Microsoft's European License Dissected

An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet has published a step-by-step explanation of Microsoft's proposed server interoperability license, which was just rejected by the European Commission. The EC said the license excluded open-source vendors and charged unjustifiably high royalty fees -- all bad for business."

Comments

Cold War ..

[foobsr]

To me this has the strange touch of Cold War.

If you imagine that SU has been replaced by MS, you know who will win in the end.

CC.

Re:Cold War ..

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

In Redmond, Windows licenses you?

Re:Cold War ..

[Anonymous Coward]

you know who will win in the end

Nitzer Ebb?

Re:Cold War ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that MS is not socialist. Now that I think of it, it looks nothing at all like the Cold War. I might change my mind when MS opens the Redmond Nuclear Weapons Laboratory.

Re:Cold War ..

[djfray]

There is no way in hell you can compare Microsoft to the soviet union... just shut up now

Re:Cold War ..

[IndiepoprockJesse]

ehr, i mean, you can compare m$ to america, but not to the SU..

Re:Cold War ..

[maxwell demon]

In the software world, the WMPs are called "Software Patent".

Re:Cold War ..

[maxwell demon]

Oops, should of course have been "WMDs", not "WMPs" ...

Re:Cold War ..

[SenseiLeNoir]

Considering the amount of patents in WMP (WIndows Media Player), I actually thought you meant WMP!!!

Re:Cold War ..

[geekboy642]

No, I'm pretty sure WMP would qualify as a WMD...

Re:Cold War ..

[foobsr]

ehr, i mean, you can compare m$ to america, but not to the SU.

To be precise, the question is not whether I may compare objects (whatever), but rather what definition of distance (similarity) I base my approach to concept formation (category building, clustering) on.

Here, I might have used something along the lines of "ruthless domination" and also probably (obviously?) had a more extended time-frame in mind than just the presence.

CC.

Re:Cold War ..

[Anonymous Coward]

"... Except that MS is not socialist...."

They might be. How about Corporate Socialism. That is, MS wants to supply you with all your computer needs. You don't need to look at anyone else for solutions and there is no need for competition in this field. MS will do it all and you *only* buy from them. You keep pumping them the money like taxes and they will take care of you.

Re:Cold War ..

[DrSkwid]

that sounds more like National Socialism to me

Two lines....

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Two lines sum up the entire article:

Can I trust that?
This is Microsoft.

Re:Two lines....

[Anonymous Coward]

It would've been nice to say it was a quote...

Re:Two lines....

[chrish]

Hey, that's nearly a haiku. How about:

Can we trust them now?
Business as usual.
This is Microsoft.

Re:Two lines....

[Anonymous Coward]

[x] Always trust Microsoft Corporation.

Re:Ugly

[jaavaaguru]

Are you referring to the Borg-esque icon on the right of the slashdot article?

Re:Ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but you are from Penn State AND are a subscriber, yet all you have to say is "Thats (sic) one ugly son of a bitch...." ? You sir, fail it.

Here is a question

[orin]

Is it reasonable to force Microsoft to produce a license that is royalty free - or are people concerned about the cost here.

By looking at the article it seems as though Microsoft wants to charge people royalties who create a competing product when those people have looked at Microsoft's secret API. This seems reasonable - why should someone be able to sell a competing product that does the same thing as a domain controller of global catalog server after they've been able to look at Microsoft's secret APIs?

The reverse engineering clause seems to cover SAMBA and so on - they don't have to pay a license fee because they haven't seen all the secret stuff.

Re:Here is a question

[asserted]

the question is...why does it have to be secret in the first place?

Re:Here is a question

[FLAGGR]

Because the royalties are extremly high, didn't you read the article? Plus, it bars you from doing open source stuff with your code.

Re:Here is a question

[lachlan76]

Because Microsoft are a monopoly, and as such, forcing secret APIs bars most competition out of the market.

Re:Here is a question

[jhdevos]

The reverse engineering clause seems to cover SAMBA and so on - they don't have to pay a license fee because they haven't seen all the secret stuff.

The licence effectively says: if you never ever look at anything this licence covers, then this licence does not apply to you. Sort of like some country having a law that anyone who never sets foot in that country or has any sort of dealings with it, does not have to adhere to that countries laws.

That seems pretty obvious to me. In other words, whatever this licence has to say about SAMBA is moot -- since SAMBA has nothing to do with the licence in the first place.

