Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Settlement Compliance Criticized
Jeremy Allison - Samba Team writes "A report on the Microsoft "release" of communication protocols, as required by the proposed settlement. Article from the Washington Post. Speaking for the Samba Team, we can't look at these documents as they require signing an NDA before even getting the terms of release. Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team."
Interesting factoid:
Mark Webbink, Red Hat's general counsel quoted in the article, went to law school with a co-worker of mine in Seattle. He interned at Micro$oft during his summers there. I wonder if there were any legal hijinks going on there.
As you probably know, it's illegal for any corporate lawyer to make disparaging remarks about competition, as he'll usually get slapped with a charge of contempt immediately.
Just one person, company, etc. to go through the process then illegally release it to the world. NDA be damned!
" But even with the settlement, software firms say Microsoft still isn't making it easy to see the protocols. In order to gain access, a company would have to use Microsoft's "Passport" identity authentication system, then request and sign two forms - one of them promising secrecy - just to see the license terms and find how much Microsoft is charging for the information. "
Someone needs to take them back to court for this.. or try to get the cort to neatly spell out every little detail of what M$ is required to do. This interpretation of the "settlement" is just absurd. And what a slap in the face of the rest of the world.. making you use friggin MICROSOFT PASSPORT to gain access.
And "request" forms? Have they denied anybody the forms? Are they allowed to deny forms? Great. They're going to be nice and slow..and selective..
Un friggin believable. I can't believe they're just getting away with all of this.
I being a big windows fan for many years am slowly trying to learn redhat linux with a very slow learning curve, I find this statement to be a little off, "It has done nothing to level the playing field," said Mark Webbink, general counsel for Red Hat, which sells a version of the Linux operating system that competes with Microsoft's Windows. I have done an install of Windows and an install of Redhat 7.2 and my modem still doesn't work under redhat 7.2, maybe I haven't worked hard enough to find how to correct the problem, but to me, if linux wants to level the field, they've got work to do, it shouldn't take me weeks to find something to make my laptop modem run under linux, which is still not working, windows had me up and going in no time without hassle of searching down a driver to get my modem to work. When they wanna level the field, make it so I can install linux, which was a pain in my ass compared to windows, and make it work right, right out of the box, like I did with windows.
They are not exactly looking to see the code. They want the protocols. A protocol usually doesn't contain any code.
While NDAs are normal in the industry and if they wernt forced to do it I would say this was fair. This just shows how incepid the settlement was it didn't level the playing field it didn't even start to it's a rubber stamp that says sure see were in compliance thus not abusing are monopoly powers.
Step 1
Seperate MS into there core groups OS, Office Apps, Games, Hardware (yes get the XBOX away fromt he game dev people)
Step 2
Dont let these guys talk to each other unless it's in a public space.
Step 3
Take excess cash sieze it and redistribute it as penalty phase.
No sir I dont like it.
Of course, this should surprise no-one. Nothing short of a radical break-up will cause this company to be one whit less arrogant---indeed, one can argue that since its primary duty is towards its shareholders, there is no incentive for Microsoft to change.
But in this political climate, such government action is highly unlikely. In fact, the opposite has been happening: Standard oil was broken up a nearly a century ago, and now its old pieces are reassembling themselves. There does not seem a merger that the F.T.C. does not love.
The biggest mistake that Microsoft has made was ignoring politics for such a long time. Before this case, its net political contribution to either party were nearly nil. As soon as the first writs started to come in, so did money start to pour from Redmond to Washington, now contributions to both parties are in the millions, and Federal prosecutors have become far less eager.
Perhaps I am a pessimist, but here is my prediction as to the outcome of all these legal actions: appeals, followed by more appeals, followed by earnest wrist slapping.
But there is a bright side: Microsoft vision of the P.C. as a direct conduit between it and its customers' wallets will do more to break up its stranglehold than all the judges on the bench.
But once again, there is nothing 'evil' or illegal about requiring an NDA to view the licensing structure.
To say that 'we can't sign an NDA, therefore this is discriminatory against as' (as was implied in the article) is facetious. The Samba Team can sign an NDA, and it wouldn't violate GNU at all. They can even purchase access to the API's, they just can't release the aforementioned API's under GNU (as is spelled out in GNU)
Or am I wrong?
