About Cory Doctorow's "Microsoft, Tear Down That Wall!"

In his recent, incisive article, "Microsoft, Tear Down That Wall!", author and activist Cory Doctorow makes a powerful case that resonates deeply with the EuroStack Initiative's mission. He argues that while building sovereign European technology is essential, it is doomed to fail without a clear and legal path for users to migrate away from incumbent US Big Tech platforms. Doctorow identifies a "Berlin Wall" preventing this migration: Article 6 of the EU Copyright Directive, an anti-circumvention law the EU adopted under US pressure. His analysis serves as both a profound validation of our diagnosis of Europe's digital dependency and a critical strategic addition, providing a clear, actionable mandate to tear down this legal barrier as a prerequisite for true digital sovereignty.

TL;DR

The author argues that Donald Trump's aggressive and isolationist policies, while hostile, have inadvertently created a historic opportunity for Europe to reclaim its digital sovereignty. For decades, the US used the threat of tariffs to force countries to adopt laws (like anticircumvention) that protect US Big Tech's business models, creating vendor lock-in. Now that Trump has imposed tariffs anyway, the rationale for upholding these one-sided agreements has evaporated.

The author strongly supports the EuroStack initiative's goal of building European alternatives to US platforms. However, he delivers a critical warning: simply building these alternatives is not enough. The primary obstacle is migration. European governments, businesses, and citizens are trapped in US tech silos, and current EU law (specifically Article 6 of the Copyright Directive, passed under US pressure) makes it illegal to build the tools needed to reverse-engineer these platforms and get their data out.

His core message is that for EuroStack to succeed, the EU must repeal these anticircumvention laws. Building a sovereign European tech stack without providing a legal way for users to migrate to it is like building new housing for East Germans in West Berlin, without tearing down the wall.

Comment from the EuroStack Initiative POV

This analysis is not only insightful but serves as a powerful validation and a crucial strategic addition to the EuroStack Initiative's platform. The author has perfectly articulated the geopolitical and technical realities that underpin our entire project.

We can break down our comments into three key areas of agreement and emphasis:

1. A Perfect Diagnosis of the Problem: "Jurisdictional Risk" Made Real

The author correctly identifies the US Trade Representative (USTR) as the architect of a global legal regime designed to entrench the dominance of US Big Tech and create the very "digital colony" we are fighting against. His account of how policies like anticircumvention were forced upon US trading partners is entirely aligned with our own analysis.

More importantly, he emphasizes the real-world example of the kind of Jurisdictional Risk we have consistently warned about. The deplatforming of International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan by Microsoft, following sanctions from the US executive branch, is the "kill switch" scenario made manifest. It is an unambiguous demonstration that US technology providers are, and will continue to be, instruments of US foreign policy. This single event proves that a provider's ultimate accountability to non-EU law is a clear and present danger to the functioning of European institutions. It makes our core "pass/fail" prerequisite of Jurisdiction & Governance—demanding providers be headquartered, owned, and legally insulated within the EU—an undeniable necessity.

2. Identifying the "Berlin Wall": A Vital Contribution to Technical Sovereignty

Our framework has always prioritized Technical Sovereignty, which we define as freedom from technological lock-in, including through open standards and Open Source Software. The author reinforces this principle by giving it a concrete legal target: anticircumvention laws, specifically Article 6 of the EU Copyright Directive (EUCD).

His most vital contribution is identifying the "Berlin Wall" that stands between Europe's current state of dependency and a future built on a sovereign EuroStack: the challenge of migration. We can build the best, most secure, and most sovereign cloud platforms in the world, but they will fail to gain traction if there is no practical, legal, and scalable way for users to move their decades of data, workflows, and operations from incumbent US providers.

The author is correct. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) is a case in point. While it is a landmark regulation aimed at curbing the power of gatekeepers, its interoperability mandates are already being met with fierce resistance, legal challenges, and "malicious compliance" from incumbents like Apple. This experience should teach us a lesson: relying on regulations that depend on the gatekeeper's goodwill to facilitate competition or migration is a slow, fraught, and ultimately insufficient process. The only realistic path forward is to empower European innovators to build those migration tools themselves.

3. A Clear, Actionable Mandate: "Tear Down This Wall!"

The EuroStack Initiative is not an academic exercise; it is a pragmatic plan for industrial and technological renewal. The author's analysis provides us with an essential, actionable policy objective that complements our "Buy European" proposal.

Therefore, we should endorse his conclusion. It clarifies the strategic difference between two types of regulation. While laws like the DMA and the Data Act create a legal right for users to access and port their data, repealing anticircumvention laws would create the technical power for a competitive market to enforce that right directly. The repeal of EUCD Article 6 is no longer just a matter of "Right to Repair" or consumer rights; it is a prerequisite for digital sovereignty and economic competition. Eliminating these rules would:

• Legally enable the creation of the migration tools essential for EuroStack's success.
• Destroy the business model of vendor lock-in that perpetuates US tech dominance.
• Unleash European SMEs to create innovative services that interoperate with and improve upon incumbent systems, fostering genuine competition.
• Eliminate a perverse regulation where the EU actively protects the anti-competitive practices of foreign companies against its own interests.