Slashdot Log In
EU Will Not Divulge Microsoft Contracts
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Nov 11, 2008 03:01 PM
from the move-along-no-public-interest-here dept.
from the move-along-no-public-interest-here dept.
Elektroschock writes "Marco Cappato, a Liberal member of the European Parliament, wanted to inspect the EU's contracts with Microsoft. His request was denied. '...the [divulging] of [this] information could jeopardize the protection of commercial interest of Microsoft.' Apparently the European Council sees no clear public interest in the release of such contractual material, and so 'the Secretariat general concludes that the protection of Microsoft's commercial interests, being one of the commercial partners of the European institutions, prevails on the [divulging] for the public interest.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Linux: Secret EU Open Source Migration Study Leaked 311 comments
Elektroschock writes "For 4 years MEP Marco Cappato tried to get access to the EU Council's 2005 open source migration study because he is a member of a responsible IT oversight committee in the European Parliament. His repeated requests for access were denied. Now they have finally been answered because the Council's study has escaped into the wild (PDF in French and English). Here is a quick look. It is embarrassing! Gartner, when asked if there were any mature public Linux installations in Europe, claimed that there were none. Michael Silver said, 'I have not spoken to any sizable deployments of Linux on the desktop and only one or two StarOffice deployments.' Gartner spread patent and TCO FUD. Also, the European Patent Office participated in the project, although it is not an EU institution."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Well that's just a load of BS, lemme tell you... (Score:5, Interesting)
[Blocked] It has been determined that the contents of this comment do not serve the public interest.
-The Secretariate General-
US vs. EU interests? (Score:5, Insightful)
What really fascinates me is that the people high up in the EU governance food chain think that the business interests of a US company is more important to the citizens of the European Union than information about what their money is being spent on.
Parent
Does that mean I finally get the first post? (Score:3, Funny)
Guess I won't move to Europe (Score:2)
anytime soon...
What a disappointment!
I guess the request should be accompanied by a request to investigate some misconduct in order to be of clear public interest.
I think the accusation would be enough incentive to open up the contracts. If they don't, it should be considered evidence of misconduct and an attempt to cover it up.
Actually... (Score:2)
...the EU may be correct in this case - depending.
For public projects and the like, sure - the taxpayers have a right to know. OTOH, for military use and various secret services (I don't know if the EU has any of either, but I can see respective militaries and such among member nations pooling VLKs and the like through the EU), there's a lot of things the public doesn't necessarily have a compelling need to know about.
One question though - does the EU disclose contract and/or payment info for any other vend
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would imagine they would give a response like "please provide more specificity" if they simply felt it was too vague.
FOIA's are that way (you do realize a pretty big trade agreement is the source of all the FOIA-related bills going around country to country nowadays), that was the response I got when I FOIA'd the ACTA agreement before it hit major press coverage...it was only then that I started getting dancing answers about how we can't see that information.
What I'd love to see, is a law stating that you
Is the left hand even connected to the right hand? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is the left hand even connected to the right ha (Score:4, Informative)
So let me make sure I understand ... this is basically the EU equivalent of a United States Senator [Marco Cappato, a Liberal member of the European Parliament] asking the House of Representatives [the European Council] for a contract the House negotiated on behalf of the government and getting denied?
Well yes at least to my understanding that would, unfortunately, be quite accurate.
I'm a EU citizen... I don't like this *at*all*.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
So let me make sure I understand ... this is basically the EU equivalent of a United States Senator [Marco Cappato, a Liberal member of the European Parliament] asking the House of Representatives [the European Council] for a contract the House negotiated on behalf of the government and getting denied?
Actually, I think this is the EU equivalent of a member of the U.S. House of Representatives asking the U.S. Administration (the European Council) for information on how it is spending money.
Re: (Score:2)
The European Parliament would be the equivalent of the House of Representatives. The European Council is a council comprising the heads of state of the member countries.
Nothing new on the EUSSR front. (Score:2)
Not even half a lifetime after getting rid of one sowiet union, we're getting another.
I dont know, every time I read how the EU managed to get away another piece of our rights I wonder, why do these oligarchist fucks cling on to calling their bueraucratic regime a "democracy" at all? Why dont they just proclaim a open dictatorship so I can move to Switzerland finally? How did the swiss manage to be the ONLY nation on earth where the people control their politicians and not vice versa and keep defending thei
Nothing to see here (Score:2, Funny)
(waves hand) These are not the contracts you're looking for. Move along.
Not in their interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not in the public interest to know how much public money MSFT is getting and for what? It's a certainty MSFT doesn't want it getting out how much of a discount government agencies are getting, and what other inducements they're tossing in to sweeten the deal. If it gets out gov agencies are paying $50/seat for Windows, every other enterprise customer will want that deal. I'm not sure how keeping that secret is in the public interest...unless they're worried MS will raise the price if it gets out.
