State Department questions EU's Microsoft ruling

TalkBack 143 of 143:

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Its all Politics

The reason the US Government *MUST* stand up and defend Microsoft now has nothing to do with the case at hand, it is to do with the fluidity of international commerce, the validity of signed agreements and supremcy of jurisdiction.

You cannot have stable, growing international commerce if every major government around the world embarks on legal challenges against international companies. You can't have companies facing different uneven playing fields all over the world - it ends up being bad for consumers because companies just charge more.

Signed agreements are in place already to cover these issues. The WTO and GATT are things designed to harmonise international commerce. The US and the EU also have a bi-lateral Comity Agreement on issues like this. Whenever Europe has a problem they wave agreements or go to the WTO Court of Arbitration, equally, they should be bound by the same rules. That I would suggest is one reason the US government is stepping in.

Probably most important is the issue of jurisdiction. The US Government dealt with this case, rightly or wrongly. If the EU felt it had not done a strong enough job, they should have protested to the State Dept and outlined their reasons. That's the agreement they signed up for with Bill Clinton. The US must defend its right to rule on its own companies.

I also think there may be some issue with how the EU goes about these cases. The ruling comes down without ever going to a court. A committee makes a decision and levies out the penalty. If I'm not mistaken it is the same committee that, under the auspices of a sub department, levies the charges in the first place. There is something inherently unfair about someone being the accuser, the judge, the jury and executioner.

Finally, it there is the aspect that Monti is in his final year in his role. He wants to make a big splash so he brings the hammer down on Microsoft - the biggest fish in the sea. There is something that again, just seems wrong about this.

Personally, if I were an American citizen, I'd be quite concerned if the government didn't protest on principle alone. Microsoft is an American company that has just been levied the largest fine in the history of the EU, with the ruling and fine being handed down without a single day ever being spent in court over there while at the same time there are agreements in place suggesting that this should never happen. Put the company and the facts of the case aside and on principle alone, the whole thing stinks.

My other question is, where does the money from the fine go? I would bet the same amount as the fine that it goes into consolidated revenue for the EU Government to be used as farm subsidies for uncompetitive French farmers. You gotta love the irony.

Posted by: SuperSean   Posted on: 04/22/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now