Microsoft Vows Legal Fight Against US To Protect European Cloud Customers (ft.com) 49
Microsoft has pledged to take the US government to court if necessary [alternative source] to protect European customers' access to its cloud services, as concerns mount over potential technology disruptions under President Donald Trump. Brad Smith, Microsoft's president and vice-chair, announced five "digital commitments" to Europe on Wednesday, responding to regional anxieties following Trump's temporary suspension of military support to Ukraine.
"We as a company need to be a source of digital stability during a period of geopolitical volatility," Smith said. The commitments include contesting any government order to cease European cloud services through legal channels and establishing European oversight of its continental operations. Microsoft will increase its European data center capacity by 40% over the next two years, expanding in 16 countries with investments of "tens of billions of dollars" annually. The Seattle-based company, which derives more than a quarter of its business from Europe, becomes the first major American tech firm to proactively address European concerns amid escalating trade tensions.
"We as a company need to be a source of digital stability during a period of geopolitical volatility," Smith said. The commitments include contesting any government order to cease European cloud services through legal channels and establishing European oversight of its continental operations. Microsoft will increase its European data center capacity by 40% over the next two years, expanding in 16 countries with investments of "tens of billions of dollars" annually. The Seattle-based company, which derives more than a quarter of its business from Europe, becomes the first major American tech firm to proactively address European concerns amid escalating trade tensions.
Worried we won't "buy American"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are they worried we will "do a Canadian" and actively stop buying American? As much as this announcement is essentially 'good news', I can't see it reversing that trend (if there is one).
Another option is that they're looking to become more EU-friendly. The EU has taken quite a bit of money off them over the years in fines, and IMHO, they were largely avoidable but leadership arrogance and "everyone should do it like we do" attitude got them into trouble. The EU doesn't mess about, and isn't so easily bought as US institutions are, perhaps they're finally realising that? I'd like to think so, but somehow I doubt it.
Then there's the last possibility... they now realise Trump is Bad for Business, and are doing things that actively work around him, or otherwise insulate them from him. Amazon tried a bit of that by threatening to show what tariffs cost, and look where that got them...?
Re:Worried we won't "buy American"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are they worried we will "do a Canadian" and actively stop buying American? As much as this announcement is essentially 'good news', I can't see it reversing that trend (if there is one).
You're right, it's not going to reverse anything. Nor, in fact, will it even change anything slightly. Microsoft is a defense contractor and a government supplier in general. They are dependent upon government contracts. They are not going to do anything which threatens their income stream. Even if they filed a lawsuit, why would anyone expect it to be in good faith? Even if it were to be in good faith, why would anyone expect it to be effective? Instead, it will be performative and empty.
The majority of governments of the world being dependent on Windows is wild as hell, and they may finally be realizing that now. If America is fully fascist, how can anyone trust software suppliers utterly dependent on its government, like Microsoft or IBM? Or hardware suppliers, like Cisco? It's inherently insane.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were acting in good faith they basically wouldn't exist in the way they do now in the first place. We'll have to mark it on the calendar that we finally agree on something and that's microsoft being one of the OG evil tech giants that should have gotten the Teddy Roosevelt treatment decades ago.
Re:Worried we won't "buy American"? (Score:4, Informative)
They are not going to do anything which threatens their income stream
This is exactly why they are making noises about protecting European customers. They are an international company and make a lot of money from the EU. They likely make more there than they make from the US government (US overall is probably bigger than the EU, but US government contracts probably aren't more than 5-10% of Microsoft's revenue).
They may have to make a judgment call at some point - lose the US government contracts or lose EU contracts. Possibly the US government will be cut. (They will do the best to avoid having to choose.)
Re: (Score:1)
M$ is not talking about the Windoze desktop. They're exclusively and narrowly saying "European Cloud Customers". Which means M$ doesn't care about providing privacy on the desktop at all. Government level or otherwise. They don't fear that scenario because as you say, it's completely theirs and won't be moving.
