Slashdot Mirror

The U.S. Department of Defense's "Open Systems Joint Task Force" has some material.

Defining "open standards" is critical. Vendors with an open mouth will say they have an open standard. I'd go look at digistan.org for a more useful definition and justification.

European Interoperability Framework for pan-European eGovernment Services might help, too.

For statistics on why use open source software, see: Why FLOSS? Look at the Numbers!

PDF was mentioned in this interesting, now 5 years old, advisory Valoris report (as PDF, of course ;-)).

I can really recommend this as it shows how much strife and conflict we've all had the past 5 years, and how much is at stake :-/

Apparently, the next version of the European Interoperability Framework is in the making, and these months you can post public comments. So if you think UOF should be adopted by European governments, now's your chance :-)

The draft document is at this location, and probably chapter 8 is most relevant for us Slashdotters. Note MS = Member States and PEGSCO = IDABC management committee (nothing to do with SCO).

That is right: competition policy alone won't solve it but interoperability enforcement is the other side of the debate.

I am speaking of an amendment that got almost 92% support in the software patents debate

"Wherever the use of a patented technique is necessary in order to ensure interoperability between two different data processing systems, in the sense that no equally efficient and equally effective alternative non-patented means of achieving such interoperability between them is available, such use is not considered to be a patent infringement, nor is the development, testing, making, offering for sale or licence, or importation of programs making such use of a patented technique to be considered a patent infringement."

and I am speaking of the EU IDABC and its European Interoperability Framework. Sure, they are working on its obnstruction but it looks like Microsoft can't do it anymore. Everybody is fed up with them. And another important field is standard policy.

Don't forget: anyone can start an antitrust complaint e.g. against EULA provisions. Here is the complaint form.

There is a problem with this ruling, as it only takes local law into account, and not the directive. According to the EU "solidarity principle", the interpretation of local laws made because of EU directives should be in line with the directive.

And the InfoSoc directive actually defines "effective technological measures" in article 6.3.

The definition is contrary to common sense. Basically the directive defines "effective technological measures" as "technological measures" used by copyright holders:

3. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression 'technological measures' means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subjectmatter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC. Technological measures shall be deemed 'effective' where the use of a protected work or other subjectmatter is controlled by the rightholders through application of an access control or protection process, such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective.

You can only get such perverted definitions if you let the copyright holders write the law! I'm glad that Finland will not take part in such a perversion.

This is good work by Microsoft. They've tracked down a few big-time web spammers, all the way up the food chain. But there are more.

We've been working on the web spam problem, from a different angle. Our starting point is the legal requirement that a business cannot be anonymous. Every legitimate business must have an identifiable person or corporation behind it. (See CA B&P code sec. 17358, ("disclosure of ... legal name and address information shall appear on ... the first screen displayed ... (or) on the screen on which a buyer may place the order for goods or services ...") the European Directive on Electronic Commerce ("the service provider shall render easily, directly and permanently accessible to the recipients of the service and competent authorities, at least the following information: (a) the name of the service provider; (b) the geographic address at which the service provider is established...")

Given that basis, our solution to web spam is straightforward: if we can't find a valid business name and address on a web site that's selling or advertising, it's not a legitimate business. Of course, if there is a name and address, it should match business license data, corporate registration data, fictitious name filings, and similar records of business existence.

So we have a system that parses web pages in some detail, looking for addresses. If a web site has a name and address on it that obeys postal addressing rules, we can usually find it. We have access to some business databases, and we're adding more. We look at some other info, like SSL certs and BBB seals, which has some credibility. Thus, we can check for legitimacy.

Our goal is to feed this into search engine rankings, so that non-legitimate businesses fall out of visibility.

"Doorway pages" and "affilates" with no business behind them aren't legitimate businesses, so they're toast. Completely phony addresses won't work, either; they won't match business records. Stealing the name address of a legitimate business is felony identity theft, which is a place you don't want to go. (Also, sometimes, we can detect and report that.)