If it were up to me...if the taxpayer buys it, the taxpayer owns it. And that would be true for software, or at least for the licenses. Imagine if the federal government could negotiate for government wide enterprise license deals. If the Navy closed a program, they could take the software licenses they don't need and transfer them to the Marines or another gov agency. I always thought it should be that way. What's MS going to do about it? Not sell to the government? Yeah, that would be smart, drive gov adoption of open source.
Re:Not in their interest? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not in the public interest to know how much public money MSFT is getting and for what?
That's not what is being claimed. The information IS in the public interest -- the argument is that Microsoft's commercial interest is MORE IMPORTANT than the public interest. Which I think is even worse-sounding that what you said.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's in the public's interest to know that the people who brokered your end of the deal were trustworthy and capable of striking a fair bargain.
It's not in the public's interest to abuse that negotiator's view into a company's proprietary information.
Companies will simply stop selling your government the things it needs to be more efficient, or will insist on huge fees to compensate for loss of intellectual property.
Stupidest possible excuse (Score:3, Interesting)
Governments shouldn't be allowed to deny access to information of that sort. Oh, we're just signing this in your name and at your expense. What?! You want to see it? Hahaha!
More and more... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ireland was right to say no ... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why Ireland said NO to the Lisbon treaty.
When you see the response of other EU nations,
you can *feel* the arrogance. Not just to the citizens,
but to smaller nations.
The EU is losing touch with basic democratic principles,
especially the concept of Accountability.
They have forgotten that they are servants of the people,
and need to be reminded.
And what did you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Years ago when the idea of the EU was starting to form into something real, I commented to friends that it had the potential to make something great. I also said that given how governments loved control, it was pretty much guaranteed that they would fuck it up beyond belief. I nailed it (unfortunately).
Re:What Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything that involves public money and is not a matter of national (or continental, in this case) security should be open to scrutiny.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Then they could make the excuse that the contracts are a matter of economic security and if your economy turns to crap then so will your national security.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? So the public should be able to view your tax returns?
Re:What Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the same thing. What he meant by "anything" was "any expenditures". The government should only have income from the taxation of it's citizens. We all "know" it's coming from us, so tax returns do not have to be disclosed to everyone.
ALL expenditures not DIRECTLY related to national security MUST be open to scrutiny. To do otherwise invites corruption into the system.
Parent
Already done (Score:3, Informative)
Really? So the public should be able to view your tax returns?
We already have that in Scandinavia, you can search them online or visit the tax office and request them.
The newspapers usually make quite a deal out of it, showing the highest earners for each county and so on.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The secrecy may or may not be a bad thing but I doubt that it's there because of some ultra-shady backroom deal, but after the OOXML fiasco, who knows...
Re:What Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, good god. Just imagine if players in the market were permitted to know current market rates for specific services. It'd be chaos. It'd be terrible. It'd allow vendors to compete on price for government contracts, and result in government potentially picking a less expensive option for using taxpayer money. Heaven forbid. At least we all know that picking Microsoft is the best possible example for slashdotters of a company that should never be put at a competitive disadvantage!
Parent
Re:What Rights? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
They're not talking about BIDS anyhow. (Score:4, Informative)
They're talking about contracts. Signed and sealed deals between MS and the EU. That gives zero competitive advantage to ANYONE, because the deal already went through, and the next time you have to compete with Microsoft on a completely different project.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
last I checked Microsoft is a near monopoly with upwards of 85% of the desktop market. (note they tried to keep Google from getting that amount in search with Yahoo) How is discussing contract terms that represent 85% of the market not competitive. Unless Microsoft is using large contracts sold cheaply to sway other people that can't choose, network effects.
In houses or cars bidding is sealed during sales, but you legally have to post the sale value when you register the property. Then you can see what a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think GP was suggesting that Microsoft should be treated differently to any other (potential) government contractor. If someone wins a contract and produces crap, they are liable (depending on terms of contract, I suppose)
Yep. Although it's so expensive to hold them to that liability that it's hardly ever done.
get a bad reputation and are not hired again
Nope. When I was assessing bids under EU contract rules I had to do it according to a strict points scheme, and was specifically not allowed to take past performance of the company into account. I was only permitted to assess the bid based on the actual contents of the bid. That was a few years ago now, but I don't think it's changed.
Re:What Rights? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sorry but exactly what kind of enforcement agencies those the EU have?
AFAIK the only intelligence agency is Europol, and all it's investigation are performed by member nations it has no executive rights anywhere as far as I know...
My guess is that EU got a really dirt cheap deal for some software... And promised not to tell others... Like everybody else...
