U.S. Lobbied EU Over Microsoft Fine 296
ukhackster writes "European commissioner Neelie Kroes has claimed that she was lobbied by the US government over the Microsoft antitrust case. ZDNet UK is reporting that Kroes 'did not appreciate' being asked to be 'nicer' to Microsoft. Given that Microsoft was fined 280m euros, perhaps this tactic backfired." From the article: "The commissioner criticised the approach. 'This is of course an intervention which is not possible,' Kroes told Dutch newspaper Financieele Dagblad this week. When asked if she was annoyed by the Embassy's approach, she said 'In my work, I cannot have a preference. I have, however, a personal opinion, but that is for Saturday night.'"
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rollerball in the real world (Score:1, Insightful)
Microsoft is the bully that runs to teacher... (Score:0, Insightful)
Microsoft are a bunch of hypocritical, low-life bastards, a complete fucking joke!
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, because governments never did that type of stuff until the inception of the US and no other governments have done that stuff or do that stuff now.
If you're going to be anti-US, at least have the good sense to slam us for the things we do that every other government on earth doesn't do. Thank you.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
A defence based on 'well, other people do it too!' isn't good enough.
There are American Microsoft replacement companies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If only... (Score:2, Insightful)
A large proportion of adults still worship a god who advocates slavery, religious genocide, and the inherent inferiority of women. Then they yammer on and on about how great, loving, and compassionate their God is.
Based upon that evidence, I can believe just about anything. Being adult just means your body stopped growing, not that you're free of prejudices or that you are in any way rational, objective, or impartial in your views of the outside world. It's a mistake to think that "adults" are very different from "children". By and large, they're just older teenagers.
Re:And what's wrong with that? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because I don't want the Federal government supporting a company's unethical business practices, even if that company is an American company. Is that unreasonable?
I may be crazy, but I'm the sort that believes the US Federal government should generally keep itself out of private business concerns unless necessary, and act ethically whenever possible. I don't see any reason to believe that the EU's case some unjustified politically-motivated witch hunt, so I don't see a reason for the intervention.
Don't be a player hater (Score:2, Insightful)
If the 'rest of the world' has any issues with the tactics taken in cases such as these, perhaps it is only that the USA is too successful at the game they invented.
Don't hate the player; hate the game.
Re:If only... (Score:4, Insightful)
It says a lot about your understanding of US history [wikipedia.org] that you think it was like that.
Re:Don't be a player hater (Score:2, Insightful)
Please get off your soap box for a moment. Not that I support everything the USA government does on behalf of corporate interest, but let's not pretend the US is the sole practitioner of such tactics. The imperialists of Europe have been using their military might to enrich monetary interests since way before there even was a USA.
The exception to this argument being that Europe isn't doing anything with it's militaries anymore. Oh, a little intervention in West Africa by France, but mostly to keep the peace. The world has changed since 100 years ago, when it was still viewed as acceptable to colonise savage lands and subvert southeastern asian nations. Ask someone recently from China what the Big Insult was, they'll tell you. Could anyone, even the USA do that today? Not a chance. Now most of it is all done through diplomacy, multinational corporations and a few should lived marauders.
Re:If only... (Score:3, Insightful)
John Hancock was America's largest . .
KFG
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
US "lobbying" is more akin to bullying other states, including allies, into doing what the US
government wants. That does not always work though, partly due to the end of the Cold War
and the disgust the current US administration generates.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the current US government decided they didn't have antitrust issues with Microsoft and just stopped pursuing it.
Cheers
Re:And what's wrong with that? (Score:4, Insightful)
It has a lot to do with how much said company contributes each year to taxes.
Usually it has more to do with how much the company contributes to election campaigns, not taxes.
Those taxes fund government programs such as welfare, foodstamps, education, defense, etc.
So what? If a billionaire pays a million dollars in taxes each year should we ask the EU not to convict them for armed robbery when we convicted them of the same offense two years ago?
Sure, it may not be what you want but the govt is actually looking out for its bottom line, not the company it's lobbying for.
