Slashdot Mirror
Should Microsoft Be Excluded From EU Government Sales?
David Gerard writes "From Groklaw: Heidi Rühle, a Green Party MEP, has presented a question regarding whether or not Microsoft should be considered as having failed to fulfill the conditions to participate in public procurement procedures in Europe, as laid out in Article 93(b) and (c) of Financial Regulation — '(b) they have been convicted of an offense concerning their professional conduct by a judgment which has the force of res judicata; (c) they have been guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which the contracting authority can justify' — and the Commission anti-trust penalty just happens to fulfill both of those conditions." The EU Commission is required to respond within 6 weeks to such a question from a member of Parliament.
They're basically a criminal organisation according to EU law. I don't want to deal with an organisation that habitually breaks the law.
-- Cheers!
After all it's a political party, and they must have more on their agenda than environmental and health issues.
Not every green party member can be minister for environment and/or health.
Not really...The issue here is whether or not the EU as an administration should order products/licenses from Microsoft.
The issue isn't whether or not Microsoft can do business in the EU. The European union bureaucracy is huge, but not that huge.
As an European and an user of open source products I don't support this proposition.
Microsoft has been punished already. Time to move on. Microsoft is already facing serious competitions and its dominant position looks less invicible than it used to be.
Leftists such as this green party are taking it as an easy ideological shot against big companies (they hate them). I don't support that.Technically/Financially Open Source is the way forward for public services. But if Microsoft can prove that their products are objectively better for an administration, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be used.
But this shouldn't be about punishment. It's about who you want to do business with. I don't think any government should buy licenses from a software company that's been found guilty of manipulating the software industry. If you can't play by the rules you shouldn't be allowed to play at all.
Developers: We can use your help.
Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law to become the "best choice" by introducing artificial problems with competing products. It's the same issue as "should the government sign a contract with a concrete supplier who has the lowest price, but also has been repeatedly convicted of blowing of their competitors' factories and hiding bodies in the concrete they sell." According to the laws, no the EU should not be giving contract to either MS or this hypothetical concrete supplier.
Who is going to benifit the most from this, and what is the connection to this group?It doesn't matter who benefits the most. The idea is for the the EU people to benefit by discouraging criminal acts that are harmful to them. If anyone else benefits, it is incidental.
Is there an eu msft that they are trying to shepard[sic] to the big time, or is it simple corruption?Umm, I don't even understand what question you're trying to ask.
Who wins with MS out of the picture?The people of the EU win.