There are very few real things in this world...this isn't one of them.
No, and that's the problem with the settlement. Not that they should be required to make their code Open Source, but they should be required to publish the protocols in an open manner so that other companies/software projects (ie. NetApp, EMC, Samba) can interoperate.
:-).
That was one of the whole points of the legal action remember, to prevent them leveraging their desktop monopoly into the server space.
Repeat after me... competition is *good*
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Of course, we couldn't do anything with the data, since:Damn.
Jouster
Basically, a commercial entity or entities (e.g. Sun, IBM) with an interest in promoting free software competition to Microsoft could finance an operation which would use the Microsoft specs to put together a compliance suite. Since a great deal of the effort in reverse-engineering protocols lies in making sure that your tests are complete, a black-box compliance suite -- even though not itself free -- would dramatically ease the process of reverse-engineering the specs themselves.
As a dandy side-effect, the suite would also show up where Microsoft doesn't comply with their own specs, which detail might be of interest to the public and the Court.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Computer science 101 time :-).
:-).
API's are *not* protocols. I don't care what their API's are, I don't program under Win32.
I care what bytes come out from and go into the *network* from a Windows computer as a protocol description.
You know, that rather thick blue piece of string hanging out the back of your computer
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
It's a fair cop 'guv :-). Good point. Ok, I don't care what :-) :-).
their *internal* protocols are
Thanks,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Awsome, I am in luck, I am 17....I need to do this before febuary. anyone wanna give me a big wad of cash to pay for it?
Would it be illegal in any way for me to pay a juvenile to do this? Is it technically against the law for a juvenile to do this? If it is, then it would be illegal for me to pay them to break the law, I'm sure. IANAL (obviously); can anyone who is comment?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Until the judge issues her decision, anything that MS is doing is just posturing...
I have to say thanks to the SAMBA team!
I'm working on an implementation of a closed-source proprietary application. This app is installable on unix and Windows boxes.
The code repository is on an AIX box here, and I needed to make that available to a Windows box. I don't have root on the AIX box, but I do have root on a linux box. I nfs-mounted the code repository to my Linux box, and was able to export _that_ filesystem using Samba in a matter of minutes.
Rather than fighting political battles, I'm getting my work done. That would be much more difficult if the Samba team wasn't doing a great job.
I've read some comments dinging Samba for not being a perfect clone of SMB/CIFS. I can understand frustration when you need a feature that's not available yet, but we should all be thankful that any interoperability is possible.
Keep up the good work!
Regards,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Whether their accusation is accurate or not is not the point, you are potentially screwed over by Microsoft lawyers. They can make your like hell just because they feel like it.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
I know it goes against the flow here to defend Microsoft, but isn't it possible that there are valid reasons for most, if not all, of Microsoft's actions in this case?
For instance, what if the protocols in question include the DRM protocols for Windows Media Player? Said DRM protocols would almost have to be negotiated or licensed from a Content Management company, and that would cost money from Microsoft. In addition, the CM company might have required MS to agree to an NDA for the protection of the encryption/DRM scheme.
In that case, just as a for example, wouldn't it be prudent of MS to require an NDA to view its protocols? While that's not quite the same as an NDA to view the cost of the protocols, it is still a valid point.
Also, as Microsoft would then have had to pay licensing fees (and additional license fees for every copy of the DRM that is bought from them) doesn't it make sense for them to attempt to recoup these losses by passing that cost along to the licensees? I'm not saying that is what happened, but automatically assuming it's MS's evil doings is jumping to conclusions, isn't it?
-Terralthra...
What I find interesting is that Microsoft's response is a rather flippant "This is standard practice in the industry." Unfortunately, M$ has been duped. They've gone and hired layers to head their legal strategy for big money, and those lawyers aren't even aware that when you're a monopoly, you're held to a HIGHER standard that the rest of the industry. What was the quote from Spiderman? "With great power comes great responsibility." It's a shame M$ chooses to follow the industry standards rather than set an example. What COWARDS!
Perhaps not surprisingly, the mainstream press gets salient details wrong. The last sentence of the above paragraph is simply untrue. Even Microsoft understands they can sell GPL-covered software (as they have been doing for quite some time now). The GNU GPL (erroneously referred to as "the General Public License" above) does not "[bar] any payment"; it can be okay to sell Free Software including GNU GPL-covered software. In fact, in the essay I just linked to it is encouraged that one get as much money as one can for distributing Free Software.
