Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday May 22 2015, @11:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the threatened-or-lobbying? dept.

When the UK government announced plans to shift to the .odf Open Document Format, and away from Microsoft's proprietary .doc and .docx formats, Microsoft threatened to move its research facilities out of the UK.

The prime minister's director of strategy at the time, Steve Hilton, said that "Microsoft phoned Conservative MPs with Microsoft R&D facilities in their constituencies and said we will close them down in your constituencies if this goes through" "We just resisted. You have to be brave," Hilton said.


Although I am not a great lover of Microsoft, I'm not sure that this is any different than many other companies who will try to protect their profits - and, arguably, the jobs of their employees - when they can see the potential for the loss of business. But perhaps other companies are a little more subtle - especially when it is obvious that official papers will one day become public knowledge.

[Editor's Comment: This submission has been significantly edited - comment is not attributable to sigma]

[Editor's Comment: Please see public apology regarding this story.]

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Saturday May 23 2015, @10:54AM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 23 2015, @10:54AM (#186823) Journal

    In which UK court were they convicted?

    If you think that the UK should also respect convictions from other countries - and I'm not arguing one way or another here - what about those convicted by governments and states that you do not support? Should those convicted in various middle-eastern states of apostasy, or of bringing shame upon one's family, also be treated in the same shameful way in the UK? How about those found guilty of certain crimes in China, Tibet or Myanmar? Or is it just big business that should be held to a double standard?

    Currently, the UK is facing a referendum on staying in the European Union or leaving in the next few years. Various companies are making it clear that, should the UK opt to leave, they would take their businesses elsewhere. In what way is that different from Microsoft's actions? I do not support what Microsoft did, but we are criticising one specific company for something that many companies are 'guilty' of. The fact of the matter is that Microsoft should, IMHO, be prevented from bidding for the contracts because their 'standards' aren't open, or even a standard. Some versions of Microsoft software cannot open files created by later versions of the same program, nor can other companies always produce working software based entirely and solely on the specifications - hardly something that I would define as being a standard. But that is not the same as the thrust of TFA.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:26PM

    by sjames (2882) on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:26PM (#186845) Journal

    Surely a conviction anywhere in the EU should be counted in the U.K.

    Discounting countries that have vastly different and incompatible standards of criminality, MS is still a three time loser such that if it was a person, the only employment it could find would involve either a mop and a bucket or "want fries with that?".

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:49PM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:49PM (#186851) Journal
      Well perhaps you are right - but one of the reasons that the referendum is thought necessary is because we Brits don't like being dictated to by an unelected bunch in Brussels.
      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Saturday May 23 2015, @03:33PM

        by TheRaven (270) on Saturday May 23 2015, @03:33PM (#186883) Journal
        If by 'we Brits' you mean 'the authoritarian wings of the UK parties,' then you'd be correct - they most certainly don't like being told that there are limits on their power. And they're very happy to encourage The Daily Mail and similar organs to frame the argument in terms of sovereignty, rather than checks and balances. The unelected bit is also quite entertaining, given that the electoral system used for MEPs results in a far closer representation of vote than the Westminster Parliament (I'm no fan of UKIP, but a party with over 12% of the popular vote getting under 0.2% of the seats ought to tell you that something is wrong there. But given your comments, I bet you voted 'no' in the electoral reform referendum too). Or are you referring to the Council of Ministers, the organisation that has the most power in the EU and is composed entirely of the people who you want to give the power currently shared among the institutions in the EU to?
        --
        sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday May 23 2015, @09:02PM

        by sjames (2882) on Saturday May 23 2015, @09:02PM (#186966) Journal

        UK membership in the EU is largely irrelevant to the situation. As an American, if someone with 3 convictions for financial crimes in the various courts of the EU (including the UK) wanted to be my accountant, the answer would be a very loud NO.