Microsoft Subpoenas Thrown out of Court 172
liliafan writes "Following Microsoft's attempt to subpoena documents through US courts, relating to their ongoing anti-trust case in the UK, the judge in California has thrown the case out of court citing: 'As a matter of comity, this court is unwilling to order discovery when doing so will interfere with the European Commission's orderly handling of its own enforcement proceedings.' as his reasoning."
Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:5, Informative)
And I learned a new word, comity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comity [wikipedia.org]
Comity is a term used in international law (and in the law governing relations between U.S. states) to describe an informal principle that nations will extend certain courtesies to other nations, particularly by recognizing the validity and effect of their executive, legislative, and judicial acts. This principle is most frequently invoked by courts, which will not act in a way that demeans the jurisdiction, laws or judicial decisions of another country.
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:1)
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:1)
That's a straw man approach if I ever saw it.
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:2)
It would be pretty bad if countries would not recognize marriages as valid if they were performed in other countries. If that was the case and you and your wife wanted to go abroad, you would have to be remarried in every country you entered.
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:2, Insightful)
It works, empirically speaking. That's why we keep doing it.
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:5, Insightful)
But as another poster said, your orginional post is a straw-man argument. This is a civil matter that deals with the business laws internationally. It has NOTHING to do with human rights, which by the way are protected by international law. As the world becomes more intermestic (the idea that domestic or international issues have internation or domestic implications, consquences and effects), nations respecting other nation's laws will become more and more important.
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:2)
More like Mom's third cousin than Dad in this case
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:2)
An even better analogy would be this: you're at your neighbour's house (maybe playing with their kids), and the neighbour tells you you can't raid their cookie jar, so you go to your own Mom and Dad to ask *them* for permission - and of course, they tell you they won't interfere with your neighbours' right to t
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:2)
Not in any way that counts. It still comes down to an issue of national laws, and if like me you happen to live in the only Western country without protection of human rights, well, fat lot of good the UN's going to do you.
(I know a lot of Americans reckon that their President and Congress are basically ignoring their Bill of Rights, but at least you've got one. Our present federal Government in Australia is against
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:4, Informative)
Now, where your question really gets interesting is if the 'other jurisdiction' is obviously undemocratic and unjust. IMO, the notion of "comity" is based on an essential respect for the right to self-determination of others; when the laws in the other jurisdiction are obviously borne not out of self-determination but out of tyranny and oppression, it raises a valid question as to whether such courtesy and respect should be given. My feeling is that no, it should not; but this is a bit of a moot point when you're talking about relations between the U.S. and U.K. legal systems, which typically do not characterize each other as tyrannical. In fact it is possible, although not typically seen anymore, to use very old English rulings as precedent in U.S. courts. (You see this sometimes if you read old USSC or appellate court cases on particularly fundamental issues; somebody will have dragged out their Blackstone's Commentaries and found some particularly interesting Common Law case to mention.)
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:1)
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:1)
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:2)
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:1)
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:2)
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:2)
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:1)
It seems like if they're looking for information relevant to their case, they should not be stopped from getting it by they way they characterized their opponent.
Maybe I've just been listening to the "information wa
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:1)
Or they could be just trying to delay...such is their nature. Kinda like pulling a SCO.
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:3, Informative)
I think the flip side of his use of 'comity,' though, is that if Microsoft went to court in the U.K., and got whatever their equivalent of discovery powers are (power to have subpoenas issued), then the U.S. courts would honor them and
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:2)
Following Microsoft's attempt to subpoena documents through US courts, relating to their ongoing anti-trust case in the UK... (emphasis mine)
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:2)
If MS wants information then it can ask through the relevant channels.
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach. (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Ah, the backdoor approach.-: D (Score:2)
Gay Marriage, on the other hand, was explosive (in the USA) because of the 'full faith and credit' clause in the constitution. This meant, in effect, that any decision of a judge in one state had to be respected by all of the other states. Stronger than comity
What documents? (Score:5, Interesting)
What documents are we talking about?
Re:What documents? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What documents? (Score:2)
Re:What documents? (Score:5, Informative)
Stuff they've already been told by a judge in Europe they're not allowed to have because it's been deemed irrelevant. Also from TFA
Without knowing the specific information, I suspect they got shut down in the EU, decided to try and do a little fishing in the US, and got smacked down for having tried to bypass another court's ruling. Kinda like asking your other parent if you can stay out late after the first one says no.
