Microsoft's Big Stick in Peru

An anonymous reader points out a Wired story on the continuing Peru saga. In this latest episode, Wired notes that the U.S. Ambassador to Peru has chimed in in support of Microsoft and in opposition to Dr. Villanueva's bill which would have mandated open source software be used by the Peruvian government. On the one hand, sure, our diplomats have a national goal of promoting U.S. enterprise, but do we have to promote companies which we are simultaneously pursuing in court for numerous violations of our laws? Isn't that a bit counter-productive?

slashdotted; here's the article

[Anonymous Coward]

(posted AC to avoid karma whoring)

BUENOS AIRES -- Afraid that Peru may adopt a bill decreeing the use of open-source software in all government systems, Microsoft apparently enlisted the American ambassador in Lima to help try and convince the Peruvians to kill the legislation.

Wired News has obtained a copy of a letter sent by U.S. Ambassador John Hamilton to the president of the Peruvian Congress, expressing his dismay at the proposed legislation.

See also:
News from the Linux front
Apache Server Supports .Net Tech
Picture Yourself in Politics
Behind Linux's Struggle in Gov't
Give Yourself Some Business News
U.S. Gov't Still Penguin Shy
Congressman Edgar Villanueva, the bill's chief sponsor, said he considers Hamilton's letter to be "overt pressure" on Peru by the United States and Microsoft. If so, the letter would continue the long-standing U.S. tradition of meddling in Latin American affairs, political analysts say.

In his June letter, Hamilton said that while the United States doesn't oppose the development of open-source software, it prefers to support a free market where the quality of the product can determine the issue.

He added that by excluding proprietary software companies like Microsoft, Peru would be hurting an industry that "has the potential to create 15,000" jobs in the local economy.

Not all the pressure come from the U.S. government. Bill Gates was in Peru recently, too, making a donation of $550,000 to the national school system. It seems unlikely that Gates would be contributing money to anything that cuts Microsoft out of the picture, Peruvian critics say.

Microsoft's investment in Peru is estimated at $50 million, and Gates flew south to personally make the donation to Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo, no doubt hoping it would help kill the bill.

The legislation, Bill Number 1609 (known as Free Software in Public Administration), was introduced by Villanueva through Peru's ruling party, Peru Posible. It includes a provision, known as Plan Huascaran, that would provide computers with Internet connections to the same schools where Gates' $550,000 is supposed to go.

Open-source advocates suspicious of Gates' motives demand that details of any Gates-Toledo deal be made public.

The bill's backers, meanwhile, insist that Peru will be able to computerize more quickly, efficiently and cheaply by using open-source software.

The bill would require companies doing business with the government to open their programs' source code to scrutiny. Supporters maintain that open source is the only way the government can guarantee its citizens real security for their data.

Free-software advocates also claim that besides the operational advantages, open-source programs are less costly, a claim that has been energetically denied by Microsoft Peru.

Microsoft's Andean subsidiary claims that the cost of converting state systems will be huge no matter which software is adopted. But the open sourcers argue that replacing the pirated software that currently runs most systems with duly licensed programs like those of Microsoft would be far more expensive. It's the cost factor, along with the bullying factor, that gives the government pause.

The escalating debate has raised tempers, too. Alberto Gonzalez, Microsoft Peru's president, got the ball rolling in a letter to Villanueva. He appealed to the idea of free competition -- a concept Microsoft is not generally credited with respecting -- and claimed that Villanueva's bill "breaches the principles of equality before the law, that of nondiscrimination and the right of free private enterprise, freedom of industry and of contract, protected by the Constitution."

Villanueva scoffed.

Re:You don't pay much attention, do you?

[Flamerule]

Who do you think appointed the ambassador to Peru? I'll give you a hint: The man was himself appointed to a high-level position in our government by the Supreme Court.

I was suspicious about this too, so I did some research [state.gov]. It turns out that Hamilton isn't a Bush tool at all; he's a seemingly competent career foreign service officer who's held several high-level posts in the State Department. And, as this [state.gov] bio says, he was actually appointed by President Clinton.

So, since the guy's not some clueless campaign contributor who got rewarded with an ambassadorship (I guess Péru can't compete with the Bahamas in that regard), I'd read his letter to the government as a general "stick up for U.S. business" type thing, not any specific pressuring from the Bush adminstration.

Re:The land of the free, indeed

[akb]

Why is a government official stumping for the interests of a single company? ... It used to be that the U.S. was known for promoting freedom, in the guise of democracy and free markets, to other countries.

When was this? Maybe before the US backed execution of Allende in Argentina to the great benefit of ITT [ucsb.edu] but after installing a friendly dictator for United Fruit (Chiquita) in Guatemala?

Those are the examples that come to mind that combine both the stumping for single companies and the deaths of thousands of people instead of promoting freedom, the world is littered with more.

A recent gem in the stumping for individual companies department that comes to mind is the Bush administration putting pressure on India for an Enron power plant [consortiumnews.com].

I think you need to read some more history.

freelinuxcd

[GigsVT]

Free Linux CD [freelinuxcd.org] still could use a Peru affiliate. Interested parties should contact the maintainer on said page.

Re:The 'Bads' ?!?

[MindStalker]

No he was talking about economic bads. In the study of economics you will learn that people can produce economic goods (products and services) and bads (waste, pollution etc) When you produce an economic good you get paid for it. And like wise when you produce an economic bad you should pay for it, because you are forcing upon other people a negative product that they don't want. As its virtually impossible for an entity to directly pay each person the economic bad negativly influences you tax the bad, and use that money for the good of society. Importantly, of course the producer being smart will be forced to reduce pollution whatnot themselves as much as the can to avoid this tax, so you no longer need to set exact polution controls you simply give the corperation a reason to want to pollute less.
Individuals also produce economic bads, pollution from their cars. This is already included in part of the current taxes on gasoline.
But why should we tax economic goods as we currently do when they provide positives for the company and the consumer. Though obviously some money is also needed from citizens for the military protection and infrastructure. And this can be done obviously based on income as its smart to spread it out amongs peoples abilities to pay. But why do we discourage the production of economic goods by taxing them?

Re:The land of the free, indeed

[hughk]

He doesn't know. The ambassador just tries to represent what he believes are US interests. Educate him that there is a lot of money to be made from open source software.

Re:Red Hat is an American Company Too

[cyberformer]

Microsoft brings in many more tax $$$

Microsoft doesn't pay any income taxes, thanks to its (legal, but still dishonest) share-option acccounting scams.