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.
The real question here is, how much would the necessary bribe be, and who is corrupt enough in the EU Commission to push this through for MSFT?
Also, will the next big US war be in the UK?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
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!
Wait, what are we talking about ?
...
I heard "Microsoft" and "exclude from"
Lets suppose MS is "banned" from selling to the EU. Expect
1) MS to sell it's products through "resellers".
2) Thousands of EU ministries and departments applying for waivers because the ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE Powerpoint for them to continue in their vital work.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
If Microsoft wasn't the best choice, why elminate them from the process?
Who is going to benifit the most from this, and what is the connection to this group?
Is there an eu msft that they are trying to shepard to the big time, or is it simple corruption?
Who wins with MS out of the picture?
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...
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.
Using GNU/Linux on older hardware is more than feasible.
Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.
Differently than in the U.S. most EU parlamentarians don't have an individual mandate, but are sent to the parliament by their party, which has to win the necessary seats in the parliament in the elections (so called list mandates).
So, Heidi Ruehle (if you don't have Umlauts, use 'ue' instead) doesn't have individual campaign contributors, more to the contrary, the rules of the Green Party demand a strict differentiation between "being in office" and "having a mandate".
they are not talking of banning ALL Microsoft products! They are talking about barring Microsoft from Future tenders. The current contracts will be fulfilled, just no new ones will be accepted. Which I think is a good thing. It would provide a slow change over from Closed source OS to an Open source OS. As for the "Green" Aspect: how much of the worlds carabon foot print is caused by Tech support running around trying to Fix Windows BSoD's? and general buggines?
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
Environment? It's commonly accepted knowledge around here that later versions of MS operating systems require beefier hardware and upgrades than certain darling competitors. (I'm running modern versions of Ubuntu on computers my workplace was throwing out.)
That's increased power, more equipment that has to be recycled (lest it be landfilled), and more goverment money that could be spent on an environmental or human health program that instead goes into the pockets of an American Corporation.
To be honest, it's actually a rule that should be followed, not some stupid play for power and media attention. Those convicted of abusing their power aren't eligible for government contracts.
You're missing the point. Being a monopoly isn't necessarily a bad thing. Abusing a monopoly, however, is a BAD thing and also illegal. Microsoft could have quite happily played along with the law and been a monopoly, but they chose to disregard the law and abuse their advantage in one market to gain advantages in other markets.
Looks can be deceiving. I think excluding a source of solutions (as bad as we claim it is, regardless) could have a negative impact on the market and competitive. Of course Microsoft could be engaged in underhanded tactics (vis ISO standardization of Office Open XML..). I'd like to think that Microsoft's ubiquity may very well have raised the bar/baseline for many different software products.
Ubiquity of the (somewhat decent, I guess) baseline bundled Windows Mediaplayer results in raising the bar in competing media players (iTunes, Winamp?, etc.) Ubiquity of Internet Explorer results in stronger browser competition (Firefox, Opera, etc.). Microsoft makes noises like it's going to compete in other areas like web design products and you see companies like Adobe (attempt to) shore up their products to stay ahead of the baseline (Microsoft). I suppose you could throw office products in there as well, but Microsoft has that market so well cornered like that with its OS...and standards are an issue..
My point is this, Microsoft may be the devil, but the ubiquity of its (sometimes bad) products has resulted in a marketplace with competing products that are better than Microsoft products because they MUST be in order to compete. I'm not saying this is entirely due to Microsoft's presence, but it has definitely been a key factor in application progression over the past ~10-20 years.
For these reasons, I think removing Microsoft from this position could result in stagnation in some areas of application progression and improvement. Then again maybe it won't. Maybe other solutions are to the point that removing Microsoft from the picture completely won't affect much of anything. Regardless, I don't think that this is a decision that needs to be taken lightly in order to pander to constituents (politicians are amazing at pandering).
...or are most people blind to the fact that just about every corporation out there today (and yesterday) had participated in monopolistic behavior at some point. I can name off quite a bit, so do all these too need to be banned from doing business?? Lol, Let who is without Sin be the first to throw a Stone!
A crime is still a crime, even if lots of other people are doing it too. Abuses of monopoly positions are detrimental to competitors and customers - why shouldn't action be taken to prevent it?
And yes, other corporations currently abusing their position (and ignoring court rulings telling them to stop) should get the same treatment.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Your complaint makes no sense. Elected officials should be enforcing *ALL* the rules, not just a few that helped get them elected.
No sig for you!!
/start offtopic rant
/end offtopic rant
While I don't label myself as Republican or Democrat (mainly because I share views that exist in both the extreme left and the extreme right), I do NOT want McCain getting into the white house. Too many ties to current politicians, to many years of "experience" to get corrupted. Reduced education budget (which is a big concern for me since my girlfriend is a teacher), excitement about continuing to pump billions into a country most of us will never even see while our own country is falling apart...basically having many of the same opinions and plans as what we have had for the past 8 years.
