Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lobbying Could Cause Legal Trouble for Microsoft

Posted by Zonk on from the keep-it-above-board-maybe dept.

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.'"

8 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Normal-speak version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    > 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 :-)

  2. The trap continues, even for their own formats. by Erris · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:The trap continues, even for their own formats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not true- I worked at a company where it was company policy that older versions of the software be able to open files written by the latest version (as far as humanly possible). It's not hard to do if you plan for it from the beginning, although at some point the file sizes get large because you're duplicating a lot of information. This was for the educational market, where clients could (and would) be running a mix of versions of the software on an equally varied mix of machines, some of them quite old.

  3. Re:I tried to read that blog entry... by marcosdumay · · Score: 3, Informative

    As always, Groklaw comes to the rescue.

    I also recommend reading the top page for info what is happening at other countries.

    --
    Rethinking email
  4. Re:US laws apply to overseas behavior by Darth · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you are talking about he guys picked up for having previously been involved in banking for online casinos, I'm pretty sure they weren't extradited. They were picked up on U.S. soil in an airport while making a connection on a trip.

    (it is still a stupid law and it was a stupid arrest, but it did happen on U.S. soil)

    --
    Darth --
    Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
  5. Just one guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    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?

  6. Re:Service please? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

    Of course they generally leave with obscene heaps of cash in their bags, and get on somewhere else after a nice vacation, and maybe write a book about it.

    Yeah ... and then they go on the lecture circuit and make even more heaps of cash, at which point some other sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Hcorporation hires them. Really, it's beyond belief what goes on in those circles.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  7. Re:US laws apply to overseas behavior by Bloater · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nono, these guys were in the UK and did something legal in the UK (allegedly - which seems to be supported by the fact that they weren't tried for breaking British law) but were arrested and extradited to the US because the US forbids what they did. Simply put, the US laws apply to the UK, the UK is a jurisdiction of the USA - if they ban it in the USA you must also not do it in the UK or you could be lifted.