Slashdot Mirror
Lobbying Could Cause Legal Trouble for Microsoft
Rob Isn't Weird writes "In the wake of the exposure of Microsoft's attempt to buy Sweden's vote on OOXML and Sweden's annulment of that vote due to irregularities, IBM's Rob Weir points out that the fiasco could cause anti-trust worries for Microsoft. He quotes ALLIED TUBE & CONDUIT CORP. v. INDIAN HEAD, INC., 486 U.S. 492 (1988), which says 'What petitioner may not do (without exposing itself to possible antitrust liability for direct injuries) is bias the process by, as in this case, stacking the private standard-setting body with decision makers sharing their economic interest in restraining competition.'"
Anyone able to translate this into normal-speak?
Oh, and because it's required...Fist Psot, or whatever the first post trolls are saying nowadays...
Living With a Nerd
to quote a US law in a swedish case? There is a little matter of sovereignty.
The actions were in Sweden.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Unfortunately for us lowly citizens, US law only *theoretically* applies to Microsoft.
In particular, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Of course, IANAL.
The Raven
Sorry, this is a little off-topic, but I'm curious. I don't really get the specifics of the whole "lobbying" process. Is it just a roundabout way to go about bribing an official? Pay them off prior to them being elected, and threaten to not give them money next election if they don't vote in your favour?
But if so, how did this situation come about? Does Microsoft pre-emptively make campaign contributions to political candidates in major markets just in case such a vote has to be passed? Or do they promise campaign support for the next election? If they promise money for doing something, doesn't that constitute bribery?
I'm genuinely curious. If anyone can shed some light on this, it'd be appreciated.
...in three easy steps...
1) Get hired at Microsoft
2) Use your MS email address to offer bribes to public officials without management knowledge
3) Enjoy anti-trust actions
For anything to stick, they would have to show that there was some management involvement. A corporation is not one single mind.
Whoa whoa whoa, wait... Indian Head? Are you saying, Microsoft outsourced Bill Gates?
isn't that kind of the idea of competition? restrain the competition.
oh well, i guess competition is illegal now.
Although I consider OOXML to be an abomination, at this point Microsoft could be seen as trying to introduce competition. This seems to be more directly related to stacking "no" votes.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is one example where overseas actions can be prosecuted inside the USA. IANAL, so I'm not going to claim that it does apply to Microsoft, especially when I think it's a criminal statute that would have to be prosecuted by the DoJ. I don't even know if there's any civil right of action in there. If there are any lawyers out there, feel free to chime in.
Now then, did you note that this was an IBM guy saying this? Given that Rob's blog covers approximately two things--brewing and OOXML--I'd have to say that he learned about this law from the Nazgul (IBM lawyers, for you young'uns) because I don't think Rob is a lawyer, either. And I don't think normal people go around reading and quoting 20 year old anti-trust cases for fun.
So if IBM is examining something like that, especially when we have Microsoft doing other things like funding SCO, I'd say to stay tuned, because we just might see fireworks in the future. It wouldn't be the first anti-trust action against Microsoft by any means. Mind you, this is 100% speculation, but what do you expect on Slashdot?
the D.O.J should force microsoft to use open file formats such as ODF in their office products...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I would *never* insinuate that Microsoft may have done something wrong and should be brought to justice for it.
Is that how it's done?
Deleted
Is Rob Wier making this statement on IBM's behalf or in his personal capacity? If Rob can't certify this as an official IBM statement, then please edit the story to not say "IBM's Rob Wier", it should just say "Rob Wier".
What's the upshot of all this anyways?
Even if OOXML gets approved for ISO don't we still have a choice? Won't ODF still be there?
The main problem with Microsoft is arrogance. They believe they have the right to do whatever the hell they want. Screw the laws, they don't apply, "We're Microsoft! We're special!" In reality, that's been true. So they were declared an illegal monopoly. So what happened to them? Basically, not a god damn thing. The courts told them to take a 10 minute time-out in the corner, and let them off after only 5 minutes. So of course Microsoft thinks they can do anything they want, because they have been getting away with doing anything they want. Microsoft is incapable of believing the normal rules apply to them. And the more they get away with shit, the more firmly entrenched they will be in this belief and these kinds of kinds of actions.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Since this is an open standard, how could it possibly restrain competition? Clearly you do not understand how magnimus Microsoft is being in sharing this wonderful document with all of us.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
> Anyone able to translate this into normal-speak?
:-)
Anyone who lost money because of Microsoft pushing OOXML by ballot-stuffing a standards organization might be able to sue Microsoft for whatever amount they lost. And it doesn't matter if the ballot-stuffing was legal per the rules of the standards organization, it's still bad.
In even simpler terms:
* Microsoft has just given people a reason to sue them.
* Competitors like IBM just might do so, especially after Microsoft funded SCO.
* Fireworks ahead?
Note that IANAL so this translation may contain subtle flaws. I don't speak for anyone except myself, and I have no idea if anyone will actually sue over this. I'm just speculating based on the content of this story. If you need legal advice, get a lawyer. By reading or transmitting this message, you agree not to sue me. Hey, it's worth a shot
... but I couldn't make any sense of it at all. The summary mentions recent irregularities, but those aren't detailed at all. And the rest of it is incoherent, like the content it links to.
In summary: Please avoid relaying submissions to blog entries, by the blogger who wrote them, without making sure they're not stark raving unreadable. Is there some kind of news buried here about MS's activities on the Swedish OOXML vote? Maybe - but I can't tell from this garbage.