An early version of this is already running at SiteTruth.com. If you're responsible for a commercial web site, run it through the Detailed SiteTruth analysis, for Webmasters and see what SiteTruth finds. If SiteTruth can't find your business name and address, you might want to fix that. The day will come when it affects your search placement.

This is the alpha test phase for SiteTruth; there's more coming.

Web spam used to be a safe tactic. That was then. This is now.

If all it takes is a 'counter-notification' to get the content back up, why doesn't everyone just throw back a counter-notification, pending a counter-counter-notification, ad infinitum?

Still, contrast this with the European Union's takedown procedures, laid out in Directive 2000/31/EC, Article 14(b), which limits the liability of a provider who "upon obtaining... knowledge or awareness [of illegal activity or information], acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information." As one blogger put it, "the main difference between the U.S. and the EU on matters of notice and takedown is that the EU removes all of the formalities that exist under U.S. law and, with them, all of the protections."

Meh, legal action... for communicating.. right. Sounds like a great world you're advocating there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241460.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/ec omm/index_en.htm

Have you been living in a barn for the past 160 years?

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_ 201/l_20120020731en00370047.pdf

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/200 2dltr0014.html

Does GB intend to withdraw from the EU?

If so, the "Big Brother" talk is more than idle literary reference. We can move forward with renaming Britannia to "Airstrip One."

Sometimes it's difficult to rebut the kind of shoddy investigation that underpins such ecological or political protest as Greenpeace. Then again, one has to wonder whether such misinformation is the result of incompetence or outright lying to gain support. In the case of Greenpeace vs. Apple it seems Greenpeace lied.

Apparently, sensationalist lies tend to generate more checks for the cause.

Did they really win. The EU commisioner told MS to publish the protocols and unbundle certain applications. MS has done neither buts pleads 'confusion' over what the ruling really means.

"It is therefore misleading to imply that the Commission could be the cause of delays in launching Vista in Europe."

"One of the remedies imposed by the decision was for Microsoft to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers"

As far as I am aware MS have not done so. Has the commision recinded its ruling. If not Microsofts lawyers must be aware of this. Or are they going to stall the process long enough to manufacture a new set of protocols, release a new version of Vista using these protocols and make sure it's incompatible with the old 'opened up' protocols.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5325690.stm
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200604110 33758760

Also, since there are so many small countries in europe, providers earn a shitload of money on 'roaming' costs

Calling to a mobile phone can be up to 20 cent or more, say 20 times more than a normal phone call

5) What measures do you recommend in the different areas described below, and why? By whom should they be implemented?
5a) Classification of commercial content.
5b) Opt-in /opt out. Should the Opt-in (where the user has to explicitly request access to adult content rather by accessing it by default) approach be applied in all EU countries?
5c) Age verification: should Mobile network operators implement face to face identity check to determine the age of the user? Should this process also be applied when a customer buys a pre-paid card?
5d) Filtering and blocking systems. Should filtering systems be installed by default when the subscription allows internet access?
5e) Chat rooms. Should chat rooms accessible by children be moderated (in an automatic way or by a person)?
5f) Raising awareness among parents and children
5g) Dedicated mobile phone packs for children, for which age group?

Digital Rights Management systems (DRMs) involve technologies that identify and
describe digital content protected by intellectual property rights. While DRMs are
essentially technologies which provide for the management of rights and payments, they
also help to prevent unauthorised use.

25. Do you use Digital Rights Management systems (DRMs) or intend to do so? If you do
not use any, why not? Do you consider DRMs an appropriate means to manage and
secure the distribution of copyrighted material in the online environment?

26. Do you have access to robust DRM systems providing what you consider to be an
appropriate level of protection? If not, what is the reason for that? What are the
consequences for you of not having access to a robust DRM system?

