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.
According to TFA, the ban would only last five years. That's an apt punishment for Microsoft- other vendors and possibly open source contributers gain five years of experience supporting an "exclusive" market. As well, Microsoft might actually learn how to play nicely with the rest of the software world, and to compete fairly and deal honestly- competing more with innovation and excellence, rather than trying to subvert and corrupt everything around them.
(/me crossing fingers)
1. Candidates or tenderers shall be excluded from participation in a procurement procedure if:
(a) they are bankrupt or being wound up, are having their affairs administered by the courts, have entered into an arrangement with creditors, have suspended business activities, are the subject of proceedings concerning those matters, or are in any analogous situation arising from a similar procedure provided for in national legislation or regulations;
(b) they have been convicted of an offence 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;
(d) they have not fulfilled obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions or the payment of taxes in accordance with the legal provisions of the country in which they are established or with those of the country of the contracting authority or those of the country where the contract is to be performed;
(e) they have been the subject of a judgment which has the force of res judicata for fraud, corruption, involvement in a criminal organisation or any other illegal activity detrimental to the Communities' financial interests;
(f) following another procurement procedure or grant award procedure financed by the Community budget, they have been declared to be in serious breach of contract for failure to comply with their contractual obligations.
2. Candidates or tenderers must certify that they are not in one of the situations listed in paragraph 1. But that is not a mandatory for all EU states, it is only mandatory for EU institutions and some member states. But even that is a pretty massive lump of the EU market and would sting like hell (the ban would be for 5 years). Not only that but imagine the resources turned onto moving from MS to Open source solutions. It could end MS as a major player in the EU institutions and that would knock on into the private sector.
Not to mention the added bonus of all that cash heading into European projects like KDE and linux instead of overseas.
Not sure what the American Gov would think of it though...
Where do you come up with this magic "EU is half of the size of the US business market" number? Where do you derive at this information? According to wiki, EU and US GDP are practically equal.
Anyway, it's the other way around about your statement. It's "who is corrupt enough to be bought off by MS to cancel this", not the other way around. Meanwhile, if MS even tries to cancel this it will backfire on them bigtime (antitrust round 3 anyone?). I'd say that this is pretty much guaranteed although the bigger question is how to enforce existing contracts through that duration and also the question of if the countries in the EU will have the balls to follow through on this.
Not to be totally ad hominem, but where is your incorrect logic coming from? The situation here is the exact opposite of what you posted, and coincides with your signature. WTF?
It's like one of those spam letters with a philosophical message at the bottom.
Finally Regan's trickle down theory with practical applications. Go EU prove Regan right for once.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.