I think they're simply worried Euro origin cloud providers, using Linux presumably, will capture more of the cloud from them.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not saying this is only about the Windows desktop, but it is still undeniably related. Many organizations use Azure for Windows-related reasons [theregister.com], and besides the usual nefarious bullshit you have to also count the fact that it's what's most convenient to integrate with your Windows network.
It did put me in mind, however, of exactly how insane this worldwide dominance is. There was a time when it was common for major customers of Unixes to have source code, because what protected it from distribution was
Re:Worried we won't "buy American"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd think they'll also be worried about the EU deciding that they cannot afford to use an American based cloud company for government business. (I'm assuming that Microsoft is used extensively)
It's sort of like what is happening with defence. The EU is ramping up its plans and spending but it's simultaneously planning how to limit its dependence on the US.
https://www.theguardian.com/po... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Are they worried we will "do a Canadian" and actively stop buying American? As much as this announcement is essentially 'good news', I can't see it reversing that trend (if there is one).
Another option is that they're looking to become more EU-friendly. The EU has taken quite a bit of money off them over the years in fines, and IMHO, they were largely avoidable but leadership arrogance and "everyone should do it like we do" attitude got them into trouble. The EU doesn't mess about, and isn't so easily bought as US institutions are, perhaps they're finally realising that? I'd like to think so, but somehow I doubt it.
Then there's the last possibility... they now realise Trump is Bad for Business, and are doing things that actively work around him, or otherwise insulate them from him. Amazon tried a bit of that by threatening to show what tariffs cost, and look where that got them...?
Europe is already doing a "half-Canadian". There' a large movement for consumers to purchase European alternatives to American products. It gets a bit more complex here compared to Canada where a lot of American brands are produced here in European nations so you've got to be careful not to cut off your nose to spite your face. For example, Coca Cola has five manufacturing facilities in the UK alone, Even though much of the profit goes overseas (and not to the US... to some tax haven where the US doesn't ev
Microsoft vs. Donald Trump (Score:3)
The monkey spanking at Slashdot will be a Michael Bay-level extravaganza.
Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is almost a dictatorship now, with the government's explicit goal to abuse its powers to punish those who offend Trump.
The EU should be racing to get Microsoft products out of its infrastructure, because Microsoft is run from the US and its officers subject to the American government. Promises to take the US government to court and to build more EU data center capacity are performative nonsense at best that don't mitigate risk at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing about reality is it absolutely does not care what you believe. You've been fucking around for decades, find out is coming.
The only question now is the exact nature of the finding out.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Interesting)
That whole "the IRS is targeting conservatives" rhetoric is pure propaganda. Reality is that the IRS targeted people who publicly posted things like "the IRS is unconstitutional" or "I don't believe in paying income taxes". It shouldn't be a surprise that most of them are right-wing nutjobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you are going to have to prove the premise of your question as actually being true if you want anyone to give a good faith answer to your bad faith question.
How can they even promise (Score:4)
that when the US has suspended the rule of law and their constitution. I won't even get into the personal vendetta that the orange man has against his perceived enemies including law firms that were upholding the law. The list is endless on how there is no way that this promise can be kept. Seriously, congress has failed to protect citizens, students and the constitution, to name a few, how would this even work? They are even going after the judiciary. The US is no longer a free society.
Re: (Score:2)
This ends with bloodshed. The longer people take to realize it, the worse it will get.
Right now, I think the best future is a nearly-bloodless blue state secession. The worst is the US gets locked down and then engages in a war of expansion. I no longer see a bloodless path to restore a free and whole USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha ha... "nearly-bloodless blue state secession". Good luck with that. The last time a group of states tried to secede... the US got into its most bloody war in all its history. I doubt it will be any better this time if some group of states tried it. Even if they did, how would one form a country out of California + New York (plus associated nearby states...). They are physically too far apart. It would have to separate out into multiple countries. "Eastern Blue" and "Western Blue" and maybe "Midwest Bl
Re: (Score:2)
Why does it have to be one country? California and New York can each more than stand on their own, though presumably some neighbouring states might join them.
