Lobbying Could Cause Legal Trouble for Microsoft 138
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.'"
Service please? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, and because it's required...Fist Psot, or whatever the first post trolls are saying nowadays...
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, and you didn't get first post.
Re:Service please? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever received the communication that Microsoft apologised for seemed to think that the communication was official, that is all that should matter. Organisations need to have some some responsibilities (isn't that what corporate responsibility and due diligence is supposed to be all about?) When it comes to agreements or communications between organisations all parties need to be happy that what is being communicated is the official line, otherwise any organisation could pull out of any agreement they feel is no longer beneficial (a sale, a purchase a contact etc..) by simply claiming that by some fluke the person who negotiated didn't get it right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Strange thing is, if an employee of any company called me and offered me a very valuable service, cash or other products I'd damn well confirm it with whoever my contact was within that company, if the answer was still the same then I would take it as official communication and I'm sure that any other reasonable person / judge / juror / investigator would too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Required to be flexible, your role will include you becoming a scapegoat occasionally - remuneration : excellent"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it a bit presumptuous... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the jump is if they do it out side the US, we should check to see if they do the same thing here.
US laws apply to overseas behavior (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Domestically, one could summarize the DoJ (irrespective of administration in power) as saying to Redmond: "Stop, or I will say 'stop' again."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're unlucky enough to live in the UK, for the last few years you've had to understand US law to avoid being arrested here just doing normal everyday things. Three top bank managers were extradited not long ago for engaging in business practices from the UK that are legal to engage in under British law but illegal under US law. The UK is the 51st state - other
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(it is still a stupid law and it was a stupid arrest, but it did happen on U.S. soil)
Re: (Score:2)
Their work was apparently carried out in the UK and they were definitely extradited (well one of them had a heart attack from the stress)
Re: (Score:2)
Doah... Enron money was probably illegally gained money and any investment of it would be difficult to tell from say money laundering from organized crime. Yeah that would stress me out to; you'd think that British bankers might think that that was a transaction where the bar for due diligence might be a bit higher than normal.
Re: (Score:2)
As I say, they weren't tried in British courts which suggests whatever they did, it wasn't illegal here.
Re: (Score:2)
different event. I don't know that i ever heard about that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, you seem to imply that extradition treaties are a one-way street. I'm reasonably certain that if you commit a crime in the EU, and your flesh happens to be in the US, you'll be turned over upon arrest here.
Governments have been colluding like that for a many a year now.
Of course, there are times when governments do engage in a bit of "urinary struggle" over individuals, too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
extradition of bank managers? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
thanks (Score:2)
It's an *IBM* guy saying this... (Score:5, Interesting)
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:It's an *IBM* guy saying this... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just one o many ways that Rob could have been exposed to such things sans IBM lawyer involvement.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Things wouldn't look too bad for Microsoft if it didn't meet Mrs. Kroes in her position as "Competition Commissioner" before or if they didn't make a lasting impression in the encounters before. I am pretty sure that Microsoft's assault on the IS
Re:Isn't it a bit presumptuous... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's clearly for US courts to decide if a US corporation affects the US competitive landscape.
Re: (Score:2)
And, to boot, if a law was broken, it was not in the US. Maybe Swedish law is different in this regard, because I can't imagine that a US court will decide that it has jurisdiction over an i
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway - There is a Swedish authority named Konkurrensverket (Swedish Competition Authority) [konkurrensverket.se] that has some influence in matters like this. Maybe you should send them an email with your opinions?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
US law applies everywhere on the planed. At least they are acting like it....
get a clue (Score:2)
Google for NAFTA-Plus for an example.
Or research Australia's history. Australia lost its sovereignty to the US 32 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly our record is not great at apprehending such people, especially on timely basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Does US law apply here? (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
That's what Republicans believe, anyway, and they will act on that belief (trade agreements, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. I would really like to visit Maine again some day, but at my present age of 65 I may not live long enough to make such a trip both enjoyable and in (relative) privacy. Oh well, "We'll always have Bath", I guess.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the popularity of Bush here, if we'd have more civilians with guns, you'd be facing a new Iraq.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Now if we colonized Sweden we'd dramatically increase our odds of getting another medal in Olympic hockey. Hmmmm.... On the plus side, I understand Yankee taxes are lower than Swedish taxes. The downside is you'd get Michel Moore coming over and making movies all the time.
