US court quashes Microsoft bid for IBM documents in EU case ~ could harm U.S. sovereignty

MarketWatch ^ | 4:49 PM ET Apr 20, 2006 | MarketWatch staff

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

BRUSSELS (MarketWatch) -- A U.S. court in New York on Thursday quashed a Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) subpoena for International Business Machines Corp.'s (IBM) documents related to the software company's European anti-trust case, Microsoft said Thursday.

Judge Colleen McMahon said Microsoft's subpoena amounted to a "blatant end run" on the European Commission's authority. The judge noted that the Brussels-based regulator strongly opposed Microsoft's request and said enforcing such a subpoena could harm U.S. sovereignty if a foreign court were used to obtain documents in a U.S. proceeding.

Microsoft says the commission is colluding with IBM and other rivals and denying the company a fair chance to review key evidence. The regulator has refused to give Microsoft access to some documents, citing confidentiality concerns and rivals' "fear of retaliation," according to a Boston court ruling earlier this week in which a judge quashed a similar Microsoft request for documents held by Novell Inc. (NOVL).

Last month a U.S. federal court in California rejected Microsoft's request for documents from Oracle Corp. (ORCL) and Sun Microsystems Inc. (SUNW). Microsoft appealed that decision. However, Microsoft decided to withdraw the appeal following the New York court's ruling.

"The writing is clearly on the wall for these actions, and we will not be pursuing them any further," Microsoft spokesman Tom Brookes said.

The four competitors named in the U.S. subpoenas have supported European regulators' finding that Microsoft isn't doing enough to comply with a March 2004 antitrust decision. In that ruling, the European Commission fined Microsoft a record EUR497 million and ordered it to help rivals make their software products mesh with servers running the ubiquitous Windows operating system.

Microsoft now faces further fines of as much as EUR2 million a day for failing to provide adequate guidelines on this so-called "interoperability" issue.

Microsoft argues that it has complied with the regulator's orders, but will make further concessions if necessary. Commission officials and lawyers familiar with the case say Microsoft is unlikely to dissuade Neelie Kroes, the commission's top antitrust official, from levying fines, which will be backdated to Dec. 15.

Microsoft, the commission and rival companies will square off in an E.U. court in Luxembourg next week in Microsoft's appeal of the regulator's March 2004 ruling.

-Contact: 201-938-5400

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

My add on to the original title could be confusing...one of the judges made a statement about US sovereignty...

[Spktyr]

Hey, Microsoft, thanks for playing, byebye now.

IBM legal 1, Microsoft Legal 0. Bill needs to get some better lawyers. And he may be about to regret getting involved in the SCO fight.

[ShadowAce]

[rzeznikj at stout]

It is indeed an interesting remark.

IMHO, I believe it means that Microsoft's using of the EU and the international court system to pry documents from its competitors--who are also based in America, is an undue influence on American laws and judicial proceedings

Simply put, this beef between MS and IBM belongs strictly in US courts and not in the EU or the international courts.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

software company's European anti-trust case..........

So why did Microsoft drag IBM into the case...? Hmmm?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

And there is this also:

Last month a U.S. federal court in California rejected Microsoft's request for documents from Oracle Corp. (ORCL) and Sun Microsystems Inc. (SUNW).

[rzeznikj at stout]

So why did Microsoft drag IBM into the case...? Hmmm?

IBM, Oracle, Novell, and Sun all filed documents with the EU that Microsoft wasn't doing enough to ensure competition in the European Union after it settled with the EU regulators over anti-trust issues.

Apparently, there's something in those docs that MS wants to know--and very badly. Not sure what it is, but my guess is that a significant share of their case in Luxembourg is going to depend on what these docs have to say

For all anyone knows, those documents can make or break MS's entire defense before the appellate officials. Their marketshare lead in Europe is on the chopping block. And they know that Linux (and other open-source elements) will fill the tech vacuum.

Unfortunately, there's nothing MS can do against Linux and OSS. Those are two things MS cannot EEE--embrace, extend, and extinguish (like they've done to many of their North American competitors).

Thus, MS has asked and lost requests for IBM, Sun, Novell, and Oracle to turn over their documents via subpoena.

So, if MS loses their appeal, they're eventually screwed when it comes to trying to sell in Europe.

[Golden Eagle]

Simply put, this beef between MS and IBM belongs strictly in US courts and not in the EU or the international courts.

Egads! He finally said something correct! Unfortunately, he probably simply misspoke, or will claim I took it out of context, etc.

[rzeznikj at stout]

Egads! I need to clarify that for the benefit of our friend, who has just arrived.

The squabble over whether IBM can order the handover and custody of documents belongs in the US--as it's between two US companies involving documents from those companies.

MS lost because the US courts don't have jurisdiction--they can't force these companies to hand over documents relating to an overseas case. Only the court in Europe can do that--and the arbitrators have ruled that out on the grounds that doing so interferes with sovereignty.

