Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOJ Calls EU Microsoft Decision "Unfortunate"

Posted by michael on from the i-find-your-lack-of-faith-disturbing dept.

ogma writes "This one is especially ironic after the recent slashdot story on more of Microsoft's underhanded actions coming to light. It seems that the DOJ thinks Europe was too hard on Microsoft in its anti-trust ruling.. According to Assistant Attorney General Hewitt Pate, the fine 'may send the wrong message about antitrust enforcement priorities'..." Open Council writes "The Register points out that the EU has provided Microsoft with a major victory over its Open Source rivals because it will now be allowed to pursue royalty revenue from the APIs it publishes. Jeremy Allison says that the projects such as Samba, which he jointly leads, may face a prohibitive hurdle. The size of the fine is peanuts to MS but will be a bargain if it can lock out Open Source projects from using its API's."

9 of 671 comments (clear)

  1. Register overreacting a bit by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Informative

    The decision states that "to the extent that any of this interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the European Economic Area, Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable remuneration".

    Interfaces and formats aren't protected, which is why WINE and Samba can and have been using them for years. I remember Microsoft getting in a tiff over WINE using the same header files, but backed down.

    This doesn't seem to grant anything to Microsoft that they didn't already have. No biggie.

    --
    May we never see th
    1. Re:Register overreacting a bit by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Informative

      Okay, of the types of IP there are (at least in the US -- I don't know European law, unfortunately):

      * Patent law. This is probably Microsoft's best bet, but it's terribly thin. You patent a process, a way of doing something. Even software/algorithm patents get a lot of criticism, though they're still a process. An API is static. There are not changes involved, nothing to patent.

      * Trademark law. Well, Microsoft *might* requre people not to call their "DirectX" implementation "DirectX", but they can't go any further than that.

      * Copyright. You may be able to copyright the specific representation of the API that you put out -- but you can't copyright a list of facts (like what values need to be passed to what functions) -- just the presentation. If someone types up their own API docs/headers, they're in the clear.

      * Trade Secret. Won't work. Microsoft already tried doing exactly this with the Kerberos-in-CIFS attempt earlier -- trade secrets need to be *secrets*. They can't be published and handed out and still recieve trade secret status. If the EU forces Microsoft to publish their APIs, Microsoft automatically loses all trade secret protection on those APIs that they might potentially have had. (There are other reasons this might not work, like reverse engineering IP exemptions, but I believe that this is enough to blow away their protection already).

      --
      May we never see th
  2. Re:The Wrong Message by Tassach · · Score: 5, Informative
    Microsoft licensing the APIs is irrelvant to Samba -- all the samba work is based on specifications which were either released publicly or which were independently reverse-engineered.

    As long as Samba continues to base itself on untainted specifications, Microsoft can't do jack.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  3. Senator Patty Murray is deeply troubled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Patty Murray's statement can be found at Murray Statement on EU Ruling Against Microsoft. Here are her contact information: http://murray.senate.gov/contact/

    1. Re:Senator Patty Murray is deeply troubled by geoff313 · · Score: 4, Informative

      And that wouldn't have anything to do with her having received approximately $180,000 in campaign contributions from Microsoft in the past 6 years now, would it?

      Don't believe me?

      Check out her top contributors:

      1998

      2000

      2002

      2004





  4. Follow the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hardly surprising, giving R. Hewitt Pate was one of the men who imposed MS's wristslap by the DoJ. I wonder if there might be a conflict of interest here.

    Note : Allowing your senior DoJ / government lawyers *cough, Ashcroft* to be in hock to major corporations might not be a very wise idea.

  5. Re:The Money Trail by iapetus · · Score: 3, Informative

    It goes into EU general funds - the same as money paid in by member states. If we assume that it's divided in the same proportions as all EU spending, then the majority of it will likely go to agricultural subsidies.

    --
    ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
    Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
  6. Re:The wrong message? by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 3, Informative

    What do freedoms have to do with it? It really is fairly simple: cap campaign finance contributions.

    To my understanding, campaign contributions are already capped. An individual can only give a certain amount, and an organization can only give a certain amount.

    Soft money IS the problem. That is where the freedoms come in. The courts consider using your money to influence a campaign freedom of speech. So groups of businesses and labor unions spend money for their own commercials and such, effectively donating money without it technically changing hands. The soft money contributions make up a HUGE percentage of all the money spent during an election. And that's where most of the corruption starts.

    --

    Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
  7. Re:Remember folks, by geirhe · · Score: 3, Informative
    If I travelled to the good city of Parma, rented some space, and produced something that for all intents and purposes would otherwise be known as Cheddar cheese (a product of Cheddar, UK, only!), would you call this "Parmesan?"

    What would happen would be a hefty fine. If you were using a cheddar process, the result would not be parmigiano reggiano, just as a brie is not a hard cheese.

    There are several requirements that have to be met in order for something to be called parmigiano reggiano. Making it in the right place is only one of them. 18 months of aging is another. The producers are only allowed to make the cheese between the months of may and november - for quality reasons.

    There is something called the parmigiano reggiano cheese control consortium. They market the parmesan cheese (just as Pepsi does), and they control the quality of the products (Hey, just as Pepsi does). They have existed since 1934.

    You are wrong in thinking that parmesan cheese comes from Parma. It can be made anywhere in the Parma, Reggio Emilia, Modena, Mantua or Bologna regions. It is also not a cheese it is possible to make industrially, unlike the parmesan-labeled muck you are cheering for.

    I suggest you actually take a piece of the parmesan-labeled cheese to Italy, and then see if you can taste a difference from a freshly-cut wheel of the real McCoy. My bet is that you can.

    More of the manufacturing process can be found here.

    Oh, and by the way, "brut champagne" means "dry sparkling wine from the champagne district in France, made with the champagne process". This is just as much a regional label as parmigiano reggiano is.