Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Fails to Comply With EU Requirements
sebFlyte writes "ZDNet is reporting the news that the EU has rejected Microsoft's attempt to wriggle out of it's legal obligation to open up Windows protocols. Microsoft was attempting to bypass the regulation by offering a license totally incompatible with the GPL and which has an absurdly high fee attached. If Microsoft don't come up with a solution that the EU finds acceptable, then they can be fined $5m a day. They've also got some commentary on why Microsoft's behaviour cannot be allowed to stand." The BBC has commentary as well.
No, the EU didn't say MS had to GPL any program of their own. The EU just said they had to license their protocols and APIs to everyone, in a non-discriminating way.
Again, this doesn't mean that Windows had to be suddenly GPLed, but that the APIs should be available to _anyone_ who wants to write a program for Windows. Hardly an unreasonable demand, don't you think?
Well, MS basically thought it was smart and slapped a license on those protocols and APIs that basically said you can't share that info with anyone, or show your code to anyone. Basically a legalese way of saying "ok, but you can't use those specs in an OSS program."
Which basically already places a rather unreasonable restriction, when the whole idea in the first place was to make that info available to everyone.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
As a businessman he's a shyster, but he has contributed more money personally than many countries do to the fight against poverty and disease.
That deserves recognition. It's just a shame the Queen didn't make better use of her sword after giving him the knighthood....
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Incorrect... Anyone can be Knighted (however non Bitish citzens recieve an 'honourary knighthood')but he is NOT allowed to have the title Sir Bill
Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
The unemployment problems in France and Germany are due to internal inflexibility and has nothing to do the with European model in general. The Scandinavian countries which has some of the most meddling politics has much lower unemployment rates (4-5% in Denmarks for instance).
Microsoft wants to do business in Europe (i.e. it wants the money that Europeans have) therefore they must abide by European laws and legal decisions. Microsoft does not exist purely in the USA, they are also incorporated in many other countries (by their choice), so they explicitly agreed to be bound by the laws of those countries. It's not like they didn't know what they were getting into.
I mean, you couldn't visit the UK and drive on the right-hand side of the road on the assumption that you are only bound by US laws.
They're not being asked to open up their code. They're being asked to provide what amounts to API's. From TFA:
Microsoft agreed to create a server interoperability licence that would allow rival makers of server software to write applications that can "achieve full interoperability" with Windows client and server operating systems on "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms".
The commission is also concerned that open source vendors are "excluded" from the licence agreement. The spokesman said it is only asking Microsoft to provide the protocols necessary to build products that are interoperable with its servers and is not asking for it to reveal its source code.
I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
[ but isn't $5M a day a bit, oh i dunno, steep? ]
Not really, they had a choice. They could have complied with the spirit of the initial order and done what was required. Instead they chose to flagerantly flout the order to try to make the order benefit themselves, which is an insult to the court. They are now in a worse situation as they do not have any sympathy of the court. They only have themselves to blame.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
No we did not Knight Bill Gates. Tony Bliar did it.
Yes, yes, yes, I know that strictly speaking the Queen does it on the advice of the PM but we all know how it really works.
No but, yeah but, no but...
Everyone sing along!
Ooooooh, if it's meant to be possessive,
it's just I*T*S
But if it's meant to be a contraction,
it's I*T*APOSTRAPHE*S
Scallywag!
Why does an American Company have to be subjected to the fines and penalties of a foreign semi-socialistic union.
Because they are not an American company, they are an International company. When in Rome, obey the Roman laws or pay the consequences. Or do you think North Korean companies should be able to do business in the U.S. but not follow any of our laws while over here?
European companies would not allow such a sanction.
Several European companies have already been given fines nearly as high as this, and they have complied.
If Microsoft is truly a monopoly (and I am not suggesting that it is not), it should be taken up in the United States
It was, then MS bribed the Republican and the Democrats and the Justice department decided their punishment was to have nothing happen to them. Maybe if the U.S. government was not so corrupt the EU would not have to step in. Who elected them again?
The European Union wants to further degrade the U.S. dollar and establish itself as a superpower.
With 5 million a day? Umm, OK then. The U.S. is doing plenty to degrade its own currency. The EU does not need to help out. It's what happens when you put a lying coke addict, who has run several businesses into the ground, and has a vested interest in making money for himself in charge.