Some evidence was declared inadmissable and not something they were entitled to. They tried to get it anyway. In a stroke of good jurisprudence, the US judge told them to get stuffed.
Re:What documents? (Score:1)
Re:What documents? (Score:5, Informative)
Re-read my post and TFA. A European judge placed restrictions on the kinds of information that Microsoft was allowed to obtain. A US judge said they couldn't bypass that ruling in a US court.
Well, other than you saying the EUs legal system is corrupt, and Microsoft claiming it to be an "inquisitional" system, I'm not aware of any evidence to support that claim, so it's specious at best to say so. I would certainly disagree with the characterization that Microsoft is receiving a 'raw deal'.
If Apple held a near monopoly over the computing industry, and used their position to prevent others from competing with them, absolutely. But Apple doesn't hold that kind of position.
This isn't a blind "Apple Good, Microsoft Bad" scenario -- Microsoft was accused of abusing a monopoly, and competing unfairly -- the same things they were accused of in the US before the DOJ lost their balls and stopped pursuing their own case. In fact, I believe Microsoft had already lost that case in the US, but they just never enforced it.
For the same reasons I agree that the Koreans should be able to impose restrictions on the way Microsoft does business there, I agree the Europeans have the same right. Their country, their trade laws. Microsoft doesn't get a free pass because they're a Big American Company.
Microsoft acts in a way as to impede or damage the software industries in other countries. Microsoft uses their position to make sure their products have primacy, and their competitors do not have access to that kind of influence or distribution channels -- they don't have a near monopoly. Like it or not, under the European system, Microsoft has been found in violation of antitrust laws.
Microsoft is still trying to fight those rulings, and was trying to get information they've been explicitly told by a European court they are not allowed to have. A US court agreed. In fact, that same US judge referred to the proceedings as the "orderly handling of its own enforcement proceedings".
You may be of the opinion that Microsoft does nothing but good, and should be allowed to do whatever they want without restrictions. Not everyone agrees with you.
Re:What documents? (Score:2)
There are two things that need to be kept in mind when making this sort of comparison:
1. Microsoft were not found to be a monopoly of "the computing industry". They were found to be a monopoly of a very specific part of it - consumer OSes for x86 platforms (so, according to the antitrust trial, Microsoft and Apple aren't e
Re:What documents? (Score:2)
I'd also like to point out that not everyone agrees with the court decisions which determined Microsoft was a monopoly. The subsequent decisions by foreigh courts have yielded little action to curb Microsoft's behaviours, netting milliosn in fines instead, which leads me to believe they see a cash cow
Re:What documents? (Score:2)
Well, you have to qualify that. There are those who TRUELY believe that, and there are those that just SAY that they believe that, such as those that hold lots of Microsoft stock, work for microsoft, or have some other vested financial interest in microsoft's continued dominance.
they see a cash cow and an easy target
The EU really wants MS to open their protocols and file formats. MS has so far has not fully complied with t
Re:What documents? (Score:2)
Re:What documents? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except... wait... you didn't. Not one. You just called it a name and decided you were right.
Re:What documents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft subpoenaed the documents. Competitors said they were irrelevant. The determining justice reviewed those documents, and agreed. Microsoft tried to find out what they were anyway - why on earth should they be able to hunt through confidential documents of a competitor that have been ruled to be irrelevant, just because they're involved in legal action? Discovery is a regulated process, not one of "All your document are belong to us."
Come again? (Score:4, Funny)
European Commission? "Orderly handling"?
Surely they meant to say "as a matter of comedy".
Re:Come again? (Score:1)
(not meant as troll, just ironic)
Judge Dread (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, if only we could have this guy ruling on patent cases, things might look a bit better...
Re:Judge Dread (Score:3, Funny)
In fact, I just had an idea. Why don't we do away with all elected and appointed officials. We can just run a poll for any new law that gets proposed. Majority rules. Slashdot has the most knowledgable people in practically every area known to man. Just ask anyone here. And when we have to discuss soap (lower case) and sex, we can always hire consultants.
Of course, this means CowboyNeal wins
Re:Judge Dread (Score:2)
Feh.