Now, if the case was being held in federal court, I suspect the outcome would have been different.

The European arbitration doesn't--that's solely between MS and the EU.

[Golden Eagle]

The European arbitration doesn't--that's solely between MS and the EU.

LOL, I knew he'd return to his normal BS immediately. Obviously this whole matter belongs in the US because it is other US companies like IBM that brought it before the EU. The EU shouldn't be settling a squabble between US companies, the US should. Of course, the US already resolved all these complaints to the US's satisfaction, which is why IBM went crying to the EU. Hopefully Microsoft will win on appeal, since we don't need foreign courts deciding disputes between US companies, especially those already settled in the US.

[rzeznikj at stout]

No it doesn't.

You seem to forget that MS didn't violate US law, but EU regulation. This is simply the appeal within the EU structure.

MS's problems are with the EU, not with the US. With the exceptions of these frivolous legal actions against Novell, IBM, etc., neither the government nor the US courts have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY WHATSOEVER in what happens in Europe.

What happened is that the arbitrators refused to grant MS the ability to subpoena these documents. Subsequently, MS took these companies to federal courts and tried to pry these documents that way.

The truth is that MS wants those documents badly. I don't know why, but as I've said, I suspect the information in them can be used as key items their defense.

A rather shady legal manueuver, but completely legitimate.

[Golden Eagle]

You don't even understand why they want the documents, do you. It's called the right to a fair trial, and Microsoft is being denied the right to even know what IBM and Oracle are feeding the EU in the form of supposed complaints. The EU is saying, "you're bad", Microsoft says "why", and the EU then says "well, we can't tell you, it's confidential between IBM and us."

What a load of bull. Janet Reno is probably running the whole thing again.

[rzeznikj at stout]

These four companies are in the equivalent of a witness protection program. Aside from interfering with US sovereignty, the companies fear vicious retaliation, and in the interest of fairness for everyone, EU refuses to enforce any subpoena, nor will issue one.

Also, like people, corporations also are entitled to conduct their private affairs without undue interference. Every federal judge found the cases the same way--MS's requests were so unreasonable under American business law that they were dismissed handily.

If MS gains access to their corporate documents, it can cripple these companies. MS can, over the course of a few years, use EEE and put all four of them into niche markets--if not shut them down completely.

Further, there is no conspiracy between IBM and the EU against MS--the absurdity of which I find to be pretty obvious. That is, except if you're a MS shill.

Finally, I would strongly advise you to stop drinking the kool-aid and post intelligently.

[Golden Eagle]

MS can, over the course of a few years, use EEE and put all four of them into niche markets--if not shut them down completely.

Please, you are the one who is obviously off the deep end. Microsoft, be able to shutdown IBM, Oracle, Sun, and Novell, completely? Insane, they probably won't be able to shut a single one of them down.

Trying to claim IBM is sequestered is the funniest .... I've heard in a while. Even though everyone already knows this is a sham trail, Microsoft deserves the right to know what the charges are against them, so they can properly respond. You boys would be crying your eyes out endlessly if the court in Utah was taking secret evidence from SCO. It proves the EU is running a kangaroo court, and is actually earning Microsoft lots of points as the victim, not just here but overseas. No publicity is bad publicity, and MS is the king.

[rzeznikj at stout]

Denial is a river in Egypt.

No one said Netscape would be reduced to rubble and left to try to rebuild. If MS wins based on these companies being forced to divulge these documents, it can leave these companies extremely vulnerable. It may take MS years, but they'd then at the bare minimum relegate all four to niche markets--much like Netscape was left.

So, it comes down to this: screw the principles of international business law and fair trade (both of which provide a foundation for capitalism to flourish) because Microsoft can't do anything wrong--and anything they do must be right.

So any court or body of law that attempts to make MS play by the rules is a kangaroo court, eh?

sarc Yeah, that sounds like justice to me /sarc.

The truth is that the EU caught MS red-handed and with its pants down. Their hand was stuck in the cookie jar. That is undeniable.

I don't know how else to put it, and there is no other logical explanation for your continued spinning.

[rzeznikj at stout]

Ping--might be of interest...

[Golden Eagle]

It may take MS years, but they'd then at the bare minimum relegate all four to niche markets...I don't know how else to put it, and there is no other logical explanation for your continued spinning.

LMAO!

[Golden Eagle]

Ping--might be of interest...

HELP! CALL FLAMING DEATH TOO!

LOL!

[rzeznikj at stout]

It'll happen. I'm surprised that you, being the resident MS shill, still doesn't know the effects of MS on the marketplace. That's the thing about we who use Linux, OSS, IBM, Novell, etc.. We're able to see the bigger picture and we know how powerful and how much clout MS carries.

The fact is that MS is still unrestrained in its power here. MS has enough clout to tighten the noose until their necks are crushed. They might not be able to kill them overnight, but these companies' deaths at the hands of MS will be along the lines of "Death of a Thousand Cuts."