Summary: European Ombudsman to receive complaint about Lars Hindkjær Pederse, who hides Microsoft lobbyists like Jonathan Zuck

THIS will hopefully be the last part in a series that attempts to expose how Microsoft derails European policy, using lobbyists. Some months ago we caught an example and for a bit of chronology, see:

• European Open Source Software Workgroup a Total Scam: Hijacked and Subverted by Microsoft et al
• Microsoft's AstroTurfing, Twitter, Waggener Edstrom, and Jonathan Zuck
• Does the European Commission Harbour a Destruction of Free/Open Source Software Workgroup?
• The Illusion of Transparency at the European Parliament/Commission (on Microsoft)
• 2 Months and No Disclosure from the European Parliament
• After 3 Months, Europe Lets Microsoft-Influenced EU Panel be Seen

The European Commission did not respond to our request for input regarding contributions from Microsoft lobbyists. Here is a portion of my last exchange with the Commission:

>>> * draft contributions of all industry Working groups on a the >>> European Software Strategy >>> * draft input to all WG prepared by the Commission >>> * the participant list of the related meeting on January >>> 20th in Brussels >>> * all submissions from industry to the ESS consultation under >>> the applicable provisions of regulation 1049/2001 >>> which grant me a right of access to all documents >>> mentioned above."

Hi,

Thank you. Some files are still missing.

I shall ask again for more documents, including written contributions of the different participants. What you are giving me are the final papers, not the history of the whole editing process.

It has been 2 weeks. No reply, obviously.

As one of our readers rightly puts it, "They also made a mockery of our request, the Zuck contribution is not even in there." It is kindly advised that Europeans reading this site proceed to the Ombudsman immediately and file a complaint. As a regular reader puts it, "Why does the Commission continue to hide documents published by Wikileaks?"

Here is another newer leak (not from us) regarding the Commission's sheltering of Microsoft lobbyists.

Request:

"* all submissions from industry to the ESS consultation under the applicable provisions of regulation 1049/2001 which grant me a right of access to all documents mentioned above." "

Answer:

"We are unable to identify the documents referred to in the 6th item "all submissions from industry to the ESS consultation", as we notified you previously (see our emails dated 15th April 2009, 8th May 2009 and 27th of May 2009)."

Where is the contribution from ACT in the Commission answer?

Glyn Moody took a look at documents that we had obtained and shared. He then wrote about SAP's role in this whole fiasco. SAP and Microsoft are very, very close to each other.

For example, the European Commission organised seven workgroups looking at various aspects of European software policy. One of these was on open source. Among the groups taking part in this was the Free Software Foundation Europe, and SAP. At the end of their joint report (PDF, HTML), there are a number of appendices that represent the particular views of participants. SAP's is by far the longest, running to some 17 pages.

Most of that space is used to bolster the following statements through supporting comments of various kinds (mostly links to news items):

A number of key open source projects depend on the contributions by mixed source / hybrid model companies

Hybrid / mixed source models seem to be a key element of the larger open source ecosystem

Open source development like closed source development has its pros and cons

It is very difficult to discriminate between open source and non-open source vendors any longer

Open source software is proprietary as well

Different business models and business interest lead to different positions regarding IPR, standardization and interoperability

I have obtained a complaint form from the Ombudsman and filed a complaint at the ombudsman against Lars Hindkjær Pedersen and the European Commission, DG InfoSoc. For those who are able and willing to help using similar complaints, here is how I completed the form that I shall drop in the postbox tomorrow:

3: Misconduct and delay: public access request concerning documents about the European Software Strategy (ESS) under Lars Hindkjær Pedersen and several colleagues at the European Commission, DG Infosoc

4. Breach of Article 255 TEC - improper conduct and delay of the Commission in its application of directive EC/1049/2001 concerning repeated and confirmatory request for document access

- alleged difficulty in finding documents which relate to the ESS. The Commission confirmed a provided non-exhaustive list and helped find some of the documents, but repeated the call for clarifications ad nauseam.

- The request and communication was directed to the department in charge of the European Software Strategy (ESS), who are in possession of relevant documents.

- deadlines under the legal base have expired without grant of any access to the requested documents or an official decision.

5.

- grant access and help to identify the documents, cmp. Article 15 EC/1049/2001

- examine all documents in their possession concerning the ESS process.

- meet the legal requirements under Article 15 EC/1049/2001

6. - yes.

7. - cmp. Article 8 c) EC/1049/2001

8. - no

9.

10 - no

For those who are willing to do likewise, please fill it out, then sent it to The European Ombudsman — 1 Avenue du Président Robert Schuman — B.P. 403 — FR- 67001 Strasbourg Cedex — France. ⬆

"Value your freedom or you will lose it, teaches history. "Don't bother us with politics," respond those who don't want to learn."

--Richard Stallman