From the article, the EU doesn't want MS to release any source code. They wanted MS to release protocols in an nondiscriminatory way. MS sorta complied. They will release the protocols but will charge such a high price that any average Joe Schmo who wanted to write a app that used the protocols could not afford to even look. Also the terms of the license specifically exluded all open source. I think that the license specifically forbids the licensee from discussing the protocols to anyone other than MS.
Imagine if MS created a MSFTP application with a new fangled FTP protocol called MSFTP. The EU doesn't want MS to release the source code. They want MS to release the specifics of the MSFTP protocol so that a developer could use it to work with MSFTP.
Under the current terms of the MS license, the developer would have to pay $10K just to look at the protocol. But they would have to pay upfront. And they couldn't share any information about the protocol. And they have to pay for all MS protocols not just MSFTP.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It's called "due process." It's mentioned in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. Microsoft was tried by a competent court of EU law and was found guilty by said court. This is part of the punishment for having been found guilty, and this form of punishment is neither cruel nor unusual (Eighth Amendment).
Even rabid libertarians must agree that the state suits some purpose by enforcing the law and empowering the wronged to seek compensation after having a ruling in their favor. That is what this is.
You're getting your EU institutions mixed up. The "forcing through" of the Directive on Patents is apparently being done by the Presidency of the European Council, not by the Commission. However, the incredibly maladroit handling of the issue by both Council and Commission has enraged the European Parliament; they gave Commissioner McCreevy a thorough roasting at a hearing last week, and there is a very real probability that the directive in question will be rejected, or amended back to its former state (very good - basically completely outlaws software patents) by the Parliament. See here for a good summary, with links.
For the last fucking time:
it's == it is
You know, I'm otherwise fairly pro-MS, by Slashdot standards. (In much the same way as being right wing in the EU still counts as left wing in the US, and viceversa.) I do believe that MS has all the right in the world to keep the Windows/Office/IE/whatever sources secret. I don't believe that making money or being a corporation is a capital sin. And worse yet, I do believe that they did make a better product.
(Or more precisely, that everyone else had a crappier product. Who was gonna win the OS wars? OS/2? Heh.)
But no, I don't think that API specs should be an internal secret for a company that produces both the OS and the apps.
Allowing the API conspiracy, for lack of a better word, is what allowed MS to be a monopoly in the first place. You can't expect any sort of even playing field as long as Windows contains parts written just for Word or for IE, and parts which can be deliberately broken when a competing product wants to use them.
E.g., the classic example is Novell. They wanted to make their own Netware servers too able to act as a domain controller, so you can choose whichever fits your general needs best for that role. Basically a fair competition on merits, no?
Microsoft didn't even pretend to play fair. It simply informed Novell that if Novell publishes such a product, MS _will_ break it. And they did. They messed with the APIs and with where does that part go inside Windows, until Novell gave up and cancelled the product.
And that's exactly that kind of anti-competitive behaviour that this ruling is supposed to prevent. Because anything else is just giving MS an official blessing to continue the monopolistic behaviour.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
If the EU is so sovereign, why don't they just take one seat in the UN? Oh wait, they want to pretend they're just one giant nation in the economic and political arena but they want to keep all their votes in the UN.
The WTO doesn't allow fines to be used to fund competition.
Unemployment in Scandinavia by Country, according to the CIA world factbook. Finland, Greenland and Iceland included as they're all at various times and places considered Scandinavian, at least that's what Wikipedia told me.
Sweden: 4.9% (2003 estimate)
Norway: 4.7% (2003 est.)
Denmark: 6.1% (2003)
Finland: 9% (2003 est.)
Iceland: 3.4% (2003 est.)
Greenland: 10% (2000 est.)
For comparison:
United States: 6% (2003)
United Kingdom: 5% (2003 est.)
Canada: 7.8% (2003 est.)
France: 9.7% (2003 est.)
Germany: 10.5% (2003 est.)
Netherlands: 3.7% (2003 est.)
Switzerland: 3.7% (2003 est.)
This link says that the European Union's unemployment rate as a whole is 8%. They report various numbers differently than the CIA world factbook, such as reporting Denmark's rate as "below 5 per cent." They also say:
"Still, there is however no obvious relationship between the degree of social protection and the unemployment rate today. For example, the Netherlands has returned to low unemployment while continuing to offer high social protection. Scandinavian countries have maintained both high social protection and a low natural rate of unemployment."