Parent
Re:What Rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
*THAT* is likely to be the correct answer. Microsoft plays very fast and very lose with their pricing when threats to their monopoly are encountered. My guess is that their prices dipped to near-zero while they were being prosecuted in European courts in order to help influence opinion about Microsoft... and/or possibly fluctuations may be observed around the time that OOXML was up for ISO vote as well.
Parent
Re:What Rights? (Score:4, Informative)
My guess is that their prices dipped to near-zero while they were being prosecuted in European courts in order to help influence opinion about Microsoft...
Are you insinuating that there're any links what so ever between what the European court and the contracts the EU counsel have to buy software?
:)
The judges who convicted MS in the antitrust case were not politicians and they were not publicly elected!
To insinuate that the European court could be bribed by offering cheap contracts to EU counsel is absurd.
(I assume the contracts we're talking about is the software delivery contracts Microsoft has with EU, where EU is a customer).
The real reason it interesting is because the European Union probably did a study as to whether or not an opensource solution would be better. And they probably found that Microsoft suddenly would offer their software for close to nothing... And then the politicians decides that they'll get Microsoft since the price is not that much different... Only problem he doesn't see is the lockin...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This was interestingly the case he, Capatto asked whether also about the open source study that was withdrawn. The Council says it had no copy and he should rather go to the historic archives in Luxembourg. That is odd.
"...has not keep any copy of the Study. The Secretariat general suggests to ask a copy to the interistututional committee on informatics' archives."
Marco Capatto is also pro-Free Software [europa.eu]
And other MEPs are asking questions as well: Georgios Papastamkos (PPE-DE) to the Commission: Commission's [europa.eu]
Re:What Rights? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
'Commercial sensitivity' trumps democratic accountability. That's not right, is it?
Re:What Rights? (Score:4, Interesting)
In Sweden contractual information has to be made public when dealing with the government, punsihable by criminal law.
Sucks to live in the UK.
Parent
Re:What Rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
The US government is actually quite open, more open then you realize. Only when it comes to military/security information US is quite about it. Just tune to CSPAN 1,2,3,4,5... and you can watch most everything that is happening with the legislative area of our federal government, and every law passed or failed. Know what the debate was etc... It is that most of us are to lazy to actually look at the information and say it is a closed government. No they won't tell the general public about their brand new airplanes that can fire a laser at a top secret satellite to have it bounce back and kill a target half way around the world. But for the laws that get passed there is actually good transparency and I bet if you needed to you can find out how much they are paying Microsoft for their licenses.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They need to protect businesses equally, and if it appears they may be protecting a certain business over others, it does make it look as if there might
Re:What Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that governments have rights is absurd. People have rights. The people have delegated certain tasks to government for their own convenience, and have accepted limits on some minimal subset of their rights so that society can best protect the rest. Note that "society" is not the same as "the government"; the government is just a mechanism used by society to accomplish certain specific things.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for your authoritative declaration of the way things MUST be!
Re:What Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really see the problem here, granted some of us might have wanted to know more about the contracts. However it is the right of governments to decide what they make public and not.
They define those rights. "There is no problem because we say so" is not a justification.
And I don't see how the differing views of Americans warrants bearing anything special in mind. I'm from the EU, and outside opinions are just as relevant and welcome as anyone else's. If not more so.
Re:What Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
So, in theory, a government that keeps its people in the dark about everything it does is just exercising its "right" to decide what not to make public?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
However it is the right of governments to decide what they make public and not.
Why? I mean, if the government is feudalism you might justify that by saying that the nobles were more important than the rabble. In a democracy, the government works for the people not the other way around. That means the government doesn't have the "right" to do anything against the wishes of the people.
And for my American friends remember that we have a different view on things like this, usually European governments are MORE open than the US.
Something you apparently don't value, because you think the government should be allowed to be less open if it decides to. Lack of openness in the US government is a problem that needs to be rectified,
Re:Pitfalls of socialism. (Score:4, Interesting)
How the hell you link this to socialism is beyond my comprehension. I don't think you know what the word means.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Many companies? Maybe many companies should, but actually doing so is almost unheard of. This has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with embedded power and interests in social structures.
Also, try suing a company to get it to reveal its contracts with another company. There isn't even the expectation of openness there - I'm not sure where you were trying to go with your second paragraph.
Re:European Parliament (Score:5, Informative)
When has the European Parliament and the public interest ever coincided?
Hum let me think ...
When it voted against the 3-strikes law for downloaders? [iptegrity.com]
When it voted against software patents? [ffii.org]
When it voted for restrictions on the use of radioactive weapons? [beagle17.gnn.tv]
The EU Parliament [europa.eu] can really hardly be criticized, except for the fact that it doesn't have that much power, which in my opinion is a real pity. Go troll elsewhere. [4chan.org]
Parent