As for the level of bloodshed... if all the manufacturing capacity and money goes... there's a reason the North won last time. Ignorant and lazy but driven by irrational anger is no better for waging war than for creating a happy and productive society. It wouldn't be bloodless, but I suspect the tolerance for that kind of bloodshed on home soil is
Re: (Score:2)
I explicitly mentioned the multiple country possibility.
There are so many complexities in having a "divorce" of the states. The biggest one is the US dollar. How would debts be distributed? Who would control it? New York earns an awful lot of money on banking and that might just go away if they aren't part of the dollar economy. California's is heavily based upon intellectual property.
But economics aside, don't underestimate the bitterness that would ensue. It would absolutely have to be a voluntary secessi
Re: (Score:2)
The only way it could ever work without violence is a near total dissolution of the federal government. Some kind of widely accepted settlement to distribute federal assets to states. Followed by some amnesty period where persons living in a state that politically leans one way are able to immigrate to another state taking their property without penalty.
Even then as a practical matter I think we'd still need to have some kind of "Articles of Confederation" to provide a continued framework for adjusting boa
Re: How can they even promise (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the Soviet Union......
Re: (Score:2)
The only bloodless path is the one that has always been there, but remains blocked due to oathbreaking members of Congress not upholding their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."
We are in need of some spinal regrowth among the sycophantic rubber stamp caucus on Capitol Hill. That is the only way out without a violent uprising. And the only way to get there is to make those sycophantic rubberstampers more afraid of The People than they are of the cult leader. So it's time
Re: (Score:2)
that when the US has suspended the rule of law and their constitution.
Are you sure about that? To be sure, there are some particularly loud people in the opposition that would claim this, but I don't think the courts have agreed. At least they haven't agreed yet, suggesting that if in fact your statement were accurate, the truth is more nuanced than that.
I will say this. While there is definitely concern and a mood of caution among the U.S. people, there certainly isn't the pervasive public opposition that most U.S. media would have you believe. I say that living in a pre
Re: (Score:3)
>While there is definitely concern and a mood of caution among the U.S. people, there certainly isn't the pervasive public opposition
I'm sorry, but that is strong evidence that the average American is either ignorant or in denial. You're well on your way to replicating Nazi Germany.
The longer you wait to correct the situation, the more difficult the task will be. Personally, I think everyone's going to try to keep their head down and hope all will be well until they or their close family are under ne
Re: (Score:2)
I'm positive. Deportations without due process. Revocation of visas on a whim. Labelling people as criminals with simple accusations. Harvard.
People don't care what happens to their neighbor until it happens to them by then it's too late.
What is skewed is you implication that the constitution is being respected. Don't worry this "woke" republican wave will bite them in the ass.
Re: (Score:2)
but I don't think the courts have agreed. At least they haven't agreed yet,
Found the guy who thinks this administration gives a shit what the courts say.
They're already defying court orders, including a 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court. Why do you think they give a single solitary bold-faced fuck about what courts have to say?
Re: (Score:2)
>
They're already defying court orders, including a 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court.
Really? Which one. You mean the unanimously signed "brief" from SCOTUS that said, "The order properly requires the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador."?? And then went on to say they were "sending the case back to the district court judge to clarify one aspect of her decision "with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/10... [npr.org].
I mean, if you want to insist on technicality, SCOTUS didn't rule anything here. They submitted a unanimously signed brief telling the Executive that they had to cooperate with the return of Garcia. They very specifically did NOT tell the Executive that they have to negotiate, coerce, or even ask for the return of Garcia. Just that if El Salvador decided to send him back they would "facilitate" that return, whatever that means. SCOTUS clearly left the door open for the Executive to passively, however maliciously comply by basically doing nothing. That is not the same as defying a Court Order, although I agree it's splitting hairs.
