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.'"

Comments

Isn't it a bit presumptuous...

[iamacat]

to quote a US law in a swedish case? There is a little matter of sovereignty.

Re:Isn't it a bit presumptuous...

[vidarh]

It's not a "swedish case". Its about how a US corporation or its subsidiaries behavior in Sweden might make it liable under US anti-trust laws in the US because the actions in Sweden might be aimed at affecting the competitive landscape in the US to.

It's clearly for US courts to decide if a US corporation affects the US competitive landscape.

ho hum

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately for us lowly citizens, US law only *theoretically* applies to Microsoft.

Re:Service please?

[Ajehals]

Oh that's handy, so if I get a lower level employee, say a junior manager to do all those illegal things I have thought about doing then that's OK?

Whoever received the communication that Microsoft apologised for seemed to think that the communication was official, that is all that should matter. Organisations need to have some some responsibilities (isn't that what corporate responsibility and due diligence is supposed to be all about?) When it comes to agreements or communications between organisations all parties need to be happy that what is being communicated is the official line, otherwise any organisation could pull out of any agreement they feel is no longer beneficial (a sale, a purchase a contact etc..) by simply claiming that by some fluke the person who negotiated didn't get it right.

IBM??

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:Service please?

[Danse]

I'm pretty sure that low-level employees don't get to go around promising money for things without management approval. Nobody, especially someone working for Microsoft, is that dumb. Someone in management there approved this. Microsoft's explanation is ridiculous.

what's all this about ?

[edxwelch]

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?

Re:what's all this about ?

[nuzak]

> Even if OOXML gets approved for ISO don't we still have a choice? Won't ODF still be there?

Sure, but will government offices with public records use it? No, they'll choose the "standard".

Frankly, I don't think OOXML is all that satanic, nor is ODF all that perfect, but the latter is definitely more focused on an actual document format rather than encoding all the goofy idiosyncratic semantics of an office app with XML tags. And MS's behavior is definitely not above board here.

Re:what's all this about ?

[MMC Monster]

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? What's the point of a standard when there is a multiplicity of them? The amount of work required to create an OOXML-compliant office suite could probably be used to better the ODF standard (or at least implement it better). If the same people have to implement two different standards for the same software, either one of the standards will not be implemented as well, or less features will be available in the software since the programmer had to waste time with an extra data format.

Re:what's all this about ?

[jesterzog]

Even if OOXML gets approved for ISO don't we still have a choice?

I don't know about you, but I certainly won't. Organisations and governments everywhere will choose to use OOXML on the basis that it's an approved ISO standard. People who pay for Microsoft products will be fine (in the short an medium term, at least). Everyone who doesn't will be screwed.

Standards organisations such as the ISO exist to consider standards seriously so that other organisations don't have to, and a lot of trust is put in them. At a time when standards are finally coming to be seen as important by many organisations, Microsoft is trying to make a mockery of the standards-creation process, undermining the ISO and all its stakeholders so it can keep itself on top without actually providing a real, genuine standard.

Arrogance

[rossz]

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.

Re:Arrogance

[Kazoo the Clown]

Actually, the main problem with Microsoft is that they have absolutely no confidence in their own ability to compete. They are desperately looking for some way to cheat the system in order to win. It's rather pathetic, really, as any company that had any confidence in itself would simply use that confidence with some backbone and produce a high quality product that people would prefer to use.

The movement to Linux isn't because it's cheaper. The movement to Linux is because it's better-- in particular, because it doesn't try to bundle stuff in that you don't need and don't want simply because the developer wants extra lock-ins, subscription payments or is getting payola to add DRM from media companies. Linux is better because it leaves control over your computer system in your hands. The marketplace would often pay extra for such capabilities-- the fact that Linux is low cost is mostly irrelevant to its success. In the early days of the PC, many corporations didn't know much about computers and trusted companies like Microsoft out of their ignorance, and because the risk was relatively low. Now however, their entire business is running on computers and they now realize that trusting the future of such a critical resource can no longer be left in the hands of others-- they require the control that Linux can give them and Microsoft refuses to.

Microsoft's only way out of this mess is to let go of the OS and focus on products that will run on Linux or other open environments. They'll be dragged kicking and screaming into that though, as they've seen the OS as their core competency (obviously why they have no confidence in themselves-- as it's actually become their core incompetency). It'll happen eventually, as the OS is nothing but an application delivery system and as such must be as fully open and empowering as any common carrier. Microsoft was blindsided by the Internet, and even more so by the need for the open OS-- so much so that they're still blind to its critical importance to the future of computing.

Dear Sweden...

[Nom du Keyboard]

Dear Sweden,

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.

Re:It's an *IBM* guy saying this...

[khb]

Assuming that the reason Rob knows this case law is because IBM's lawyers are discussing it is ... specious. If Rob is involved (or ever has been involved) in a formal Standards process (e.g. served as an ANSI officer) he probably got a briefing (I did when I was ;>). Various bits of arcane anti-trust trivia are shot at the poor volunteer, in the attempt to ensure that a handful of someones in the room during deliberations have a clue as to what is, and what is not legitimate discourse. Otherwise ANSI would lose it's special standing (which permits competitors to meet "safely" in terms of Anti-Trust. This is, of course, purely US experience ... but many other countries have similar systems.

This is just one o many ways that Rob could have been exposed to such things sans IBM lawyer involvement.

Re:US laws apply to overseas behavior

[Bloater]

US law extends over most of the world, they just normally can't arrest you until you set foot on US soil - and microsoft is in seattle right now.

If you're unlucky enough to live in the UK, for the last few years you've had to understand US law to avoid being arrested here just doing normal everyday things. Three top bank managers were extradited not long ago for engaging in business practices from the UK that are legal to engage in under British law but illegal under US law. The UK is the 51st state - other countries are the same.

Re:just a thought

[ozmanjusri]

isn't that kind of the idea of competition? restrain the competition.

No, the idea of competition is to produce a better product than everyone else so the customers will buy yours in preference.

Anything which restricts the customers' ability to switch between products (format lockin, leveraging existing monopoly platforms, predatory pricing, OEM penalties, etc) is anticompetitive and should be prevented.