Re:Judge Dread (Score:1)
Anyway, I'm right because I think longer and more carefully than all of you. I am trained in logic and philosophy. I'm right because I got my opinion from the Slashdot, and now my opinion is that the Earth is flat. I am particularly good at building on false premises, and after further studying Slashdot I know everyone else is a moron. This means you wouldn't understand the way I
Re:Judge Dread (Score:2)
Dammit. When I created this place, it wasn't flat. Who let the air out of it?
Re:Judge Dread (Score:2)
Mod that judge up! (Score:1)
Re:Judge Dread (Score:2)
Re:Judge Dread (Score:1)
Paging Mr. Stallman...
CowboyNeil for Galactic Emperor (Score:2)
Re:Judge Dread (Score:2, Insightful)
That's like saying to someone "You always think you're right", to which the logical reply is "Of course, if I didn't think I was right, I'd change my mind"
To have an opinion means that you think people who disagree with it are wrong. You may accept the possibility you are wrong, and be open to learning, but you will live as if you are right until you are convinced otherwise. Then you will
Re:Judge Dread (Score:2)
"The true test of another man's intelligence is how much he agrees with you."
SCO (Score:1)
Re:Judge Dread (Score:2)
Re:Judge Dread (Score:2)
Subpoenas NOT Thrown out of Court (Score:5, Funny)
They should know by now (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, the information is in the hands of a foreign land? And they don't want to give it to us? Must be terrorists; we'd better invade right away.
(I know, way way off topic. Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.)
Re:They should know by now (Score:2)
The US (or at least Pentagon) already considers the UK as little more than terrorists which is why the UK will get a dumbed down version of the new F35 joint jet figher as the Brits are deemed a "government where US technology may fall into terrorist hands". Of course the Brits are expected to fess-up all the good tech they have to the US.
It is a bit like the recently signed extradition treaty where UK citizens can be sent to the US if the US justice sa
Re:They should know by now (Score:2)
In many ways, Microsoft is like the space shuttle... a big, lumbering monopolistic beast that has gotten out-of-control, consumes way too many resources, doesn't do its job well, and should be replaced... but no one dares replace it because too many people (goverment themselves, and taxpayers) depend on it that everyone is too scared to touch it (or flat-out don't want to and LIKE the beast because it gives them a nice big fat paycheck and/or re-election).
Solution - Just make Wal-Mart sell software! (Score:4, Funny)
Cool people will no longer buy it, and Wal-Mart will beat the price down to where Microsoft makes no profit, so all the un-cool buyers will not be ripped off!
win-win-win!
Hmmm... (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:1)
The point is... (Score:2)
Compare and contrast: ruthless business, ruthless politicians... ewwww!
Hitchhiker's Refrence (Score:1)
Re:Hitchhiker's Refrence (Score:1)
Sorry, that's the closest guess I could make, `cause BELGIUM sure as fuck doesn't fit.
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be a happy day for me. It would mean that nobody in europe could read MS office documents and all web sites in europe would have to work with firefox. Happy Happy day.
"Of course, there would still be "grey-market" sales, and "3rd party" support, etc."
Nah. Most likely thing that would happen is that the EU would stop recognizing MS intellectual property and void all NDAs. At that point windows would pretty much be open source and MS would get the shaft. Their only recourse would be to bribe enough politicians to wage war on europe. I am pretty sure Rumsfeld would salivate to wage war on "old europe" but I don't think that even the biggest war pig in washington would take on that cause.
"As much as many do not like MSFT, this stinks of some sort of politicical extortion, plain and simple."
Well it's aboutpunishing the guilty. Since they are not allowed to put corporations in jail fines are the next best thing.
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:1)
Wouldn't revoking their corporate charter be the next best thing? Or actually the best thing? Fines mean nothing to them. That just raises the price of their product by...what...a dollar? They don't pay the fines. Their customers do.
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:1)
1) Europe saying fuck off won't make Office uninstall itself. Firefox isn't the only browser besides IE.
2) Not recognizing MSFT's intellectual property would be a very, very stupid move. It would put in doubt all the other company's IP security.
And what legal basis is there anyway? MSFT has secured copyrights, you can't remove them unless there is a copyright infringement or some other IP-related issues. Dropping IP just because the company won't sell in your market, is stupid, stupid, stupid.
3) W
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:1)
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:2, Insightful)
And what legal basis is there anyway? MSFT has secured copyrights, you can't remove them unless there is a copyright infringement or some other IP-related issues. Dropping IP just because the company won't sell in your market, is stupid, stupid, stupid.