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, you said it right at the beginning of your quote:
The order properly requires the Government to facilitate ...
It's a court order. It requires the government to facilitate his return. They haven't even so much as picked up the phone, so please tell us how that's not complying with the court order?
Don't give me this bullshit about how Trump can't possibly get El Salvador to return this guy with a phone call. We are paying El Salvador to keep them there. This is wanton disregard for the rule of law, and a bold-faced violation of constitutional rights. Apparen
Re: (Score:2)
I've stated no opinion on what I may or may not be OK with. I have merely pointed out that the so-called "order" that you refer to is both NOT an "explicit order to return" and IS ambiguous as to its requirement. It's clear what you want it to mean, but I don't think it does mean what you want it to mean.
"What prevents the same thing from being done to you? If one person doesn't get due process, then NOBODY is guaranteed due process. Do you understand that yet?"
I do think this is a point that SCOTUS is go
Re: (Score:2)
The only decision that makes any sense, re: due process, is that everyone is entitled under the Constitution regardless of citizenship status, because a hearing where there is a finding of fact is the only way to not accidentally deport US Citizens, which has already happened [bbc.com] due to this bungling administration targeting brown people. And by the way, SCOTUS already ruled on this in 1953 in Shaughnessy v United States, where in the decision it was stated:
There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
If the statute only applies to "illegal aliens" you
Re: (Score:2)
"The only decision that makes any sense TO ME..." - FTFY
I have already agreed that before sending a person to prison, no matter of status, they should have some legal review. That's what "deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" means. Deportation is none of those things. That is what Shaughnessy v United States says (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/345/206/).
I suggest that you read the articles you post for reference in their entirety. If you do you'll discover
Re: (Score:2)
**EDIT** "no U.S. Citizen children were deported"
Re: (Score:1)
"the orange man"
lately I heard the name "The Fanta Felon"
in oher news (Score:2)
I didnt know trump changed his name to "geopolitical volatility"
There are (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So providers outside of the US will only become trusted once they are not run by a US based company and that's what MS tries to prevent.
The meaning of 'protect' here (Score:1)
Who would trust them? (Score:2)
Trump has only made it clearer, previous governments were ultimately just as bad.
With bad I mean not trustworthy for non-US government interest.
In other words, what ever MS can extract from the courts, this will only work when the US constitution is corrected.
What Are You Talking About? (Score:2)
The first sentence sounds maybe like a conflict
between EU Privacy Laws and US law
When do they go to court? (Score:2)
What are they waiting for? The CLOUD act is still in effect and allows the US to access the data of European people, even when they are stored on servers in the EU. It's not like we would have to wait for Trump to break privacy, the laws are already there.
What they should have done years ago... (Score:2)
establishing European oversight of its continental operations
That's what they should have done years ago. They could be compliant with EU legislation, instead of fighting it at every step.
I do, reluctantly, have to give their marketing department a lot of credit. Despite Microsoft being blatantly non-compliant with European legislation, virtually every government and most companies still use their stuff. Whenever some organization thinks of changing, the marketeers go into overdrive, wine and dine clueless executives, and - voila - they stay Microsoft after all.
Take the US government to court (Score:2)
Wait! What?
I thought the whole EU cloud fight was over where to hold EU customers data. And it was a result of EU regulations. So why is Microsoft taking the US government to court?
"Wows" = "makes empty worthless promises" (Score:2)
Seriously. Unless that comes with an SLA with _significant_ penalties, it is completely worthless and essentially a lie by misdirection.
3 problems (Score:2)
MS has a lot of overseas assets, any sanctions means abandoning those. In addition, it will force consumers away from MS products, reducing future corporate growth and personal data to feed into generative AI products. Worse, without a mega-corporation stifling competition, purpose-built products will appear, further reducing the growth, profits and control of technology standards, of a US behemoth.