We do NOT need to give Bush another term under a different name. Likewise, we don't need someone like Hillary Clinton occupying the white house...she shares many of the same views as Obama, but she is dangerous...I think she would do us more harm then good, if for nothing else other than because of her pride and sense of entitlement.
We need Obama in the White House. It kind of pains me to say that, because I disagree with most of his opinions on the big issues, but he is the right one.
1. He has the LEAST amount of experience, meaning he would be more willing to take risks and try things others wouldn't. He would also likely be more willing to take advice from others.
2. When he speaks you feel as if he is speaking directly to you. Some of the stuff he says may be cliche, but being able to connect to the citizens of the country that way is vital.
3. He is a complete opposite of what we have had.. I don't know about you, but I am EXTREMELY pissed off at what has happened to my country recently. In the past 20 years or so, we have gone from being the worlds strongest, richest, and one of the most respected nations out there to being the annoying friend everyone else in the world wants to go away...but we have a sweet car and buy free drinks for everyone, so we are allowed to stick around.
Screw that. Like I said, I don't agree with many of his policies and opinions, but I still think Obama is the right one for the job because he lacks experience, can connect to the common middle-classer, and is a far step away from who we have had recently.
Living With a Nerd
Microsoft has repeatedly shown that they really don't give a damn about rules. They are for everybody except Microsoft. Laws... The same thing.
Regarding Ethics, Morals, etc. Those are for wimps. These are not in the Microsoft vocabulary.
Microsoft expects to violate every norm of civilized society in order to maintain their market position. The world be damned.
It appears that only the EU has the balls to stand up to Microsoft and try and make them behave. Will it work? I doubt it but, it is making Microsoft stand up and notice. I see that MS has just released well over 50,000 pages of secret programming info to the EU so maybe (very small maybe) something good may come of this.
I really don't understand why any company needs to corrupt society as much as Microsoft does to maintain their position. Wouldn't it be cheaper to do provide a superior product honestly?
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
They're not suggesting that they can't carry on using existing software (ie. migrating away from MS), merely that they can't buy NEW software from MS.
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
This is the same Bush who imposed crippling tariffs on European steel firms to protect American firms? And who suddenly saw the importance of free trade once the EU imposed sanctions on the products of several swing states just before the election?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
And you'd be wrong.... I thought this too, up until I talked about it with a real Frenchman. This rule had been introduced in the times of the typewriter where it wasn't possible to make uppercase accentuated letters. The académie française changed that later because nobody uses typewriters anymore and computers can actually do it. You're now supposed to use accents, even in the uppercase form.
Leave the big ones, like Great Britain, for the US to buy.
Have gnu, will travel.
If Heidi had been a member of a German conservative party and had been asking whether or not it was right for the EU to use Open Source Software, then I would indeed wonder who her campaign contributers were, seeing as these days it's mainly Microsoft that would stand to gain from such a measure.
However, seeing as she is actually a member of a more left wing party and her proposal only stands to disadvantage the software market's 800-pound gorilla, I seriously doubt that she's receiving any extraordinary monetary compensation for her efforts in this case.
So, you seem understand the principle of how campaign contributions can influence politicians, but have succeeded in applying it in exactly the wrong way; kind of like putting the left shoe on the right foot.
You forget that the USA population is growing
;-)
Yep, but as it's mostly around the waistline that they're growing, they'll all be dead of obesity-related illnesses by the time they're 40
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Actually, the population of the EU is increasing. Fast. We may not be doing an awful lot of breeding, but look at those borders go! We're the only major power on earth with an active policy of territorial expansion.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Actually, odd as it may seem both Austria and Greece support Turkey joining the EU. It appears all is forgiven. Awww, Bless those Europeans eh?
USA - 2033 - 0 survivors.
EUR - 2033 - 0 survivors.
China - 2033 - 4 Billion.
Obviously, we need to make a bigger bomb, so we can get that all down to zero. That way, it will be:
USA - 2033 - 0 survivors.
EUR - 2033 - 0 survivors.
China - 2033 - 0 survivors.
Falkland Islands - 4 billion people.
This is my sig.
Balance of power. The EU used to be dominated by France and Germany. They formed a voting bloc that almost always got its way, by sheer weight of population and hence voting rights; the other four founding nations, Italy and the three Low Countries tended to go along. Later Britain and Spain and a number of smaller nations joined and the power balance shifted a little, but not really enough to dislodge the old central axis most of the time. Now half of the old Warsaw Pact is in, and Poland in particular has a very big block of votes and is awfully friendly with Britain (home to something like half a million Polish expats). Power has very much shifted towards the periphery.
Now we propose to bring in Turkey. They would be the most populous state in the Union. They'd be more powerful than either France or Germany. C'est intolérable!
Oh, and if Turkey joins then all those 'guest workers' in Germany who've been second-class for decades get full citizenship rights on the spot. And the EU gets to have a border on Iraq, which is plainly about to sink into the most horrible sort of a civil war.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Money aside, I thought the Russians suffered the highest death toll?