27. In the sector and in the country or countries you operate in, are DRMs widely used?
Are these systems sufficiently transparent to creators and consumers? Are the systems
used user-friendly?

28. Do you use copy protection measures? To what extent is such copy protection
accepted by others in the sector and in the country or countries you operate in?

29. Are there any other issues concerning DRMs you would like to raise, such as
governance, trust models and compliance, interoperability?

You forget that most acts of surveillance are on proper legal grounds. Data protection laws one the one side, surveillance regulation on the other.

There are many interests involved and you as a stakeholder were unable to make your voice heard. It has a lot to do with access to political decision making and strength of interest groups.

However, there are so many opportunities. Act when regulation is prepared, and don't complain when regulation is applied. Why don't you spent your time writing about upcoming regulation rather than current rule of law.

Think of this here:

Commission Communication on the Review of the EU Regulatory Framework for electronic communications networks and services and launch of public consultation

Quite intresting. Good and high quality input could make a difference.

As I understand it judges have upheld EULAs as valid since you can be "reasonably expected" to know software comes with such a thing (yeah, right, like they teach that in schools. You don't know that until you have bought your first PC program). This justification fails to explain why any non-standard terms in an EULA (i.e. that go beyond the common ground present in all EULAs and as such aren't common sense anymore) still apply.

Additionally I do not see how a company can turn a sale into a licensing deal post sale. The sales contract predates the EULA, it did not make any mentioning of any licenses and it did not state that additional contracts are required to use the software. As such I'd argue that a piece of software sold without informing the customer of the required additional contract prior to the sale is fraudulent as the seller claimed the product was something it isn't (sale vs. license).

Furthermore I will not accept it as legal to use technical measures (DRM, installers, whathaveyou) to interfere with customer rights granted by the law. The law gave these rights to prevent companies from dictating terms through the vast imbalance of power (i.e. the contract is not negotiated and the company can dictate it any way they please, even worse if they and their competitors form an oligopoly through agreeing on using similarily exploitative terms and there is noone else to turn to), if a company was allowed to design a product to deny those rights that would undermine the whole purpose of the law. But then again I'm a proponent of making exploiting loopholes in a law a serious crime.

The European Union has a directive that severely limits the terms that can be present in a contract that is non-negotiable and presented by a large company. You could try proposing something comparable to your representative(s).

This may apply here:
(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

As a sidenote, many online gaming services (MMOs especially) fall afoul of this one by keeping any advance fees the customer paid when he is banned for any reason:
(f) authorizing the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract;

Today's Decision concludes that as of 20 June 2006, Microsoft had still not supplied complete and accurate interoperability information as required by the March 2004 Decision. Microsoft's obligations in this regard are clearly outlined in that Decision, both in terms of the result to be achieved, and in terms of what Microsoft must do to achieve that result. These obligations were specific and have not changed: it is for Microsoft to produce usable documentation.

You have got to be kidding. Microsoft is the only one _you_ see on the news probably. The EU is very strict on this sort of things. Have a look at the EU vs Alitalia or the EU vs Olympic Airlines, or the EU vs BMW and GM. The EU even goes against its own country members if they fail to comply with EU law. No matter how people want to see it, microsoft is not the innocent victim here...

[Offtopic]Congrats to Italy for Barrying Germany 'Squadra Azzurra' Style! I hope you guys lift the cup in the end![/offtopic]

The problem is that they pay a LOT more... See the AC posting above about 1000 minutes to a mobile in the UK vs US.
And no, text messages in Europe are most definitely not free. :)

And the Europeans get the happy joy of paying up to EUR 8.22/min while traveling 400+ miles in any direction (i.e., internationally within the E.U.). I can call from Barrow, Alaska to Puerto Rico at my standard home minute rate. Even if I were roaming, it would only be $.65/min. Add Canada for $20/mo more.

Cheers!

This website is maintained by the Commission.

They say broadband, mentioning VoIP and television.