Re:Does US law apply here? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The past antitrust settlement is not the issue, the issue is liability (in a separate action) for the vote-buying under antitrust law.
Well, lots of people (including the competition) would mind, but it wouldn't be illega
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the corporation is in the US. You can't just do anything you want because you do it in a foreign country. Just like you can't not-pay US taxes because you do your business in Sweden... International Law treaties are far more complex than just "If you do stuff in CountryX you are not liable in CountryY"
Re: (Score:1)
ho hum (Score:3, Insightful)
Question on lobbying (Score:2)
But if so, how did this situation come about? Does Microsoft pre-emptively make campaign contributions to political candidates in major markets just in case such a vote has to be passed? Or do they promise c
Re:Question on lobbying (Score:4, Interesting)
How to ruin Microsoft from the inside... (Score:3, Funny)
1) Get hired at Microsoft
2) Use your MS email address to offer bribes to public officials without management knowledge
3) Enjoy anti-trust actions
For anything to stick, they would have to show that there was some management involvement. A corporation is not one single mind.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, if they were public officials rather than a private standard-setting body, Allied Tube wouldn't apply.
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 th
Not an isolated incident. (Score:2)
That's fun to imagine, but you know that no M$ employee could do something so out of bounds. We've seen the months of effort it takes to get approval for anything in the story of M$'s entry to web search and in Joe's Excel work. Both decisions were overseen by Bill Gates himself along with lots of other brass. We've also seen what happens to ordinary employees who write something wrong in their blog. [slashdot.org]
In this case, it's clearly a concerted effort. Weir points out similar outrageous and crazy behavior fro
INDIAN HEAD? (Score:2)
More directly: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Microsoft is just a little-guy competitor trying to break into the office suite market dominated by OpenOffice.org which is virtually without serious competition, not a dominant player desperately trying to fend off a challenge to its dominance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I've no doubt that the vote should be "no." I also have no doubt that the "yes" side bought more votes (20+) than the "no" side (5-6). I just see from the wording that the one is considered wrong (buying to suppress a competitive standard), whereas the other isn't (in this excerpt, anyway).
just to even the playing field (Score:2, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
the D.O.J should force microsoft to use open file formats such as ODF in their office products...
That's the sort of thing that sensible people were proposing when the DOJ had Microsoft in a position where they were going to lose and knew they would have to make reforms. Unfortunately, the open file formats and APIs people were being drowned out by the "split up Microsoft!" and "remove IE from Windows!" people, even though those remedies would do virtually nothing to solve the real problems.
Lobbying? (Score:2)
what's all this about ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if OOXML gets approved for ISO don't we still have a choice? Won't ODF still be there?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, but will government offices with public records use it? No, they'll choose the "standard".
Frankly, I don't think OOXML is all that satanic, nor is ODF all that perfect, but the latter is definitely more focused on an actual document format rather than encoding all the goofy idiosyncratic semantics of an office app with XML tags. And MS's behavior is definitely not above board here.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, if microsoft's format also gets ISO approval then noone will use ODF, despite it being a superior format in many ways, they will stick with the only one microsoft supports.
Re: (Score:2)
If OOXML does get ISO approved, expect to see all the major packages support it in some fashion, while MS moves on with MSOOXML and kills off all the competition as they fruitlessly try to implement OOXML in a way that's comp
The trap continues, even for their own formats. (Score:5, Informative)
Sure but nothing will actually support it, and those products that do support it will support it in a half-baked, crippled way. MS always used to make sure Word could read WordPerfect documents perfectly, but couldn't create them worth a darn. Expect this type of behavior to continue.
Office 2007 does not even have working support of older M$ formats. Footnote numbering is broken if you save OOXML to WORD.DOC and macros are broken between versions of Excel. I expect to hear similar things powerpoint and other formats as a few foolish people around me continue their Office 2007 trial. As usual, data goes in but does not come out and you can't really co-operate with people who are not on the same point release.
This is stunning behavior, even for M$. A reasonable XML format should support all previous version behavior perfectly because the internal representation does not have to change. The transition should be easier than any previous M$ Office "upgrade" but it is in fact worse than others. For all of their bluster, they have not lived up to the 6,000 pages of specs they are now trying to force on the world as an ISO standard. Un-Fucking-Believable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:what's all this about ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if OOXML gets approved for ISO don't we still have a choice? Won't ODF still be there?
