Print This Post
Oct
22
In the several hundred words of this Associated Press article about how Microsoft finally admitted that it’s a monopoly and will stop being so greedy (total generalization, you’ll need to read the article and follow the story as it comes out tomorrow to understand it all), here’s the absolutely only thing that matters to me:
Daily phone calls between EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer over the past three weeks – and a dinner near her Dutch hometown – culminated in a deal early Monday.
Now – I’m no journalist’s journalist, but I know how to construct a good story more or less when I take my time, and even in a rush sometimes.
So, again – look at that one sentence in the context of the entire article.
Now – look at the one phrase offset by an em dash: “and a dinner near her Dutch hometown.”
Come on people – this is what we need to know about:
What did they say during those phone calls? Who said what and when? How did they negotiate?
I could care less about Trump and the art of the deal.
Tell me what Ballmer and Kroes did and how they did it.
Because if that woman was able to get that man to apparently end 13 years of litigation with an agreement that allegedly is going to cost them billions (despite the billions that they will still make), I want to know how.
How how how how how.
Doesn’t anyone else want to know!?!
From a Wall Street Journal article (in which Kroes is referred to as the EU antitrust czar – wow, czar!) about the deal, datelined tomorrow:
Mr. Ballmer and Mrs. Kroes brokered the deal at a small restaurant in the EU antitrust chief’s home country of the Netherlands, according to Mrs. Kroes. It was sealed in a telephone call early yesterday morning.
Under the agreement, Microsoft will license all of its intellectual property, except patents, necessary for competitors to work with a version of Windows used on business servers. Competitors will now pay a one-time fee of €10,000 for the license, rather than royalties. If they believe they need to license patents from Microsoft, Microsoft is required to give a license at the rate of 0.4% of the competitors’ revenue from the product, well below the 5.95% rate the company had once wanted.
Mrs. Kroes declared the U.S. software company was — at least for now — in Europe’s good graces. “As of today, the major issues concerning compliance have been resolved,” she said.
What was in that dinner?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:16 pm October 22nd, 2007 in Business, Courts, Economy, Tech
Comments
19 Responses to “What did EU Competition Commissioner Kroes feed Microsoft CEO Ballmer?”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
Jill, I love this! You should definitely be working for the Washington Post!
Could Steve Ballmer be smitten? Was he jet lagged or merely drunk on heavy German beer?
Ha – thanks, Carole. One of my college roommates ended up at the Atlanta Constitution for a few years and then at WaPo working with their style column and section. It's funny because she was a very serious student and I always think of her carrying around the paperpack version of The Pelopponesian Wars and wonder, how did she end up at the style section?? She also interned at NPR when I didn't even really know what it was – with Nina Tottenberg and everything. (this roomie is now a physicians assistant at a top hospital in the country – not in Ohio.)
I'm telling you, Scott – we have to find out. If hi-tech companies hire psychologists to figure out how and why we use our computers, I want to know how those two got to an agreement. If we knew how to replicate that, just think of all the legal fees that could be saved!!
Oh – wait – you probably don't want to think about that, now do you?
Yeh, let's not get too hasty. Although lawyers will always find a way to profit however it goes!
There's that for sure.
I know they had dinner in a restaurant near Rotterdam, but I'd really like to know which town and the name of the restaurant. Does anyone have that information?
A lot of questions and no answers? The answers to all your questions can be found in a recently concluded administrative proceedings with the European Union, which has resulted in filing fraud charges with the SEC.
The name of the restaurant is “De Beukenhof” and can be found in a small Dutch town called Oegsgeest. Their website can be reached at “www.debeukenhof.nl”.
I am sure their administrator Mrs. Yvonne Van Der Maal will be helpfull to answer all your questions. Just refer to my first conversation with her, the one in December 2007 in which she has testified that the bill was still unpaid.
Cute re: the bill is unpaid. But did you find out what they ate!?
That’s what I want to know. 
Thanks for reading and commenting – I’ll take a look.
A copy of the bill can be accessed through
http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=4443612&a=32635475&p=76103780
Thanks Greg – doesn’t seem to indicate what they ordered, just the cost of the meal. I’d still love to see a transcript of exactly how their conversations unfolded – for others to model during difficult negotiations but also to be demonstrative of how these things get accomplished.
Tx for your comments etc.
Sorry, but there are no transcripts. As you can read from the files listed on
http://83.84.189.224/Confirmatieve%20verzoekschrift%20ter%20inleiding%20klacht%20SEC/
when overcoming the difficulties of reading the Dutch paper, you will find that the administrative procedure with the European Union as initiated on December 13th, 2007, taken into the account that only the Council can legally represent the Union, gave two non-contested definite results, both in law and in fact, namely that (a) the ONLY non-private part of the dinner date concerns the neglect of the commissioner of not telling the CEO that a Dutch shareholder of his company had obtained the non-contested opinion of the Union that the court judgment was non-existent, while she knew that that judgement could have easily been overturned by simply stating that the commission did not have the authority to prosecute his company, since the final judgment of the United States district court judge of Columbia stood in the way of double jeopardizing his company, i.e. an appeal by his company based on double jeopardy would have easily overturned the decision, and that (b) the money that had been stolen on the occasion of the recent burglary into the residents of the commissioner and her neighbors did come from the CEO.