"Article 25 EC" refers to article 25 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (thats what the EC is an abbreviation for).

Text of that treaty is available here: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/treaties/index .htm

Yeah you can

1. By way of derogation from Article 25 and save where otherwise provided by domestic law governing particular cases, Member States shall provide that a transfer or a set of transfers of personal data to a third country which does not ensure an adequate level of protection within the meaning of Article 25 (2) may take place on condition that:

(a) the data subject has given his consent unambiguously to the proposed transfer;

Source : http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi !celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31995L0046 &model=guichett

Article 95 EC refers to to Article 95 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community

The directive mandates recording all numbers you call, when you call, for how long you call and where you are during the phone call (in case of mobile phones). It also mandates logging the from- and to- addresses of all emails you send, and recording of all VoIP call from/to data. The directive does not require a court order before the data can be accessed, and it can be accessed in the investigation of each "serious crime" (whereby each member state is free to decide for itself what constitutes a "serious crime").

And don't try to put it down to "those Eurocrats", because it was pushed through in particular by the UK presidency. All in the name of battling them terrorists, of course.

The threat of U.S. anti-satellite lasers, for instance...maybe taking out, say, Galileo.

It doesn't matter if it's an light bulb or a missile defense system - the consumer can and is encouraged to return it to the producer. If it is not (if you dump it somewhere else), a bill for the recycling cost is sent to the producer anyway.

Look here:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/ca ses/

Next time don't speak out loud. : Here are some controversial regulations for pedestrian safety ...

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/automotive/di rectives/vehicles/dir2003_102_ce.htm

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:AjOjPniOPhsJ:w ww.unece.org/trans/doc/2003/wp29grsp/ps-33.doc+ped estrian+safety+regulation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2

And of course :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_Safety_Thr ough_Vehicle_Design

The United Nations
The European Union
NATO
Interpol
World Health Organization
International Civil Aviation Organization
The International Telecommunications Union
The Red Cross

I don't know what to say about this one though:
International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR)

And more: Google it

Not to mention the sloppy rules for registration:

To register in the .int domain, the applicant must be an intergovernmental organization that meets the requirements found in RFC 1591. In brief, the .int domain is used for registering organizations established by international treaties between or among national governments. Only one registration is allowed for each organization. There is no fee for registering an .int domain name.

I wonder whether it would be useful to report it to
http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/publications /competition_policy_and_the_citizen/consumer_liais on/

You know, DG competition is curious to know more about MS anticompetitive pratices.

Exactly. The concept of European Union citizenship has in fact already been established.

Actually there is in fact such a thing as a European citizenship, or more specifically EU citizenship: http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/fsj/citizen ship/fsj_citizenship_intro_en.htm

There's only one question every time. How much light/W does it produce (lm/W)? And what is the price for the 'OLED bulb'.

And... do not compare it to traditional light bulbs. Traditional light bulbs are dead.

Of course, LEDs have achieved a lot in producing more and more light, but currently it is some 10s or 100s fold differends between the price of the
fluorescent light sources and a LED based one, and the fluorescent light source (mostly) produces more light than the LED.

Yes, I hope that OLEDs will be the ones who can reach the barrier, but until that this article is very-very optimistic :)

check
(figure:)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/atlas/h tmlu/lightdintro2.html
articles:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/atlas/h tmlu/lightdintro.html
http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/TP40_IESNA_July%20200 4_LED_Paper.pdf

There's only one question every time. How much light/W does it produce (lm/W)? And what is the price for the 'OLED bulb'.

And... do not compare it to traditional light bulbs. Traditional light bulbs are dead.

Of course, LEDs have achieved a lot in producing more and more light, but currently it is some 10s or 100s fold differends between the price of the
fluorescent light sources and a LED based one, and the fluorescent light source (mostly) produces more light than the LED.