Re:what's all this about ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but I certainly won't. Organisations and governments everywhere will choose to use OOXML on the basis that it's an approved ISO standard. People who pay for Microsoft products will be fine (in the short an medium term, at least). Everyone who doesn't will be screwed.
Standards organisations such as the ISO exist to consider standards seriously so that other organisations don't have to, and a lot of trust is put in them. At a time when standards are finally coming to be seen as important by many organisations, Microsoft is trying to make a mockery of the standards-creation process, undermining the ISO and all its stakeholders so it can keep itself on top without actually providing a real, genuine standard.
Arrogance (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
MS has the right to do whatever the hell they want (Score:2)
Since msft has $30 Billion in the bank, what do they care?
Re:Arrogance (Score:5, Insightful)
The movement to Linux isn't because it's cheaper. The movement to Linux is because it's better-- in particular, because it doesn't try to bundle stuff in that you don't need and don't want simply because the developer wants extra lock-ins, subscription payments or is getting payola to add DRM from media companies. Linux is better because it leaves control over your computer system in your hands. The marketplace would often pay extra for such capabilities-- the fact that Linux is low cost is mostly irrelevant to its success. In the early days of the PC, many corporations didn't know much about computers and trusted companies like Microsoft out of their ignorance, and because the risk was relatively low. Now however, their entire business is running on computers and they now realize that trusting the future of such a critical resource can no longer be left in the hands of others-- they require the control that Linux can give them and Microsoft refuses to.
Microsoft's only way out of this mess is to let go of the OS and focus on products that will run on Linux or other open environments. They'll be dragged kicking and screaming into that though, as they've seen the OS as their core competency (obviously why they have no confidence in themselves-- as it's actually become their core incompetency). It'll happen eventually, as the OS is nothing but an application delivery system and as such must be as fully open and empowering as any common carrier. Microsoft was blindsided by the Internet, and even more so by the need for the open OS-- so much so that they're still blind to its critical importance to the future of computing.
Re: (Score:2)
You are falsely asuming that Microsoft needs to compete by technological means. Microsoft expresses utter confidence in its ability to compete by ANY means necessary. They are the prime example of not tying one of your hands behind your back before fight, just because the other party did so. They are harsh and ruthless in their ability to compete in the marketplace and they consistently win
d^2.capitalism/dt^2. (Score:2)
No - Microsoft's problem is that, for a company which has historically enjoyed a near-total monopoly in the office software market, any competition would decimate their turnover - and any executive that presides over that will be looking at a serious blot on their copybook.
We live in a world where the dice in the stock market's crap game is a company's rate of growth (if not the rate of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong. They don't want a high quality product that people would prefer to use, they want a product that people be forced to use. They don't want a standard that everybody be able to implement in their software. They just want to be the only company having that privilege, just as always were.
They are incapable of producing a high quality product that people would prefer to use-- and they know it, consequently they must resort to forcing people to use it because that is the only way left they have t
Operative words: restraining competition (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
To sum it up...
The spec may be partially open, but it refers to other non published specs/programs which arent.
Microsoft's own implementation doesn't fully comply with the published specs.
The format spec is very broken in several ways (some formulae fail to specify units of measurement etc)
The format itself is also broken (date support is broken, support for different working-weeks as in the middle east i
Look up: sarcasm (Score:2)
I tried to read that blog entry... (Score:3, Interesting)
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:I tried to read that blog entry... (Score:4, Informative)
As always, Groklaw [groklaw.net] comes to the rescue.
I also recommend reading the top page [groklaw.net] for info what is happening at other countries.
Dear Sweden... (Score:5, Insightful)
We needed your NO vote. Microsoft has won their battle by removing your vote entirely, which is probably not what you intended.
Sincerely,
The rest of the (still) Free World.
A series, perhaps? (Score:2)
Hypocrisy much? (Score:2)
"He quotes ALLIED TUBE & CONDUIT CORP. v. INDIAN HEAD, INC., 486 U.S. 492"
Isn't it bad form around here to call for the application of US laws to acts committed in other countries? Or do we only say that about copyright laws?
If there are anti-trust laws violated here, they should be Swedish or EU laws.
Re:just a thought (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the idea of competition is to produce a better product than everyone else so the customers will buy yours in preference.
Anything which restricts the customers' ability to switch between products (format lockin, leveraging existing monopoly platforms, predatory pricing, OEM penalties, etc) is anticompetitive and should be prevented.
Re: (Score:2)