How Microsoft Pays Big Money To Smear Google In European Parliament

http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/02/how-microsoft-pays-big-money-to-smear-google-audaciously/

by patrickaljord • 14 years ago

185 53 14 years ago

yoyar• 14 years ago

Vilify Microsoft if you like; I won't object, there's plenty there to work with. But really, what's the core problem here? The core of it is that the government is able to use force to control people/corporations. You might be OK with that when it works for you but when it goes the other way you might want to pay attention as well. Does anyone really expect that politicians from Europe (or anywhere else for that matter) are going to make correct decisions about regulating the internet? Well, given their stellar record I suppose they'll do a fantastic job. Much better to let consumers decide.

yuhong• 14 years ago

Yea, I know about the cookie law fiasco.

smsm42• 14 years ago

+1 to that. In other comments people discuss if Microsoft was "convicted monopolist" or not - but much more important point is that all those convictions were absolutely useless and only represented chest-pounding and money-grabbing. What undermined Microsoft grip on OS and browser markets wasn't EU parliament or US DOJ. It was enterprising people offering viable alternatives. It is said that there's no bigger enemy of capitalism than capitalists. Big established businesses hate competition and would be much more comfortable enjoying lunches with government officials then competing with thousands of new kids on the block threatening to undermine them. So no wonder Microsoft seeks this route when it is available to them and wants to leverage politicians into competitive advantage. The power is out there, do you expect them just to ignore it? If the politicians take on themselves to be the judges of the markets, no wonder major markets players come to them and try to make them see things their way! This is happening and will keep happening inevitably. Of course, these tactics look stinky to the public, and it's proper to expose them - but don't expect them to go anywhere as long as there are politicians that have huge powers over the markets and players there. It's not like Microsoft is unique in doing something like this - every major player is doing it every day.

nyellin• 14 years ago

This. Large corporations are always going to attempt shitty legal maneuvers out of self interest. The real questions is whether the information revolution will succeed creating a more informed society, changing the way people vote and the way politicians legislate, bringing crap like this mostly to an end because of increased transparency.

That, and so long as political mores remain unchanged, year after year we'll see scandal after scandal.

lukeschlather• 14 years ago

Government use of force allows corporations to exist. Carried to its logical conclusion your argument calls for the elimination of corporations as legal entities. Corporations can't use force to control people without force of law, and if the corporations themselves control the law then the corporations become governments and suddenly you have the same problem.

The "core problem" is powerful leaders seeking more control over the world. That problem can't be addressed with a philosophy of government, it can only be addressed by holding leaders like Steve Ballmer accountable for their actions.

brian_cloutier2• 14 years ago

I'm not sure I recognize what system of thought you're using. Why does the existence of corporations require a "government use of force"?

It seems your entire argument is based off the assumption that corporations must be able to control people, or else they wouldn't exist. Hasn't the ideal always been "the market controls the corporation"? If you make a product that fulfills a need of the market you are rewarded, if you make a product people don't want then you fail.

If a corporation has control over consumers then the market fails, this is part of the reason why we have anti-trust laws.

I agree with you that one of the forces we're fighting is leaders trying to take too much control, but the answer is not to "hold them accountable," it's to not give them power in the first place. That's the whole point behind the structure of almost every modern government. In America, for example, the federal government is broken into three parts with a system of "checks and balances" to stop any one part from getting too much power.

bithopper• 14 years ago

One wonders if a proper reaction would be to separate personal beliefs and a desire to build away from the effects of PR schemes and people. It seems like the current state is absurd, and that acknowledging this and getting on with making stuff is the easiest thing to do. The worrying part of ignoring, is not knowing what kind of impact these acts will have on oneself and the products one produces.

jobeirne• 14 years ago

This guy doesn't know the definition of 'monopoly.' Neither MS nor Google qualifies: http://alpha.fdu.edu/~koppl/note19.htm

Zirro• 14 years ago

I see "convicted monopolist" and "monopolistic behaviour" in the article. Where is he saying that either of them is a monopoly?

Dylan168072• 14 years ago

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly over operating systems in general, and google doesn't have a monopoly over search. But I think microsoft does have a monopoly when it comes to running most of the programs that a business already has. You can more or less replace unix with unix but you can't replace microsoft with anything and expect existing systems to still work. Hopefully reactos will reach this point but it's not there yet.

berntb• 14 years ago

>>you can't replace microsoft with anything and expect existing systems to still work. Hopefully reactos will reach this point but it's not there yet.

That will be impossible in practice.

It is in a monopoly's interest to not be compatible, so they will make complex systems that will be expensive and take a long time to be bug-compatible with. And when the APIs are cloned, they will have gone to something else. All this will also be well locked down with patents.

The worst part (well, worst for me) is that the resulting systems will be unnecessarily complex and hence unpleasant to use for developers. That is, it lowers my life quality if I work with their systems.

barrkel2• 14 years ago

A US court made a finding of fact that MS was a monopoly.

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

kprobst• 14 years ago

Not that they were a monopoly, that's not illegal per se. The charges brought against them were related to the abuse of said monopoly.

Natsu2• 14 years ago

The courts have, for the most part, disagreed with your analysis.

==========

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86 based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others.

[...]

However, the appeals court did not overturn the findings of fact. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for consideration of a proper remedy under a more limited scope of liability. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was chosen to hear the case.

The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. Microsoft decided to draft a settlement proposal allowing PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.

==========

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_compe...