Yes, I hope that OLEDs will be the ones who can reach the barrier, but until that this article is very-very optimistic :)

check
(figure:)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/atlas/h tmlu/lightdintro2.html
articles:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/atlas/h tmlu/lightdintro.html
http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/TP40_IESNA_July%20200 4_LED_Paper.pdf

In Europe, RoHS (restriction of hazardous waste) laws come into effect in June (or is it July) this year. Any electronics imported after that date will need to comply wrt hazardous materials - so this means all electronics will need to be on new manufacturing lines with lead free components. And its not just lead - preservatives in plastics among others.

List of main culprits is here (Look for "six substances" link).

List is:

Lead - Pb
Mercury - Hg
Cadmium - Cd
Hexavalent Chromium Cr (VI)
Polybrominated biphenyls - PBB
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers - PBDE

In summary:

• FULL documentation for CIFS/SMB and possibly how to let the user part of the reqistry be stored on non-MS servers, and possibly parts of how Active Directory talks to its clients.
• Unbundling WMP from Windows, and making sure MS doesn't try to give better deals to conusmers/OEMs who choose to install WMP bundled.

Taken from European Commission press release IP/04/382
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do? reference=IP/04/382&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN &guiLanguage=en

In order to restore the conditions of fair competition, the Commission has imposed the following remedies:

• As regards interoperability, Microsoft is required, within 120 days, to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. This will enable rival vendors to develop products that can compete on a level playing field in the work group server operating system market. The disclosed information will have to be updated each time Microsoft brings to the market new versions of its relevant products.

To the extent that any of this interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the European Economic Area(6), Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable remuneration. The disclosure order concerns the interface documentation only, and not the Windows source code, as this is not necessary to achieve the development of interoperable products.

• As regards tying, Microsoft is required, within 90 days, to offer to PC manufacturers a version of its Windows client PC operating system without WMP. The un-tying remedy does not mean that consumers will obtain PCs and operating systems without media players. Most consumers purchase a PC from a PC manufacturer which has already put together on their behalf a bundle of an operating system and a media player. As a result of the Commission's remedy, the configuration of such bundles will reflect what consumers want, and not what Microsoft imposes.

Microsoft retains the right to offer a version of its Windows client PC operating system product with WMP. However, Microsoft must refrain from using any commercial, technological or contractual terms that would have the effect of rendering the unbundled version of Windows less attractive or performing. In particular, it must not give PC manufacturers a discount conditional on their buying Windows together with WMP.

The Commission believes the remedies will bring the antitrust violations to an end, that they are proportionate, and that they establish clear principles for the future conduct of the company.

To ensure effective and timely compliance with this decision, the Commission will appoint a Monitoring Trustee, which will, inter alia, oversee that Microsoft's interface disclosures are complete and accurate, and that the two versions of Windows are equivalent in terms of performance.

"What we are trying to do is use our server control to do new protocols and lock out Sun and Oracle specifically . Now, I don't know if we'll get to that or not, but that's what we are trying to do"

"Dominance on the server infrastructure on the Internet is a tougher nut to crack [but] we just might be able to do it from the enterprise out if we could own the enterprise (which I think we can)"

"[Microsoft] has a huge advantage in the enterprise computing market by leveraging the dominance of the Windows desktop"

...
2) Ireland does what its told to by MS and others

This is also why Ireland was behind the EU attempt to introduce software patents.
...

"Views are sought on the patent system in Europe, and what changes if any are needed to improve innovation and competitiveness, growth and employment in the knowledge-based economy.

Stakeholders [that's you there with the computer] are invited to submit their contributions by 31 March 2006."

If only their voice is heard, then the outcome of any decisions based on that input is not likely to be useful for anyone planning to use a computer in the EU. sw patents create problems for more than just developers, though the developers are likely to feel the pain first.

We are the only two who have read that thing apparently.

Direct link to EU decisions and press releases regarding this case.

Those measures you've specified are behavioral changes, but not necessarily punishment for past crimes. IOW, those are measures that should be standard practice regardless of whether they are guilty or not. What type of punishment do you think is necessary, above and beyond those, to adequately punish Microsoft?

