The Ugly American Company, Microsoft, will now have a third investigation run by the EU regarding their smarmy "lobbying" (read, "bribery and coercion" tactics during the OOXML file format fight last year.
"The investigation will be especially welcome in standards circles, due to the wide range of reports from the field that Microsoft has engaged in 'stacking' of the national committees that were voting on OOXML as well as other overreaching activities intended to influence the result" of standards voting, said Andrew Updegrove, a standards expert who has opposed the Microsoft effort in the past, in an e-mail....Microsoft's OOXML proposal is still working its way through international standards bodies but has had a tough time convincing standards groups.
In September, a proposal that called for OOXML to receive fast-track approval was voted down by the ISO in Geneva by standards groups from participating countries.
Microsoft is already facing EU investigations involving the integration of its Internet Explorer browser into Office software and involving how its Office software operates with competitors' software.
Technology
Comments
Why should this be suprising? The whole antitrust case is simply EU protectionism brought on by lobbying from Microsoft's competitors. I am sure Opera and others engaged in the same tactics. Monopolies are impossible in market economies without government support.
Posted by: bwv | February 9, 2008 4:04 PM
Actually, I'm sure the lack of anti-trust action in the US is the anomaly here.
Posted by: Greg Laden | February 9, 2008 6:44 PM
Precisely how is this supposed to be "EU protectionism", bwv, when the main complaints against Microsoft come from other US companies???
Posted by: Oliver | February 10, 2008 7:20 AM
I was referring to the most recent complaint by Opera, but in any case the Antitrust suit (and most every antitrust case) is simply corporate welfare for losers in the marketplace. Notice how consumers are not filing these suits. Economic studies of past antitrust cases have failed to show any cases where consumers were actually harmed. Indeed, the original Sherman act case was brought by local, high cost butchers against Swift's new system of centralized meat packing and refigerated railroad cars. Swift's competitors simply wanted government protection for their uncompetitive businesses. This has been the pattern for every antitrust case since. In an industry as dynamic as software that the 1993 case is was only resolved last year just goes to show what a ridiculous waste of money and resources antitrust regulation is. Just like the US government's 15+ year case against IBM that eventually had to be dropped because the industry had changed so much the thought of IBM having any monopolistic powers was absurd to even the government antitrust lawyers.
Posted by: bwv | February 10, 2008 10:41 AM
name-calling isn't very grown-up. I think that sticking to facts (which tell the same story anyway) without the taunting lets the users read the article without being "prepared" for a biased view.
I'm not a MS fan-boy, btw - I'm typing this in Linux. but still - you won't win an argument by getting personal. The facts speak for themselves.
Posted by: Kae Verens | February 11, 2008 5:13 AM
Kae: I wish the facts did speak for themselves. You know, and I know, that Linux is better than Microsoft. So why is it just you and me and three other guys using it on the desktop?
See, here's the thing. For years, I used Microsoft, and was constantly frustrated by it. But Microsoft would not listen. They did not care about my problems. Then I switched to LInux. Then, later, I got a blog. Now, I'm just letting it all out.
Posted by: Greg Laden | February 11, 2008 6:10 AM
bwv,
Have you looked into this issue? Even Microsoft executives understand that's not true.
Posted by: Trinifar | February 11, 2008 3:22 PM