

How Microsoft Pays Big Money To Smear Google In European Parliament - patrickaljord
http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/02/how-microsoft-pays-big-money-to-smear-google-audaciously/

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

------
ceol
_> 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.

------
yoyar
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.

~~~
lukeschlather
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_cloutier
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.

~~~
jamesbritt
_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"?_

Corporate charters are special privileges granted by the state.

~~~
brian_cloutier
Well sure, corporations can be recognized by the state. That doesn't mean they
require the state. There's nothing about legal personality or limited
liability that requires "use of force"

~~~
jamesbritt
_Well sure, corporations can be recognized by the state. That doesn't mean
they require the state._

Of course they require the state. They are an _invention_ of government.

~~~
spindritf
This argument is tautological and IMVHO disingenuous. Yes, governments do
provide legal protections for corporations but it's not the essence of what a
corporation is. It's capital and a group of people which is perceived as
separate in some aspects from its members.

I would guess that even hunter gatherers were organizing limited liability
ventures like hunting parties.

------
trotsky
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
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
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.

~~~
trotsky
It does if all you're doing is singling out one specific participant and
ignoring all other examples. Because then it becomes clear that you are just
looking for either a good reason to trash that party or rush to the defense of
the aggrieved. Which wouldn't be surprising, considering Google is most
definitely spending their own lobbying dollars.

------
powertower
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!

------
davyjones
“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
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.

------
bithopper
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.

------
yanw
"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...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/03/microsoft-v-google)

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

------
cooldeal
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
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.

~~~
cooldeal
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...](http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2007/06/09/google-revealed-as-
source-of-windows-vista-complaint/)

~~~
archangel_one
Sure, maybe Google spent a lot on lobbying in 2011, but you don't know that
any of that was smearing Microsoft from behind a sock puppet in the way that
they have against Google here. While I don't like lobbying, I accept that
Google needs to play the game while the rules are the way they are, and they
don't necessarily have to badmouth Microsoft to do that - as you admit, they
have presumably focused more on SOPA.

And I don't see the huge problem with the link you present - in fact I don't
think I'd call it "lobbying" at all. Google had a potentially legitimate
complaint in asking that the court overseeing a convicted monopolist considers
a particular part of their behaviour which obviously has the potential to
impact on Google. It's up to the court to decide if they're infringing or not.

------
boubountu
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.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"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.

~~~
boubountu
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.

~~~
Dylan16807
oakgrove, you appear to be hellbanned. copying your useful comment:

 _In the context of the situation it doesn't matter. This person is a member
of parliament who's time presumably is valuable and shouldn't be wasted
listening to propaganda. Furthermore the person also said that the meeting was
purported to be about one thing and when he went in to listen discovered that
it was actually about something completely else. So they were dishonest in
getting him to listen in the first place. I don't want a member of the
government being duped into listening to anything via dishonest means and then
sitting around thinking "Well they lied to me to get me in here but maybe they
have some good points." If anything it's a shame the organizers of the event
can't be brought up on charges. Criminal lying with the intent to deceive or
something. /s_

~~~
cooldeal
Oakgrove is specifically banned because he's a hateful anti-MS troll on
multiple sites. Pasting his messages and informing him about the banning goes
against the express wishes of those who work hark hard for all of us to have a
nice and civil site to use.

He is now going to use different accounts to troll HN. Do you think someone
collects -31 karma from HN moderation for making great comments or reddit type
attacks? Please at least read through someones comments before informing them
as a knee jerk reaction. I am disappointed.

------
rickmb
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.

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

~~~
Natsu
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case)

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
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.

~~~
Natsu
The claim in the article was that they're a "convicted monopolist" and I just
gave you two convictions.

Nothing I wrote and nothing the article wrote requires them to be a monopolist
today. The OP said the article writer didn't know what monopoly meant. I'm
pointing out that they know perfectly well what it means and that the OP
merely disagrees with their conclusion.