I will read any responses later because I have a feeling I'm about to be banned for pinging this site too often.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/ca ses/decisions/37792/en.pdf

Articles 4-5 describe the issues which Microsoft was concluded to be guilty of. Article 6 (p275) describes the proposed remedy.

In many countries contract terms in consumer sales are quite regulated in what they can say and what they can't say, specifically they are not allowed to be unfair. Having a term that permits one side (the seller) the change the conditions freely after the sale would in many cases be such a thing. Even if one CAN change contract terms for specific reasons, they can't be changed "without notice" either.

If we stick to Europe (since the main article was about France, the sugested EULA (assuming it has a similar text for Europe would be considered an "unfair term in a consumer contract" and void. It is actually specifically mentioned as an example of an unfair term in the EU directive regulating unfair terms in consumer contracts, so there is not even a need for reasoning about it. Here, I give you a direct quote of the examples:

(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

(k) enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided;

If you want a full version of the EU directive, here is a link (click on the link in the second parapgraph). Note that the list at the end from qhich I quoted above is just examples of termas that are for sure unfair, they are not meant as a complete list:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/safe_ shop/unf_cont_terms/index_en.htm

So basically, those terms in the EULA are completely unenforcable and not valid if they exist in the European site. If taken to court (or other regulating department that deal with consumer sales related issues), they would be demanded to change the contract or fined). Actually, Apples store (plus Microsoft's I believ) in the Nordic countries was just a few days ago reported for their EULA. SHould be intersting to see the outcome. I am sure there are many other parts of it that will be ruled as not acceptable.

No they don't! 370 million of them (more than half of those eligible) voted using e-voting machines in 2004.

http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2551/599.

Microsoft had accused Barrett [commission monitoring trustee] of colluding with competitors by meeting with them regularly. In fact, that's just his job.

His job is outlined here:
* http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/ca ses/decisions/37792/trustee.pdf

In this document, you will see the role of the trustee clearly is defined, including his interaction between the commission and 3rd parties, as well as the scope of information he is privy to. The trustee is a neutral, independent monitor of Microsoft's complaince.

Given that
* the process established for interaction with 3rd parties was not followed; the process included requirements that complaints by 3rd parties be disseminated to Microsoft and the commission, as well as recorded on file. This was not done.
* the process established for obtaining information from 3rd parties was not followed; the trustee is not permitted to independently meet with 3rd parties or obtain information outside of the scope defined in the above document. 3rd party information must be routed through the commission and recorded on file, but it was not.
* that the comission directed the truste's schedule (noting it was important for certain meetings with 3rd parties occur "before he meets with Microsoft for the first time")
* that the commission (not the trustee) proactively arranged meetings with 3rd parties (over subjects titled "a first impression of what's at stake", to "begin what will be a huge education process")
* that the commission sought to keep this information secret (going to such lengths as directing the trustee not to be present on Microsoft's campus while certain 3rd parties were there for "appearance issues" and independently paying for travel for the trustee [even though the document referenced above states that all costs for the trustee be bore by Microsoft])

It is reasonable to conclude that the trustee was
a) not independent
b) not impartial
c) not acting in a manner consistent with the guidelines specified in the document above

It is also reasonble to conclude that the commission was actively subverting the trustee guidelines to further an agenda which, among other things, precludes the conclusion that Microsoft complied with the court's order.

Taeus compared Microsoft's submissions to a car manufacturer selling a car without wheels, handbrake, or steering wheel, and only fitting each begrudgingly after the customer complains.

You'll note two things about this analasys:
1) it was not performed by the trustee
2) it was performed after the comission issued it's decision that Microsoft was not in compliance

It's just like all other things, we'll play it off no matter what the study says. But I do have this one comment: don't drink diet soda folks, I know it does more than they say it does. Hell my mom used to get migraines from drinking it, stopped drinking it, migraines gone. You are exposing yourself to all kinds of risks you have no idea about. Because the media and the FDA were bought and sold a long time ago.

