Alas, also just like all empires before it, it also behaves like it owns the world. the problem with that is:
a)They aren't very good at it (at least the Romans made an effort to bring culture and civilisation, aside from destruction, AND they were also politically adept, AND they endured for a thousand years)
b)The time of empires has passed, and it seems the US didn't get the memo. This imperialistic, military and arrogant behaviour belongs to another era, and the USA is like a dinosaur acting like it still can control the world the way a budding empire did hundreds of years ago. And not only that, it thinks it has the god-given right to do so, moral superiour as they think they are, or 'a shining example for all'. You know: freedom, democracy, all that - well, unless a country goes against USA interests, of course.
Anti-americanism exists all right, even in europe. But what you fail to realise is, that it's been born and it has grown as a result from your own hypocritic actions. It might be funny in a south-park episode, but it isn't in real life, if USA citizens are unaware of the reason why people dislike the USA so much. And for fucks' sake, it isn't because we're "jealous of your freedom" or because america is the pinacle that the West has to offer, or any such self-deluging flattery that you people invent to try to keep your own narcistic illusion in place.
The downside is, most of the populace are viewing the matter in generalised terms, and in black and white. And anti-americanism gets a too broad a stroke to my taste. I'm anti-american myself, though I only interpret that in a limited way: I do not dislike the USA population as a whole (as is becomming more and more the current mentality), because, as individuals, I know you have some swell persons living there. (The late) Carl Sagan comes to mind, and a lot of others. But, your current government deserves all the flack it gets, and THEY present the USA on the world-stage (and, in all honesty, at least half of the populace voted for Buja - well, the second time, anyway - and thus, half earns the miscontempt it gets)
Anti-americanism, based on the actions of your government, and those that kept that same government in place, is justified and well deserved, me thinks.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
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
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"