Nope. They are looking out for their slush funds and bribes. Both the companies who asked the EU look into this issue and who are the victims whose money is being unlawfully redirected are American companies whose taxes also fund the US government. How does MS paying taxes on their portable document and antivirus tools businesses benefit the US any more than Adobe and Symantec doing the same?
Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Rubbish. Not even the Golden Horde or the Nazis were simply murderous. They'd wipe out armies, and occasionally cities that resisted, but otherwise just wanted to enslave their opponents. More successful empire builders like the Romans made efforts to assimilate their former enemies.
Re:Don't be a player hater (Score:4, Insightful)
Has it been that long since world war II? Certainly it's been a while. But Europe has a much longer lineage of threating the world than the US does...
Some bully, others wish they could. (Score:3, Insightful)
I expect that when China "lobbies" one of it's neighboring countries -- or virtually anyone else -- from a position of power, they apply all the same pressure. There I expect it's probably even stronger, since politics and industry are so closely intertwined.
The states that complain most about the U.S. using its power for its (by which I mean, its citizens) own advantage are mostly those states that are less powerful, and it smacks more of jealousy than it does of real moral outrage.
The government of the United States is elected by the citizens of the United States, and has its only mandate to them. If Americans as a whole wanted a kinder, gentler foreign policy, they'd vote for people who were in favor of that; however, such stances are quite unpopular.
Re:Rollerball in the real world (Score:3, Insightful)
Some scenes of Rollerball were actually filmed at the BMW headquarters in Munich. This is appropriate. Germany's Government and economic policies are just as, if not more so, as favoring German corporations as the US ones. Cartels exist in Germany and are protected by Government policy. They don't actually call them cartels of course - cos that's illegal - but they are pretty much nonetheless.
And since Germany is the powerhouse (read: bully) of EU policy. Germany's Corporations do rather well here - to the detriment of many more capable ones. Lots of German firms would have gone to the wall long ago if it were not for Government intervention. German micoreconomics is horrifically inefficient and high maintenance, German firms simply cannot compete on a level playing field in many cases.
It's worse under the currently ruling CDU, but the other parties aren't much better, they are all pretty much pwned by corporations.
Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a really good example that despite the fact that I am strongly against the direction my country has taken, I also recognize elements of what's wrong here in the anti-US crowd. You guys are not making reasoned statements based on documented history when you say things like this. You sure as hell aren't leading by example. Why should a republican care about learning from history and being accurate in his allegations about other nations, if the people criticizing them don't? And sure, why should you care when they don't? Hey, let's all not care and find out if Ghandi was right about eye for an eye. Sounds like a plan to me.
The ONLY reason Europe enjoys peace! (Score:3, Insightful)
Creating "peace" and democracy in Iraq sure has been effective, I must say. The draft, coming soon to a city near you!
Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, maybe we should. But next time you have a terrorist attack, don't think it was because the terrorists hate your freedom or because their religion tells them to do it. It will be because of that very same asshole attitude of yours.
Re:No Bias Against Microsoft By EU? Hardly. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And what's wrong with that? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we didn't.
In the US they were convicted of antitrust bundling. In the EU they were convicted of antitrust bundling. Both cases focused on different instances of bundling, but it was the same crime.
Niether case was black-and-white and the two can not be compared. For example, the EU is particular about some details that are simply unreasonable (i.e. crippling the user experience by not allowing the packaging of a media player with a modern OS).
That is perfectly reasonable in my opinion. MS should no more be handed dominance in the Media player market because they have dominance in the desktop OS space than the electric company should be handed a monopoly on cookies because they have on one electrical distribution.
As for "crippling the user experience" MS sells product primarily to OEMs like Sony, Dell, Lenovo, HP, and Gateway. They are the ones mostly hurt by MS's bundling. They are the ones who should choose what media player to bundle and it would enhance the user experience not cripple it. The OEMs are motivated to pick the best player or combination of players because otherwise their customers might move to another company. MS is not motivated to pick or develop the best player if they are given the choice. They are motivated to pick the one that makes them the most money.
