Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Makes EU Dispute Docs Public
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Feb 24, 2006 01:15 PM
from the what-was-this-all-about dept.
from the what-was-this-all-about dept.
mjdroner writes "ZDNet is reporting that Microsoft has posted confidential documents used in its defense of European Commission antitrust practices related to server software. Explaining the posting of the documents, which the EC considers confidential, a Microsoft rep said, 'Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Microsoft Source Code Still Not Enough for EU? 337 comments
wjsteele writes "The BBC is reporting that Microsoft's offer to allow rivals access to its software blueprint may not be enough to prevent European Union action." From the article: "Its offer to open up its software blueprints 'underscored its commitment' to meet the European Commission's demands, Horacio Gutierrez associate general counsel for Microsoft Europe said in a statement. However, Brussels has warned the offer may not go far enough. 'It would be premature to conclude that offering access to source codes would necessarily resolve the problem of compliance," said EU anti-trust spokesman Jonathan Todd.'
[+]
Microsoft Accuses European Union of Collusion 265 comments
GarbagePailKid wrote to mention the news that Microsoft has filed a formal complaint alleging that the EU colluded with company rivals and hid critical documents during the EU regulation hearings. According to Microsoft: "While the documents provided do not include the direct correspondence between the commission and its technical experts, they show that the commission, the trustee, and Microsoft's adversaries were secretly collaborating throughout the fall of 2005 in a manner inconsistent with the commission's role as neutral regulator and the Trustee's role as independent monitor..."
[+]
Microsoft To Appeal EU Decision 237 comments
An anonymous reader writes "News.com has an article on Microsoft's upcoming appeal of the EU antitrust decision. Their argument is essentially that they shouldn't be penalized for becoming successful in a marketplace." From the article: "Microsoft relies on the fact that its communication protocols are technologically innovative and are covered by intellectual-property rights ... [the company] had designed its Windows server operating systems from the outset to interoperate with non-Microsoft server operating systems"
[+]
EU Prepared to Fine Microsoft $2.5 Million Per Day 659 comments
Lord_Slepnir writes "The European Union is unsatisfied with Microsoft's compliance with their anti-trust compliance from 2004, and is preparing to fine them 2 million Euros ($2.5m US) per day until they comply. Under that ruling, Microsoft must open up parts of their operating system to competitors, and change how they bundle Media Player." From the article: "On Monday, Microsoft said it had begun to provide the information Brussels had demanded, but the Commission has signaled the company acted too late. In December, Brussels informed the software giant that it had failed to comply with the original ruling it issued in March 2004."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
ask a billion people (Score:5, Interesting)
If you can't get the opinion or results you want from the commission, throw it out to the public and see if you can generate a groundswell of support.
I think this is what Microsoft hopes to do. I doubt they'll succeed.
From The Fine Article (emphasis mine):
The commission isn't buying Microsoft's protest, the "buying" public won't either.
What's interesting though is just in sheer numbers, Microsoft will find empathy, support, and voices to support their claim they're being treated unfairly.
Fool me once, shame on you (Score:2)
Is that the answer you seek, Troll?
You owe me three oreo cookies and a session of answering trolls.
The quality of trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from that, Microsoft has burnt zillions of people zillions of times. It is their corporate culture. Anyone who doubts that is beyond belief and beyond relief. Anyone who asks why this particular action, or any action, by Microsoft is seen in a less than favourable light is either so wet behind the ears as to be drowning, or a troll; when was the last announcement by Microsoft that was anything but disingenuous? Since drowning people are seldom found pecking away naive questions on keyboards, it is a pretty safe bet that we are dealing with a troll.
Parent
Re:Fool me once, shame on you (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Two can play at that game... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Two can play at that game... (Score:3, Insightful)
Aim, Shoot Foot !! (Score:5, Interesting)
The battle is heating up. I can see now that the UE have the moral incensitive to switch their document to OpenDocument in the near future.
I Hope they do.
Put another way (Score:5, Insightful)
Conclusion: go for it.
transparency FTW (Score:2, Interesting)
Flat out: transparency in government is a good thing.
EU government (and the US gov't for that matter) is entirely too opaque for my preference.
This isn't government transparency. (Score:2)
Re:transparency FTW (Score:2)
All I can find is "Microsoft's Response to the European Commission," so I don't think I'm far
Re:transparency FTW (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft is such a fan of transparency, maybe the EU should release all the correspondence in full, including the Microsoft "business secrets." (But of course, then Microsoft would throw a legal hissy fit.)
Parent
Re:transparency FTW (Score:3, Insightful)
Just too often to be ignored. Microsoft aren't unpopular because they're successful, they're unpopular because they deserve to be.
Sauce for the Goose (Score:5, Insightful)
But apparently transparency is not vitally important for APIs.
dirty tricks as usual. (Score:2, Insightful)
Can't believe it! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe what I'm reading! Since when have Microsoft been interested in transparancy and openness. This is the same company that calls Open Source Softare an evil communist cancer. The same company which held secret dodgy meetings with the Republican administration which saw the US government change its mind from wanting to split up the company to wanting to give it a light slap on the wrist.
And now they want transparancy. Talk about double standards!
Re:Can't believe it! (Score:5, Insightful)
RIGHT. Excuse me for being an European and LAUGHING my ass off each and EVERY time I hear about ANOTHER idiotic legal experience from the USA. Next time I hear somebody start saying "US Legal system is better in/because/...", I'll just hit him over the head with a large brick and let him TRY to sue me.
Parent
You mean like... (Score:2)
Kinda like Open Source, would't you say?
Hmmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not joking: Europe has some fairly strict laws concerning the confidentiality of judicial proceedings. For instance, in France, journalists can be convicted for publishing documents related to an ongoing investigation, and I think it's the same in Germany and in the UK. (And before American citizens out there start screaming: "Freedom of Speech!", please remember that these rules have been edicted to protect the "innocence" of a person/company until proven guilty).
So, this little spat between Microsoft and the EU could become interesting quite quickly...
Bill, meet Dale . . . (Score:2)
The reality here... (Score:2)
Novell could have dealt with all of this in a much more positive manner three years ago when they bought SUSE. If they'd picked up their corporate HQ and moved it from Utah to Ger
Re:The reality here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft's primary crime -- of which it has been found guilty and for which it has been sentenced -- was breaking monopoly rules. Anything they're doing here is secondary (assuming that what they're doing here really is wrong; I haven't read the documents so I don't know whether Microsoft or the EC is in the right at this point).
Just because the current US administration laughably let off their own corporation within days of coming to power for dubious reasons, you can't really expect anyone else to do the same. Nor can you realistically claim that the rest of the world is somehow being harsh on Microsoft just because they actually enforce their own laws against them where the US obviously and publicly declined to do so (after a change of administration). Microsoft knew the rules, knew it was at best walking a tightrope, and chose to do business that way anyway.
In any case, you seem to have little understanding of how European "democracy" works. European Commissioners are almost entirely unaccountable. Many are political rejects whose prominent careers failed in their own countries to the extent that they could no longer hold a high public office credibly, and thus they get assigned (not voted by the electorate) to positions on the EC by national governments looking out for their own. The whole thing is a corrupt pile of politicised shenanigans, and if you really think the commissioners care anything for the electorate or businesses, rather than their own political lives and protecting those who installed them in their positions of power, you need to read a little more about how European politics works and why it needs changing.
Parent
200 pages of documents.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Clear (Score:3, Interesting)
Hypocritical. Bastards.
MacroHard (Score:3, Insightful)