On 27 February 2008, the EU fined Microsoft an additional €899 million (US$1.44 billion) for failure to comply with the March 2004 antitrust decision.

forrestthewoods• 14 years ago

Microsoft may have been a monopoly 13 years ago but they aren't today.

Europe ruled that a primarily foreign company owed them 1.44 billion dollars and forced them to put out a product that no consumers wanted and retailers refused to stock.

yanw• 14 years ago

"The Economist" on a similar Microsoft/ICOMP/Burson-Marsteller anti-Google event that took place in London:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/03/microsoft-v-g...

Falkvinge• 14 years ago

Thank you for this little gem. I have added it as an update.

boubountu2• 14 years ago

So what? The most important is the content. Did they give wrong examples about Google? This is similar to when giving Coca-Cola as an example of how bad soda drinks are. It does not mean that Pepsi is good.

potatolicious3• 14 years ago

> "It does not mean that Pepsi is good."

But yet, that is exactly what MS is implying. Check out the shameful "Google salesman" ad that MS put out lately for more of the same.

boubountu2• 14 years ago

I am not vouching for MS nor Google. I don't take sides. All what I am interested in is to know wether the examples given about google were valid or not.

cooldeal6• 14 years ago

The salesman ad was shameful but Mac vs. PC was fair game. Why? Just because of your technical convictions?

nextparadigms• 14 years ago

Microsoft still seems to have that culture of playing dirty tricks on competitors. It has stuck with them.

powertower• 14 years ago

The slanderous words used at this seminar, which is brought together by many companies, with one being the convicted monopolist Microsoft...

> in Google’s latest privacy scandal

> Google made the headlines again

> allegations that Google has downranked relevant search results

Who wouldn't be enraged! Look. At. Those. Words.

> designed to plant ungrounded ideas in the audience’s mind.

Now. Think. Of. The. Children.

And then they had the audacity to call the Google representatives to speak!

trotsky2• 14 years ago

Is the definition of lobbyist different in Europe? Is the Pirate MP just not subjected to lobbyists otherwise or is this just mock outrage? It is very hard for me to believe this kind of anti-competitor lobbying doesn't go on all the time at the EP. It certainly does in Washington.

yobbobandana• 14 years ago

I imagine this article was intended as PR for the Pirate Party.

"This is the kind of stuff we do not like, vote for us if you also do not like it."

I think it targets their core demographic quite well. Whether it is mock outrage or not is a moot point.

seabee• 14 years ago

Whether anti-competitor lobbying goes on regularly is also a moot point. Being an MEP does not disqualify you from disliking parts of or associated with the EP.

As an extreme example, the UK Independence Party (who want to leave the EU) have several elected MEPs. As such I feel confused by what the grandparent comment is trying to express.

kzrdude• 14 years ago

A good lobbyist doesn't lie, doesn't FUD and maybe even doesn't exaggerate. Are your expectations different?

SteveJS• 14 years ago

This seems like some relevant history on your point. June 22, 2000: "Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), who represents Silicon Valley, says she does not see her constituent companies worried about DOJ antitrust scrutiny."

http://www.crn.com/news/channel-programs/18808921/the-men-wh...

davyjones• 14 years ago

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Gandhi.

I would like to insert "then they slander you, " right after the last comma.

ootachi• 14 years ago

Can we please not equate Google to Gandhi? Google is a corporation every bit as large, and every bit as purely self-interested, as Microsoft.

cooldeal6• 14 years ago

I am sure Google only says good things about MS during its hifi lobbying efforts. Right?

Imagine a convicted monopolist arguing that it's rivals be held to the same standard as it was. Not that is going to get much traction on this antiMS and proGoogle site.

gregable• 14 years ago

I'm not sure that Google concentrates it's lobbying efforts to say anything one way or the other about Microsoft. It seems it's biggest efforts were in trying to prevent SOPA/PIPA.

cooldeal6• 14 years ago

Google outspent Microsoft in lobbying efforts spending in the US in 2011.

Also, it has a commercial interest in SOPA not passing so their opposition is to be expected for their bottomline.

If you think lobbying isn't done to enhance any company's bottomline at the expense of everyone else, then you're mistaken.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2007/06/09/google-reveal...

mda2• 14 years ago

Can you show me a single example where Google did anything like this?

bediger• 14 years ago

You could bing for incidents like this.

ceol• 14 years ago

> What did Google have to do with this discussion in need for regulating governments’ appetite for citizen data and corporations abusing their privacy policies?

Everything. I would not be surprised if Google knew more than your government knows about you. Hopefully that does not sound sensationalist. Google also has come under a fire for their privacy policy changes, so that seminar was certainly not baseless, and I think it was a bit naive to assume a seminar about privacy wouldn't focus on Google. Maybe not the entire focus, but surely it would take up a noticeable chunk.

Coming from Microsoft, however, I could see why the author walked out. The goal was not to educate the government or its people; the goal was to scare people into using Microsoft products.

rickmb• 14 years ago

Given Google's arrogant "we piss on stupid EU privacy sensibilities" stance, I wonder why Microsoft even bothers to poor gasoline on a an already raging fire.

Besides, Google's anti-piracy and anti-privacy stance is largely opposed to everything Falkvinge stands for, whilst Microsoft has been playing relatively nice with civil rights for the past decade or so.

The only problem I see here is that Microsoft is hiding behind some fake lobbyist front. What they are lobbying for sounds mostly factual to me.

How Microsoft Pays Big Money To Smear Google In European Parliament

Related Stories