One element that makes payment impossible for Free Software developers are licenses that require per-seat payments. When you have the freedom to share the software freely you can't keep track of who gets a copy. When you have the freedom to modify the software tracking systems built into the software can (and probably will) be removed. Free Software licenses grant you the freedoms to share and modify the software under that license.
Digital Citizen
Since Microsoft is charging a royalty fee to use the communications protocols, any open-source developer - those who contend that sharing software blueprints is the best way to build products - would not be able to use them. Those companies, which include Linux firms, use a special "free software" license called the General Public License that bars any payment.
This is not FUD. I've read a few posts that say it is, and I must admit it looked like it to me at first. This is really a good idea on Microsoft's part. If they want to keep any proprietory information away from free software developers all they need do is demand a royalty be paid on every distribution of a product that uses that information. Think about it. You want to download Xine with support for the new Windows Media Player format? Ok, Microsoft is more than willing to supply the Xine folks with the specification for the new format, but they demand a royalty on each distribution of Xine. So, you, the user, are required to pay a royalty, to Microsoft, for your copy of Xine. This is pretty standard for non-free-software right? Well the GPL will not permit the Xine folks to make this requirement of you!
Good show Microsoft, very evil.
How we know is more important than what we know.
If they want IP protection, then they must disclose. Disclosure is the price of admission for IP protection.
If they claim that the information was stolen, then disclosed to third parties, *it doesn't matter* if the original disclosure was illegal: the information loses trade secret status, and the damages they are able to recover are *only* against the original discloser.
Only patents and copyrights provide IP protection for disclosed information.
-- Terry
Seriously, aerial bombing campaign or not, the court's decisions do need to be enforced. Interoperability is essential for economic growth and since Microsoft has been the largest single obstacle to interoperability, you could say that it looks like Microsoft has been a factor in holding back eonomic growth.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I also tackled the issues of cost (e.g. subscription fees) and protocol patents.
Hmmm. It seems that I was right to be worried.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
Microsoft has managed to survive many tough legal blows to date and, despite a criminal conviction, seemed like they would survive with a slap on the wrist. Part of it was some tough negotiations with a timid (or well-lobbied, perhaps) Justice Department and a few states, and part of it was a well-oiled "P.R." campaign to good cop the new judge. Part of that campaign was a supposed, "voluntary," implementation of the settlement.
Microsoft, ever incorrigible, can't seem to help itself, and this is A REAL GOOD THING. I would rather the insufficiency of the settlement be realized in a practical and tangible manner before, and not after, the judge reaches her decision -- when there is still time for her to change her mind.
It is stuff like this that turned Judge Jackson into a Microsoft-hater, and indeed, it will have a similar impact on the present judge. However unlikely it was that she might reject the positions of both parties and ask for briefings on structural relief -- conduct such as this makes that one step more likely to happen.
For those hoping that she will throw the book at Microsoft, however she does it, this kind of news is the best thing that could happen. The Judge has the power now -- and Microsoft's bad acting is amazingly short-sighted.
I love when my opponents overreach visibly. It always helps me in the end.
Maine voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting terms on state legislators a few years back. We're now coming into the second "class" of long-term, effective legislators being forced into retirement.
Two years ago when the first class had to retire, they were replaced by people who had little-to-no legislative ability and were EVEN MORE tied to special-interest groups and corporations than the people they replaced.
Do you put term limits on your dentist or family doctor? They're in the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies, you know.
Actually, my personal idea for radical reform? Draft legislators from the pool of registered voters. Yep. Just like jury duty. Citizen legislators.
Microsoft have not been convicted of anything because this is a civil trial not a criminal trial.
It's true that Microsoft have been found liable on some of the points, but:
Now, you may wish they had been convicted, you may wish that it was a crime, you may not think that the law is tough enough, you may want them to be punished, you may hate Microsoft with your very heart and soul, but that doesn't change the fact that they haven't been found guilty, convicted or even charged with any crime.
It was a civil trial. What is so difficult to understand?
NO ID: BEING FREE MEANS NOT HAVING TO PROVE IT