What's stupid is using the term "intellectual property". Do you mean "copyright"? If so say "copyright", for whi
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer and I know precious little about European law, but Microsoft (and other companies) insist on treating copyrights, patents, and such as intellectual property with characteristics similar to that of real property (has value, can be owned, bought, sold, etc.). I'd ask that if they levied fines against MS and MS refused to pay, is
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:2)
2) Not recognizing MSFT's intellectual property would be a very, very stupid move. It would put in doubt all the other company's IP security. And what legal basis is there anyway?
Let me give you an analogy. Fining Microsoft would be a very, very stupid move. It would put in doubt all other company's money having security.
They broke the law and are being punished. If they refuse to comply with the court's punishment, the EU courts are well within their rights to toss the executives in jail and confiscate
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:2)
What about the Berne convention?
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:2)
Dude, Berne is in Europe!
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:2)
It would only be open source if Microsoft couldn't remove/destroy all copies before they left.
Their only recourse would be to bribe enough politicians to wage war on europe. I am pretty sure Rumsfeld would salivate to wage war on "old europe" but I don't think that even the biggest war pig in washington wou
MS's real problem (Score:2)
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:1)
Maybe, More effort will be put into getting linux up there (drivers, usability)
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:1)
Why bother when you've got win2k-tan
I'll run win2k until parts makers stop writing drivers for it, then I'll buy an x86 mac; I plan to run 2k for a long time.
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:2)
Can't stand most MS crap, but they did pretty good with Win2K.
Quite likely. (Score:2, Insightful)
But what if they never sold a single program again, their stock froze in value, they had no investments w
Re:Quite likely. (Score:3, Interesting)
200 million euros at the current exchange rate is about $1.20 or so, meaning MS is looking at a fine of $240 million per day. MS's market cap is about $281 billion, meaning that if they could somehow completely convert all of
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that matter? (No. That was a rhetorical question.)
That seems like a rediculous amount, no matter how evil MSFT may be. Isn't that more than 2x MSFT world-wide REVENUE, much less, EU PROFIT?
Where are you getting your numbers? Do you even have sources? Or are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?
"What if they don't pay?"
Their assets within the EU will be seized and auctioned off to pay for related debts, treated as though the company were to go bankrupt. The employees of said assets would be left to look elsewhere for companies to remain loyal to, ergo lose their jobs at EU-MSFT.
What if they said "screw you, I'm going home" and stopped officially selling product in the EU?
See above, as well as their stock price falling sharply because their stock holders wouldn't like their company to refuse business with an entire continent.
As much as many do not like MSFT, this stinks of some sort of politicical extortion, plain and simple.
It has been debated until the cows eventually came home that MSFT deserves this punishment. I don't know how you managed to get modded up to 3, Insightful.
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's another 'no' - as in 'stupid article typo' no. The fine seems to be in fact up to €2.4M/day (see here [com.com] for instance) I mean, this has been going on for quite a while now and the fine had been brought up even on
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:1)
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid is relying on The Register as a source. It's Euros a day. [bloomberg.com]
Does that really matter? No. What matters is that the law is enforced. What's your bright idea to get businesses to follow the law then, if not to fine them?
What if they don't pay?
Then they can expect even harsher penalties.
What if they said "screw you, I'm going home" and stopped officially selling product in the EU?
Then they don't have to follow EU laws. Fine by me.
As much as many do not like MSFT, this stinks of some sort of politicical extortion, plain and simple.
Bullshit. Or do you really think foreign companies shouldn't have to follow US laws in their US operations? They do. And there have been antitrust suits against foreign companies in the US. And in case you missed it, Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust violations in the USA too.
You assert that the thing is "political extortion" without any proof - as if it's obvious that any foreign court which takes action against an American interest must be doing so for purely political reasons. As if the USA had a monopoly on justice and fairness. That's a blindly nationalistic and xenophobic form of reasoning.
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:4, Interesting)
They broke the law.
To disuade them from doing it again a fine was determined that they *would* take notice of.
It *may* be the biggest fine ever imposed, but its the biggest company that such a fine has been imposed on. Microsoft have nearly $50Bn in cash reserves, its will not cripple them unless they leave compying with the request for a very long time, however I suspect Shareholders will want some answers.
Its not as if even they didnt have an easy way to get out of it.