We needed your NO vote. Microsoft has won their battle by removing your vote entirely, which is probably not what you intended.
Sincerely,
The rest of the (still) Free World.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Sure but nothing will actually support it, and those products that do support it will support it in a half-baked, crippled way. MS always used to make sure Word could read WordPerfect documents perfectly, but couldn't create them worth a darn. Expect this type of behavior to continue.
Office 2007 does not even have working support of older M$ formats. Footnote numbering is broken if you save OOXML to WORD.DOC and macros are broken between versions of Excel. I expect to hear similar things powerpoint and other formats as a few foolish people around me continue their Office 2007 trial. As usual, data goes in but does not come out and you can't really co-operate with people who are not on the same point release.
This is stunning behavior, even for M$. A reasonable XML format should support all previous version behavior perfectly because the internal representation does not have to change. The transition should be easier than any previous M$ Office "upgrade" but it is in fact worse than others. For all of their bluster, they have not lived up to the 6,000 pages of specs they are now trying to force on the world as an ISO standard. Un-Fucking-Believable.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I think you misunderstand. This case is about stuffing a standards body full of your partners, not about bribing them. In fact, it wouldn't matter if you didn't bribe them at all, so long as you influenced them to join.
...
Given that Microsoft partners have been joining in MANY countries, and that 40+ countries have suddenly become interested in voting for OOXML in the ISO, you have to feel like this global campaign isn't the work of just one man in Microsoft (even if the bribe email was)
But that's just me. What the hell do I know?
we just called it bribeing
There is no sovereignty in the "post-9/11 world"...
Google for NAFTA-Plus for an example.
Or research Australia's history. Australia lost its sovereignty to the US 32 years ago.
you had me at #!
It's not arrogance, if it's accurate. The worst that could happen to msft is that they have to pay a fine, or pay a settlement.
Since msft has $30 Billion in the bank, what do they care?
Who says the American system doesn't blaze trails? M$ knows this bullshit flies in the US, so why not try it in Sveeeden? It's a helluva lot easier to find an honest mechanic than a politician who serves the public interest. Kudos for nullifying the "sullied" vote, though. Too bad the special interests have all the power in Washington...
As I was reading, I half expected the lawsuit to be "ALLIED TUBE & CONDUIT CORP. v. INTERNATIONAL BIG TRUCK INC."
The only vote stacking going on is the 40+ countries changing their status to "P" so they can vote, and all the National Bodies who have suddenly doubled in membership.
All to vote YES on the standard. Read Groklaw, or even Slashdot's own summary, this pattern has been documented in at least a dozen countries and none of them are being stacked with no votes.
Anyhow, Microsoft *could* just fix the standard. They *could* harmonize it with ODF (not "OpenDoc" which is a completely different standard). But they won't. What's that tell you?
That's fun to imagine, but you know that no M$ employee could do something so out of bounds. We've seen the months of effort it takes to get approval for anything in the story of M$'s entry to web search and in Joe's Excel work. Both decisions were overseen by Bill Gates himself along with lots of other brass. We've also seen what happens to ordinary employees who write something wrong in their blog.
In this case, it's clearly a concerted effort. Weir points out similar outrageous and crazy behavior from M$ reps in several other parts of the world. The ballot stuffing, public official lobby, smear atacks, back room maneuvering and ooxml itself represent a desperate attempt to remain relevant in an increasingly standards based and free software world. They are pouring all of their effort and bile into it. Dealing with them is increasingly unpleasant and the backlash is growing.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
That case led to the enactment of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The scandal also brought down Kakuei Tanaka's (then Japanese primer) govt.
You don't have to be lawyer to know these things. My training is in engineering - and this is a well known case study in Engineering Ethics.
Never had a brush with Engineering Ethics in college? No? Not to worry, neither have the overlords at Microsoft.
IMHO, the author was being sarcastic. Nobody in their right mind would call that a believable position :-).
Insert
No - Microsoft's problem is that, for a company which has historically enjoyed a near-total monopoly in the office software market, any competition would decimate their turnover - and any executive that presides over that will be looking at a serious blot on their copybook.
We live in a world where the dice in the stock market's crap game is a company's rate of growth (if not the rate of increase of growth): if your employer makes record profits this year, that means they are under huge pressure to make even more profit next year or their growth will have stalled and all their stock-speculating friends will desert them (which is why the boss gets a big bonus and you get outsourced).
Its hard enough for a monopoly to achieve continuous growth, let alone exponential growth, and to allow a reduction in your turnover is a complete no-no. Microsoft executives are in a cleft stick between monopoly regulations and their solemn duty as a company to make their shareholders as rich as Croesus.
This is not capitalism - it is the second derivative of capitalism.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
"In the wake of the exposure of Microsoft's attempt to buy Sweden's vote..."
"He quotes ALLIED TUBE & CONDUIT CORP. v. INDIAN HEAD, INC., 486 U.S. 492"
Isn't it bad form around here to call for the application of US laws to acts committed in other countries? Or do we only say that about copyright laws?
If there are anti-trust laws violated here, they should be Swedish or EU laws.
Could you provide enough info for a google? And another example or two? As an American, I've got reason to wonder about what kind of stupidity the Bush Administration is releasing into the world in our names.
Tech Public Policy stuff
[nothing else to say, Slashdot insists on text here]
Tech Public Policy stuff