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"
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)
Thousands of EU ministries and departments applying for waivers because the ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE Powerpoint for them to continue in their vital work.
/.'er but I don't think destroyed would be very good for IT - it's competition the market needs, not replacing one heterogeny (Windows) with another (Unix, albeit in a number of guises).
I think it goes rather deeper than that.
Where you have entire IT departments which are used to doing 90% of their work (desktop AND server) on Microsoft products, the effort and expense of suddenly discovering that Microsoft products are now verboten for new systems would be rather more than most could realistically bear.
I'm as interested in seeing Microsoft's position weakened as the next rabid
I'd say we all win when a strong message is sent to large corporations that says "we will not tolerate illegal behavior from you, and we will stand by this principle even if this means we must make some sacrifices". It's called having a spine. Ideally the goal is not necessarily to get MS out of the picture (unless they refuse to reform their business practices, that is) but to get this kind of behavior out of the picture.
"Nothing that you sell is so good or so vital that we will put up with your abuses in order to purchase it" is an attitude that I wish were more widespread. How this plays out and whether that message is actually sent will be interesting indeed.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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"
I would imagine that the exclusion would follow standard public procurement procedures within the EU, whereby Microsoft would be excluded from applying for public tenders because they weren't compliant with existing regulations.
Where they are already in place, they would not need to apply for tenders. If new departments etc came into existence, then they could use other presentation software and would have budgets for training etc.
So basically Microsoft wouldn't be able to grow their existing base, until they sorted out their compliance. But current users of their software would be unaffected.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
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.
...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
Well said. I mean, come on... public money vs. convicted criminal organisation... it doesn't take a lot of ethics to work out that Microsoft products shouldn't be bought by our governments.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
You do realize that MS is under threat of being banned for the crime of undermining the free market and using criminal actions to make competing products artificially worse, right? How exactly would removing them from bidding on a subset of new contracts for the next 5 years negatively impact competition? There are still dozens of companies with solutions that could bid and compete with one another fairly. In fact, companies that have not bothered investing in those markets and competing because they knew it would result in very poor ROI, would now have financial incentive to invest in competing solutions. I really don't see how you think this would negatively effect competition.
Of course Microsoft could be engaged in underhanded tactics (vis ISO standardization of Office Open XML..).
Microsoft has been engaged in underhanded tactics and after years and years of slow court proceedings they were convicted. The law says that certain government agencies should not give new contracts to companies convicted in this manner for 5 years in order to insure that companies that have been following the law have a chance to compete, instead of having to go up against a company who may be winning contracts solely because their criminal actions have allowed them to undercut others or otherwise prevent them from providing a bid on projects.
I'd like to think that Microsoft's ubiquity may very well have raised the bar/baseline for many different software products.
You'd like to think that? Why? Most software products follow the standard market model. Investors look at a market and potential ROI. They then invest in the markets they think will provide the best ROI. When one company has a huge influence in a market, that allows them to use that influence to break compatibility with others, thereby introducing an artificial problem with that competitor. This means the "monopolist" can make more money with less effort to compete. It also means investors looking at the market see that investing in that market will have to account for trying to work around these artificial compatibility problems in addition to other costs, and at the same time they will always have a very well funded competitor who can take a loss in the short term to undercut them on cost. In short, very few companies invest in those markets and fewer products and innovations result. This is one of the main reasons why antitrust abuse was banned in the first place. It slows down innovation in a market, not speeds it up. I think you have a very wrongheaded idea as to what influence MS has had on markets. Think 8 years after the invention of tabbed browsing before most users saw it. Think 18 years since the first desktop OS to introduce spell checking for all applications, and 90% of users still don't have it.
Ubiquity of the (somewhat decent, I guess) baseline bundled Windows Mediaplayer results in raising the bar in competing media players (iTunes, Winamp?, etc.)
Are you joking? The top two media players are shipped by companies who bundle them with products they have a monopoly or near monopoly on. What does that say about the quality of the players themselves? They aren't competing based upon the merits of the players, but upon the relative popularity of Windows and iPods respectively. For years most users who tried ripping their CD collection put CDs into their computer, told it to rip them, then discovered it had ripped to WMA format and added DRM to prevent them from copying it to any other device, including the most popular portable player. Then consumers had to install different software or figure out how to change the settings and do it all over again. That is not quality. That is the epitome of a really, really poorly made piece of software dominating despite being horribly inferior, and pe
Ya see, it's that last line that I'm worried about. I don't think they do.
That is certainly a valid opinion, if one I don't share and question your ability to support.
One of the big things that open source offered to me was choice. Whether it's the megacorp, the small company, or open source. Which ever I chose to use. Restricting choice in any way is a bad thing.
And it's that last line which I have issues with. Is restricting say, the choice of people to give large cash contracts to people who recently murdered their wives a bad thing? What we're discussing here is not a matter of one company being favored over another. All companies have to abide by the same laws. MS broke the laws and like anyone else who did that, they have to deal with numerous ramifications of that. People convicted of treason and espionage may be banned by law from serving in the military. Taking that choice away from the military is not necessarily a bad thing. This is the government we're talking about, not a private company. Unlike private companies, they are subject to all sorts of rules regarding their behavior because they exist only to serve the people.
Here's the other thing I'm scared of, tying into the first argument. A couple of my friend working in IT over in europe (one in London, one in France (can't remember his city's name :)) on two separate occasions have said "we need this not to go too much further" in reference to the EU's actions on MS. They are starting to feel like it's just the EU is turning this into a publicity stunt instead of a judicial action.
I think that's a very common feeling. It is my belief that very few people understand antitrust abuse, why it is a crime, and how it works. After a hundred years of living under laws that make antitrust abuse illegal, most people simply assume all markets are functioning free, capitalist ones and don't even understand that there are alternatives. When competing products are artificially broken via antitrust abuse, most people blame the victim, not understanding the mechanism of antitrust abuse. When one, successful company is punished for an action and people don't understand how monopolies can be abused, they often don't even understand how that action differs from legal behaviors by other companies. Certainly very few people look at the big picture of how free trade works in a regulated capitalist market to ensure continued innovation and lower prices. They take innovation and the relatively low costs for granted and while they may have some vague understanding that extreme socialism is "bad" and resulted in disaster in some parts of the world, they don't understand how or why or equate antitrust abuse to causing those very same deficiencies in their own economy.
I apologize for getting long winded. The truth is, a lot of people feel that the EU's actions may be "bad" but at the same time very few of those people understand the reasons and very few have had to live with the terrible conditions the lack of those laws created in the past. (Cue the quote about those who do not understand history.)
Lastly, and this is perhaps the most depressing part, I'm seeing more people yelling "yeah, take that MS" when someone else legislates against microsoft instead of focusing their energy on making software that is unquestionably the better choice.
That is a very interesting choice of words. You said, "legislates against microsoft." Has any law been passed that applies to Microsoft and not everyone else? Nope. No one has legislated against Microsoft, they've just enforced existing laws against Microsoft because Microsoft built thier entire business model on breaking laws and then tying things up in the courts and paying fines and settlements, which they plan on being smaller than the cash they make from breaking the law in the first place. To date, they've been completely correct. The courts are horribly slow and ineffici
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.