Also the Union did not contend the inflicted damages of this Union undertaking, namely USD18,671,465,486. In an earlier administrative proceeding the Union did not contend that paragraph (c) of Section 1964 of Chapter I of title 10, of the United States Code does apply, which amount represents a non-contended devaluation of the price of common stock of USD17.43.
Do hope that is will be neither a model for others during difficult negotiations nor to be demonstrative of how these things get accomplished.
So, you are still really interested what they had for dinner, aren’t you. Well, as can be found on
http://83.84.189.224/Confirmatieve%20verzoekschrift%20ter%20inleiding%20klacht%20SEC/,
from two letters numbered as (08) 06W229 and (08) 06W249 deposited on June 09th, 2008 with the assistent attorney general for antirust of the U.S. Department of Justice of the United States on the subject of the third nolo contendere mandate of the European Union, it is quite clear that as an apetizer stockholders equity was indeed on the menu. From the attachments to those letters it is quite clear that one of the shareholders of Microsoft has initiated a numerous number of administrative procedures with the European Union. The results of those numerous procedures being that European Union did not contend the fact that the Dutch member of the European Commission for antitrust affairs has received a sizable fee from Microsoft for her silence not to disclose that not only the books and records of Microsoft as deposited with the Securties and Exchange Commission over the fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 are inaccurate as – amongst others – the amount of USD18.671.465.486 as stockholders equity is missing, but also that the repurchase program of the board of directors of Microsoft over the fiscal years of 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 did cost much more that the amount that has been disclosed.
Also, the European Union – sadly – did not contend that the actual reason for penalizing Microsoft Corporation for his monopolistic behavior in the first place is to hurt the Jewish stockholders, keeping in mind that the secret deliberation of the Duch Supreme Court in case no. 112.414 of May 16th, 2000 has shown that Mr. Bleichrodt as presiding magistrate, with Mr. J.P. Balkema, and Mr. A.J.A. Van Dorst as co-magistrates, and Mr. J.W. Fokkens as attorney general has revealed the Dutch Surpeme Court’s opinion that a Jewish defendant does not have the right to exercise the rights as granted ex jure to him under the Sixth tax directive No. 77/388 of the European Union.
As the letters shown this typical Dutch line of reasoning that Jewish descendants are to be excluded from European law has also been found in numerous of the judgements of the Dutch District Court judges Mr. K.R. Van Der Graaf and Mr. J.W. Westerman in several of their judgments and the intense collection of tax debts from Jewish residents by the Dutch Internal Revenue Service Haaglanden, of the district of ’s-Gravenhage, Mr. Jan Vermeulen, based on Jewish non-existent taxable income.
So it is no surprise that the European Union did not contend the shareholder’s applicable formal context of being “(…) acts of co-conspiracy to commit fraud against the undersigned class member as alleged Jew and/or foreigner to expropriate his property in violation of international law by Neo-Nazi officials of the European Union and the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a continuance of the Holocaust(…)” as the appropriate legal setting for the dinnerdate.
So, I am sorry to disappoint you how the non contended conversations unfolded – for others to model during difficult negotiations but also to be demonstrative of how these things get accomplished. Remember it’s a Dutch treat.
Sorry it seems that the IP adress has been changed with the documents available at http://83.84.187.180/Confirmatieve%20verzoekschrift%20ter%20inleiding%20klacht%20SEC/
Thanks for your private message of July 3rd, 2008.
It is correct that the third nolo contendere mandate also covers the European Union and the Kingdom of the Netherlands not contending the fact that following the first internet publication the residence of the defendant was set on fire and was burnt to the ground in order to get rid of both all the evidence and the defendant. A picture can be found in the document (08) 03W442 dated March 05th, 2008 (08030502.wpd). So wat’s new.
The stated Holocaust continuance forced Mr. G.Th. Hofstee, the Dutch district attorney, under whose jurisdiction this case falls, to issue a written statement under his reference HO 871.09008 and dated July 04th, 2008, in addition to the previous written statements given by the acting district attorney Mr. C.A. Nooy given on March 18th, 2008 and February 21st, 2008 both under his reference HO 871.08611, basically denying the third nolo contendere mandate, and more specifically that part of the mandate that refers to the acts of co-conspiracy to commit fraud against Jews to expropriate their property estimated at EUR 19,652,134.88 (USD 26,852,677.10). He claims that neither his assistant Mrs. J.J. Hols, neither Mr. Jan Vermeulen has been engaged in those activities as members of a criminal organization. All three statements can be accessed as 08070404.pdf, 08031813.pdf, and 08022101.pdf.
Please be informed on the formal withdrawal of the last comment due to its disapproval. TRust this will meet you wish.
Reconsidering the contents of your first private message on the disapproval of my comments, please be informed on the withdrawal of all the comments. Just keep on dreaming. ents of your first private message on the disapproval of my comments, please be informed on the withdrawal of all the comments.
Just keep on dreaming.
Dear Mrs. Zimon,
Your decison to delete some of my comments due to its inappropriate contents, has left some referencea and comments untouched. At least you should have eradicated every reference to Gregory M.A. Babajeff. This would make Mrs. Neelie Smit Kroes really happy. So much for freedom of speech.