In particular, most consumers rip their CDs to DRM-constrained Windows media format, because of MS's bundling action. This results in loads of consumer frustration since it means a significant number have to re-rip their music when they find out they can't move it to another computer or onto their portable player (not supported by the iPod which has 70% or so of the market). If the OEMs had been given an equal choice as to which player(s) to include consumers would have not only gotten a better player, but MS would have been motivated to make a better player to influence their decision. There is a good chance it would rip files to MP3 or at least non-DRMed Windows media format.
I think you need to revisit this issue and read up on the effects and laws surrounding monopolies and anti-competative bundling.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, i am saying that part of the definition of the law that people are talking about is that the consumer was harmed by the practice in question. Merely existing as a monopoly in this country is not illegal. One of the charges in question had consumer harm as a predicate to the definition of the law, as i understand things. If you can point me to information that says differently, please do so.
Right - I was referring to a hypothetical justice dept employee. There are plenty of people in the government that are power-hungry and oppose the current administration (for any definitino of "current"). If there was an open and shut case, why didn't they go for it? The entire justice department wasn't disposed of, even if a lot of shuffling happened.
Why are you sure of something you can neither describe nor cite?
Re:Don't be a player hater (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah...for a moment there, I thought you were going to end with "towards Iraq".
"I'd love to live in Europe right now and enjoy empire living standards without having to do any of the dirty work."
Dirty hands, you mean. Yes, obviously, it's thanks to the imperialistic tendencies and unilateral arrogant attitudes on worldlevel, that Europe enjoys good living standards. If you hadn't supported rebels - though now described as terrorists - and dicators alike, where would we be?
Didn't the US do some good as well? Certainly, just like any other country. Alas, also just like all empires before it, it also behaves like it owns the world. the problem with that is:
a)They aren't very good at it (at least the Romans made an effort to bring culture and civilisation, aside from destruction, AND they were also politically adept, AND they endured for a thousand years)
b)The time of empires has passed, and it seems the US didn't get the memo. This imperialistic, military and arrogant behaviour belongs to another era, and the USA is like a dinosaur acting like it still can control the world the way a budding empire did hundreds of years ago. And not only that, it thinks it has the god-given right to do so, moral superiour as they think they are, or 'a shining example for all'. You know: freedom, democracy, all that - well, unless a country goes against USA interests, of course.
Anti-americanism exists all right, even in europe. But what you fail to realise is, that it's been born and it has grown as a result from your own hypocritic actions. It might be funny in a south-park episode, but it isn't in real life, if USA citizens are unaware of the reason why people dislike the USA so much. And for fucks' sake, it isn't because we're "jealous of your freedom" or because america is the pinacle that the West has to offer, or any such self-deluging flattery that you people invent to try to keep your own narcistic illusion in place.
The downside is, most of the populace are viewing the matter in generalised terms, and in black and white. And anti-americanism gets a too broad a stroke to my taste. I'm anti-american myself, though I only interpret that in a limited way: I do not dislike the USA population as a whole (as is becomming more and more the current mentality), because, as individuals, I know you have some swell persons living there. (The late) Carl Sagan comes to mind, and a lot of others. But, your current government deserves all the flack it gets, and THEY present the USA on the world-stage (and, in all honesty, at least half of the populace voted for Buja - well, the second time, anyway - and thus, half earns the miscontempt it gets)
Anti-americanism, based on the actions of your government, and those that kept that same government in place, is justified and well deserved, me thinks.
Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is precisely why some people like Osama and his friends have decided that it's in their best interest to kill you first, before you change your mind.
Gates power unmeasurable (Score:1, Insightful)
Now think about how much money Trey has. For example, the President of China stopped and met him BEFORE meeting George Bush on a recent trip.
With the crooks and liars in the White House now, I am surprised they didn't give him the medal of freedom.
Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pfft. Nothing New Here (Score:4, Insightful)
Terrorists do not attack and kill 3000 people simply because they don't like the people's attitude. They attack because they hate the people and want them destroyed.
No, al Queda wants us out of the middle east in general, and Saudi Arabia in particular. You don't see them attacking Canadians or Germans so much, do you?