They have 22,000 engineers and programmers working for them. If they cant split off 100 or so of them to produce documentation on the protocols and API's that the majority of the world run on. I find the fact that they *dont* appear to have this documentation already pretty close to criminal negligence, and wonder how they have managed to do this with SOX about, but thats a seperate discussion (We had to document *everything* for SOX including internal single use communication protocols between applications, and I only work for the *subsidurary* of a US company)
I personally due to the naked contempt MS seem to have for anyone who *dares* to investigate them, the browbeating of witnesses, the attempts to manipulate support through third parties, including members of the Senate, I think the fine should have been higher.
As for the threat to withdraw from the EU, Well even Microsoft havent tried that one on yet. The EU may be a smaller market than the US, but its not so insignificant that it can be ignored in such a manner, The shareholders would really make them suffer if they tried that.
However, I dont even think this would be a huge issue, but i am a terminal geek
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:2)
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:2)
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:3, Insightful)
What if they said "screw you, I'm going home" and stopped officially selling product in the EU?
The EU would instantly stop using all computers, and everyone will die.
No, stop, wait, that's not what would happen. In the beginning nothing would happen, all those computers running MS would continue to work just fine.
But new computers will not be running Windows. They will run somethi
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:3, Insightful)
"What if they said "screw you, I'm going home" and stopped officially selling product in the EU?"
...No, stop, wait, that's not what would happen. In the beginning nothing would happen, all those computers running MS would continue to work just fine. But new computers will not be running Windows.
Actually, none of the above would happen. What would happen would be the MS shareholders would hold an emergency meeting and fire whoever made that decision. Then they would put a new person in charge who would a
Re:Does MSFT even sell 200M Euros a day? (Score:2)
First, I am not really following the case closely at all - I will just come right out and admit to being a troll who finds it humorous to post now and again just to see what will happen. So, I have no idea what the MSFT / South Korea deal is - maybe I'll google it when I am done here, if I don't forget. I have a short attention span.
As far as the court fining one for s
Re:Well, Microsoft wins (Score:2, Insightful)
Which I am sure every MS-hater here on
Re:Well, Microsoft wins (Score:3, Insightful)
They were told that they couldn't have the documents by the EU court because they were irrelevant, so they went to the US to try to get their hands on the documents. The judge saw what MS was trying to do, and said no.
That's like running to your neighbor's house and asking them if you can have a brownie you mom just baked, because she alread
Re:Well, Microsoft wins (Score:2)
But, as someone else points out, the EU
Re:not to defend Microsoft or anything... (Score:1)
Re:not to defend Microsoft or anything... (Score:1)
Re:not to defend Microsoft or anything... (Score:5, Informative)
I disagree. MS knew what the European laws were, and chose to conduct business in Europe anyway. Having broken said laws, the European governments are now holding the company accountable for its behavior (a somewhat rare occurrence in the US). A US judge has rightly said that the matter is not within US jurisdiction or otherwise before a US court, so it's not something the US court system needs to be involved in. No one forced MS to do business anywhere, and they apparently were betting on the EU being as pliable as the US was in regards to anti-trust matters. The EU seems to take anti-trust issues seriously, so it looks like MS lost that bet. I fail to see a problem, and I would fail to see a problem whether it was MS, Apple, SCO, RedHat, or any other American company. If you play in someone else's yard, you have to play by their rules.
Re:Seriously, this is stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
This has NOTHING to do with price or what the consumer *could* do if they were knowledgable enough. Don't forget - we still have warnings on packets of nuts that say "may contain nuts". This has everything to do with competition law and monopolisation.
MS bundled apps of a certain type *unnecessary and extraneous to the operating system* which has destroyed/limited/damaged the business actions of companies in a seperate part of the industry. This is a complete misuse of
Re:Seriously, this is stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:contempt (Score:2)
Microsoft has the entire US government so pussy-whipped that basically the laws of the land aren't applied to Microsoft any more than they're applied to the government. The whole reason the incident in this story came up was because Microsoft is so used to getting away with absolutely anything that it figured it could run to daddy and daddy would help him out. For some reason, this judge chose not to be a "team player". No doubt some congressman is alre
Re:well (Score:2)
Re:well (Score:2)
know it sounds sexist... They have a track record of being less-susceptible to corruption and more prone to sensible thinking.
You're right, that does sound sexist. How do you statistically measure that women are more prone to "sensible thinking" ...or is this just your personal, anecdotal opinion? What evidence do you have to support your belief?
Re:well (Score:2)