Well, you could believe the well-documented report prepared by the EU's Scientific Committee on food, which references numerous independent studies and finds no link between aspartame and migranes, epilepsy, or genotoxicity and carcinogenicity.

Or you could believe the (generally poorly-documented) reports scattered around the Internet.

Remember, the placebo effect can be very powerful - without double-blind placebo-controlled tests, it is difficult to determine if a substance really does have an effect.

At the end of the day, I'm going to keep talking on my cell-phone, I'm going to keep driving (but not while talking on the phone), and I'm going to continue drinking aspartame beverages. All of these activities carry a risk, but we cannot live our lives fearing some phantom risk that may never materialize.

Until we have a law clearly stating that software cannot be patented (written in a form that closes as many loopholes as possible) people will keep playing the "computer running XYZ" card.

Agreed. That's why I wrote that you, your company or institution, your professional organizations, and union chapter need to be providing input to the Commission's public consultation on changes to EU patent law. The knowledge that computers programs, algorthms, mathematical formulas, business methods and dances are not eligable for patents in the EU can be used for leverage.

Permanently block software patents: This would greatly reduce Microsoft's power to kill off competitors in the EU through litigation. It would also allow European software companies to use technology patented in the rest of the world, leading to much stronger competition.

...

Software patents are not banned in Europe, but we have people working at it and they're working well.

One thing you missed in your list of advantages, though, is that patents affect usage, not production or distribution. That makes it not a developer problem, but a problem for anyone planning to use a computer, especially to use it for earning money. Allowing the issue to be turned into a developer-only issue, or even more incorrectly an open source developer-only issue, is really playing into the hands of the pro-sw patent lobby. Such a spin encourages the majority of stakeholders, who are the ones with the most to lose anyway, to not defend their interests and to even dismiss the problem as being relevent only to a marginal group.

However, that said, if you do really want to keep use of computers possible in Europe, then you, your company or institution, your professional organizations, and union chapter need to be providing input to the Commission's public consultation on changes to EU patent law.

The consultation focuses on three major issues:

• the Community patent;
• how the current patent system in Europe could be improved;
• and possible areas for harmonisation.

The Commission's solicitation is about sw patents. Both the topics "Community patent" and "harmonization" have already been used in attempts to bring sw patents to Europe.

The middle part, "how the current patent system in Europe could be improved", in all likelihood, serves as an invitation for pro-sw patent lobbies to bring up the topic. If only their voice is heard, then the outcome of any decisions based on that input is not likely to be beneficial for Europe.

The threat is still present while the European Patent Office continues to grant patents on things otherwise not patentable in Europe.

Yup this is pure bull, everything produced and sold in EU at least for the last 15 years or se has to adhere to the 'EMC directive' addressing among other things this issue (other similar directives predates this by several years), so for the last 20 years or so it has in practice been illegal to sell equipment that either:

1) emits to much radiation outside its sepcified frequenzy bands
2) malfunctions because of high incoming radiation

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipm ent/emc/directiv/text.htm

It is the same thing abount banning mobile phones in hospitals because of 'sensitive' equipment.

What like this? It took 5 years to produce and was delayed until the comisioner had his facts straight. It's a bit big but from what I read my thoughts went "Yes. Yup. Right... Jesus, they've really nailed M$ with this."

I'm not surprised that the Win XP N didn't work. It costs the same for less functionality! What's uber important is the interoperable server stuff. And that's what they're playing hard to get with. I don't think this or the recent press conference about licensing windows source code will have done any good. How long until fines start?

http://europa.eu.int/comm/commission_barroso/kroes /

Neelie.Kroes@cec.eu.int

Hammer her.

I personally don't agree with the EU case against MS.

But, let's slashdot her!