4 ms·

Not all companies have Microsoft or indeed EU sized lawyer pools. So would be nice if there was some aspect of the EU that you could have check/audit contracts

by Zenst 7y ago

Not all companies have Microsoft or indeed EU sized lawyer pools. So would be nice if there was some aspect of the EU that you could have check/audit contracts to approve them as compliant. Sure that may well be the realms of a lawyer and equally also insurance policy on the indemnity aspect. But does highlight how smaller companies will and can suffer the same issues (maybe more so) and fall foul even when acting in good faith. https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/selling-in-eu/public-contracts/public-tendering-rules/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/selling-in-eu/public-c... "If your company, organisation or institution is established in the EU (In this case, the 28 EU member states + Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein.), you have the right to compete for a public tender in any EU country. You have the right to: compete for a public tender in another EU country without discrimination use supporting documents (certificates, diplomas, etc.) issued by your country have equal access to all information regarding tenders, regardless of the EU country in which you are established have access to the review procedures in the respective country" That last one implies that equally access to review procedures in EU member states must be available. That would cover contracts and with that, raises more questions about the accountability of this. But my takeaway is, if Microsoft can have a contract questioned at a later date, how exposed are smaller companies in the same vain.

rzwitserloot 7y ago
It's not that black and white. It's more a matter of: If you push your legal rights in such a contract to the absolute limits, well, you may run into some issues later on when laws change. If you're a tiny company but you put maximum onerous one-sided rules in your contracts, AND you somehow have the government you're selling to by the short and curlies so they sign it anyway, yeah, this view of 'eh, microsoft has got it coming' would imply this small company is now on the hook for keeping a team of lawyers on the ball. That seems fair to me. In real life, there's no way a small company would even go for such a pushed contract in the first place, or if they did, that's because they messed up by copying the wrong contract text, or there's a big brother helping them out. Or, perhaps said simply: If this notion of 'oops the rules changed right in the middle of the contract, that is not fair!' becomes relevant, they probably were.. NOT acting in good faith in the first place.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > If this notion of 'oops the rules changed right in the middle of the contract, that is not fair!' becomes relevant, they probably were.. NOT acting in good faith in the first place That assumes a benevolent government. Rules can change because of balance-of-power shifts, or as a result of misinformed debates. If you do business in a heavily-regulated economy like Europe, part of the cost of doing business is legal and compliance. This is a valid tradeoff the Continent has made. It makes many consumers and workers happy while adding fixed costs to commerce.
  - gpderetta 7y ago
    > That assumes a benevolent government. Rules can change because of balance-of-power shifts, or as a result of misinformed debates. that's true in any jurisdiction, right? Laws and regulations can always override contracts.
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > that's true in any jurisdiction, right? Laws and regulations can always override contracts. What varies is how easily new rules can be introduced, how easily they can be challenged, and the number of entities with rule making power. Broadly speaking, Europe's systems make it easy for rules to be introduced and hard for them to be struck down by a competing arm of government. There also tend to be more regulators with independent rule making authority in Europe than in America. This derives, fundamentally, from differing levels of trust in government, and differing views on the scope of government's job.
      - gpderetta 7y ago
        The rule (i.e. the GDPR law) was introduced by the european commission and parliament. It is applied by the various regulating agencies, interpreted by the courts and ultimately by the ECJ. It is not like that governmental agencies are making up rules.
IAmEveryone 7y ago
The page you're quoting is specific for public tenders, i. e. selling to governments across the EU. "review procedures" in this context is the ability to appeal those contract decisions. For small companies not engaging in anything specifically nefarious (i.e. Cambridge Analytica) the real danger is really rather limited. If you read https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers/data-protection/data-protection-gdpr/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers..., which should take about 10 minutes, you will understand enough about the requirements to stay clear of any danger. One common complaint is that the law isn't very specific. It sets out principles more than checklists. That is unfortunately necessary because it's impossible to anticipate every set of circumstances individually, and because technology is a fast-moving target no specific requirements ("use md5 hashing") could keep up with. Yet if you've understood those principles ("don't collect data you don't need to provide the actual service/product the customer is buying" etc) and strive for the spirit of these rules you shouldn't have any problems.

by Zenst 7y ago

rzwitserloot 7y ago

It's not that black and white. It's more a matter of: If you push your legal rights in such a contract to the absolute limits, well, you may run into some issues later on when laws change. If you're a tiny company but you put maximum onerous one-sided rules in your contracts, AND you somehow have the government you're selling to by the short and curlies so they sign it anyway, yeah, this view of 'eh, microsoft has got it coming' would imply this small company is now on the hook for keeping a team of lawyers on the ball. That seems fair to me. In real life, there's no way a small company would even go for such a pushed contract in the first place, or if they did, that's because they messed up by copying the wrong contract text, or there's a big brother helping them out. Or, perhaps said simply: If this notion of 'oops the rules changed right in the middle of the contract, that is not fair!' becomes relevant, they probably were.. NOT acting in good faith in the first place.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> If this notion of 'oops the rules changed right in the middle of the contract, that is not fair!' becomes relevant, they probably were.. NOT acting in good faith in the first place That assumes a benevolent government. Rules can change because of balance-of-power shifts, or as a result of misinformed debates. If you do business in a heavily-regulated economy like Europe, part of the cost of doing business is legal and compliance. This is a valid tradeoff the Continent has made. It makes many consumers and workers happy while adding fixed costs to commerce.
- gpderetta 7y ago
  > That assumes a benevolent government. Rules can change because of balance-of-power shifts, or as a result of misinformed debates. that's true in any jurisdiction, right? Laws and regulations can always override contracts.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > that's true in any jurisdiction, right? Laws and regulations can always override contracts. What varies is how easily new rules can be introduced, how easily they can be challenged, and the number of entities with rule making power. Broadly speaking, Europe's systems make it easy for rules to be introduced and hard for them to be struck down by a competing arm of government. There also tend to be more regulators with independent rule making authority in Europe than in America. This derives, fundamentally, from differing levels of trust in government, and differing views on the scope of government's job.
    - gpderetta 7y ago
      The rule (i.e. the GDPR law) was introduced by the european commission and parliament. It is applied by the various regulating agencies, interpreted by the courts and ultimately by the ECJ. It is not like that governmental agencies are making up rules.

IAmEveryone 7y ago

The page you're quoting is specific for public tenders, i. e. selling to governments across the EU. "review procedures" in this context is the ability to appeal those contract decisions. For small companies not engaging in anything specifically nefarious (i.e. Cambridge Analytica) the real danger is really rather limited. If you read https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers/data-protection/data-protection-gdpr/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers..., which should take about 10 minutes, you will understand enough about the requirements to stay clear of any danger. One common complaint is that the law isn't very specific. It sets out principles more than checklists. That is unfortunately necessary because it's impossible to anticipate every set of circumstances individually, and because technology is a fast-moving target no specific requirements ("use md5 hashing") could keep up with. Yet if you've understood those principles ("don't collect data you don't need to provide the actual service/product the customer is buying" etc) and strive for the spirit of these rules you shouldn't have any problems.