Lobbying Could Cause Legal Trouble for Microsoft

Rob Isn't Weird writes "In the wake of the exposure of Microsoft's attempt to buy Sweden's vote on OOXML and Sweden's annulment of that vote due to irregularities, IBM's Rob Weir points out that the fiasco could cause anti-trust worries for Microsoft. He quotes ALLIED TUBE & CONDUIT CORP. v. INDIAN HEAD, INC., 486 U.S. 492 (1988), which says 'What petitioner may not do (without exposing itself to possible antitrust liability for direct injuries) is bias the process by, as in this case, stacking the private standard-setting body with decision makers sharing their economic interest in restraining competition.'"

Re:Question on lobbying

[SwordsmanLuke]

As improbable as it sounds, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Political lobbyists represent the interests of their clients to various politicians. They can also provide campaign contributions to politicians running for office - which is, if not outright bribery, is definitely within spitting distance. This is the source of much controversy. You can learn more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_lobbying [wikipedia.org]

It's an *IBM* guy saying this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [usdoj.gov] is one example where overseas actions can be prosecuted inside the USA. IANAL, so I'm not going to claim that it does apply to Microsoft, especially when I think it's a criminal statute that would have to be prosecuted by the DoJ. I don't even know if there's any civil right of action in there. If there are any lawyers out there, feel free to chime in.

Now then, did you note that this was an IBM guy saying this? Given that Rob's blog covers approximately two things--brewing and OOXML--I'd have to say that he learned about this law from the Nazgul (IBM lawyers, for you young'uns) because I don't think Rob is a lawyer, either. And I don't think normal people go around reading and quoting 20 year old anti-trust cases for fun.

So if IBM is examining something like that, especially when we have Microsoft doing other things like funding SCO, I'd say to stay tuned, because we just might see fireworks in the future. It wouldn't be the first anti-trust action against Microsoft by any means. Mind you, this is 100% speculation, but what do you expect on Slashdot?

Re:Service please?

[Anonymous Coward]

It also says that some twit at IBM thinks it is OK to confuse "some employee in Sweden's" independent action as being an official "act of Microsoft". I'm going to bet that there is NO paper/email, whatever, trail that shows that the vote buying had any sanction by anyone with authority to actually sanction it.

just to even the playing field

[FudRucker]

the D.O.J should force microsoft to use open file formats such as ODF in their office products...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument [wikipedia.org]

Re:Does US law apply here?

[DragonWriter]

Where the action occurred is probably of little consequence to US antitrust law; what will matter is the intended and actual effect on US market position. I think its pretty hard to argue that Microsoft isn't pushing for ISO standardization as a way to reinforce (among other things) the US market position of Office, and Allied Tube suggests that the particular means being used may be antitrust violations in that context.

Re:How to ruin Microsoft from the inside...

[DragonWriter]

Use your MS email address to offer bribes to public officials without management knowledge

Actually, if they were public officials rather than a private standard-setting body, Allied Tube wouldn't apply.

For anything to stick, they would have to show that there was some management involvement. A corporation is not one single mind.

A corporation is, however, a single legal person, and to escape liability for the actions of its employees often (especially in a civil rather than criminal case) must demonstrate that those actions were outside the scope of employment, since the carrying out of actions which advance an overt corporate interest by an employee can itself be evidence from which a jury can conclude, barring any contrary evidence, that the action was within the scope of employment notwithstanding the illegality.

I tried to read that blog entry...

[Durindana]

... but I couldn't make any sense of it at all. The summary mentions recent irregularities, but those aren't detailed at all. And the rest of it is incoherent, like the content it links to.

In summary: Please avoid relaying submissions to blog entries, by the blogger who wrote them, without making sure they're not stark raving unreadable. Is there some kind of news buried here about MS's activities on the Swedish OOXML vote? Maybe - but I can't tell from this garbage.

Re:what's all this about ?

[ozmanjusri]

Frankly, I don't think OOXML is all that satanic

Try to implement an app that will round-trip MOOXML through MS Office editing, then get back to us.

I think you'll find it's not possible to use MOOXML unless you're Microsoft.

Re:It's an *IBM* guy saying this...

[mabhatter654]

this is exactly why companies are pushing to keep the anti-trust case open a little longer. The current remedy is toothless, but it's like double-secret probation. As long as it's in place there's somebody to take this too. Sort of like grandma being able to get the PO officer to rattle a wayward kid's cage. I'd agree that while this can't be "prosecuted" in the US, "probation" if you call what M$ is on now doesn't matter what's "legal" it matters what the watcher "believes" is legal and in the spirit of the agreement made. This behavior shows Microsoft is not dealing fairly and is "biding their time" for the clock to run down... more reasons to lengthen the "time-out" a bit until they learn to play fair. Preventing M$ from overrunning a standards body while the industry gets its but in gear is the best way to cut the wind from Microsoft's sails.

No, it's an ethical guy saying this

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, IANAL, but I do know that Carl Kotchian, President of Lockheed bribed the Japanese (among others) to buy the L-1011 [wikipedia.org] and admitted as much, because at that time (1970s) it was a crime to bribe public officials in the US, but it was not a crime to bribe public officials in other countries.

That case led to the enactment of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The scandal also brought down Kakuei Tanaka's (then Japanese primer) govt.

You don't have to be lawyer to know these things. My training is in engineering - and this is a well known case study in Engineering Ethics.

Never had a brush with Engineering Ethics in college? No? Not to worry, neither have the overlords at Microsoft.