Jan

Re:Here is a question

[orin]

Yes, but the restriction against "doing open source stuff" is very specific. You are only restricted IF you look at the secret stuff. If you reverse engineer - no restrictions apply. Why should you be able to look at Microsoft's secrets and then build a competing product that does exactly the same thing for free? Reverse engineering is quite different (no look at the crown jewels) and doesn't apply to this license.

Re:Here is a question

[Scarblac]

Is it reasonable to force Microsoft to produce a license that is royalty free - or are people concerned about the cost here.

Remember that this is a punishment for a crime. It's supposed to hurt.

Re:Here is a question

[orin]

If they wrote it, shouldn't they have the right to decide whether it is open or not?

Open Source is about choice. If you are writing a program from scratch, you can choose to license it using a compatible license. It is your choice. There are a large number of benefits to open sourcing your code, but it is ultimately your choice, as the developer, as to whether your original code is open or closed.

If your work is based on open source, this is a different kettle of fish. You have a responsibility to preserve the state of the work that yours is based on.

Re:Here is a question

[rodac]

Is that you Bill?

Re:Here is a question

[KiloByte]

If you're a convincted monopolist, many things than otherwise would be legal are considered a breach of the rules.

Re:Here is a question

[Anonymous Coward]

... but it is ultimately your choice, as the developer, as to whether your original code is open or closed.

We are not talking about code here. We are talking about an API.
In my opinion APIs may never be closed.

Re:Here is a question

[aug24]

But this is rather the point of the punishment: People like the Samba team should be able to use the 'secret' APIs, thus preventing MS using them to make their desktop products interoperate better than their competitors!

Justin.

Re:Here is a question

[lachlan76]

Regardless of what you use, more then 90% of people use Windows.

Re:Here is a question

[Godwin O'Hitler]

I could explain why they are a monopoly but I'd rather use this opportunity to ridicule you for using the word boxen.

Re:Here is a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should someone be able to sell a competing product [...] after they've been able to look at Microsoft's secret APIs?

"API" and "secret" are antithetical. Do you even know what API stands for?

Re:Here is a question

[NetNifty]

True that MS don't have an absolute monopoly (ie an absolute monopoly would be one with literally no alternatives), but they have a market share that literally dwarfs the competition (well, in some areas anyway, most notibly the home market) - meaning that they are still a monopoly in practice. I'm sure there's a cut-off point where a company becomes a monopoly, but it varies (IIRC in the UK the monopolies commission consider any merger which would result in a company with more than 25% market share to be a monopoly) from country to country.

Re:Here is a question

[ciroknight]

I understand you are a Microsoft apologist, but I'll explain things in simple terms for you.

Microsoft broke the law. They've repeatedly shut out/down other competing products that do the same thing, either by changing APIs to break compatibility, or releasing their own product that forces the general market to break compatibility (in the case of Open Standards). By forcing Microsoft to release the simple documentation of the APIs, they are asking Microsoft to standarize themselves.

Look at it this way. With the APIs remaining "secret", and engineers reverse engineering them for compatibility, all Microsoft has to do to change compatibility is to change a bit, or shift a few bits around, or some other nonsensical thing. Open Source projects /may/ be able to keep up, but if a company were developing a closed source solution, this could slow down their release time by months, if not years.

Forcing Microsoft to release their API information basically puts a standard on the table for other companies/programmers to conform to. They don't lose any market dominance. They don't lose any time. They simply are forced to be compatible. And if that's unreasonable, then Microsoft has won, and Open Source is all for naught.

Re:Here is a question

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If you're a convincted monopolist, many things than otherwise would be legal are considered a breach of the rules.

That may be true (aside from some wording issues), but I wasn't aware that trying to run a business and make money without providing valuable gifts to your direct competitors was one of them.

Re:Here is a question

[MartinG]

Normally you shouldn't, but this is corrective action given as punishment to Microsoft for illegal monopolistic practices.

Re:Here is a question

[ciroknight]

But that's just it. They don't have to reveil a single line of code to publish an Application Programmer's Interface. All the API is, is a guidelines of how to build your product, so that it will be compatible with their product. It's like a car company telling a company that builds transmissions how to hook their transmission up to the car company's Whizbang new V8. Normally companies see this as being a good thing, meaning their original product will sell more. But when you have a monopoly over the market, publishing interoperability information is the very LAST thing you'd want to do. It's like the old saying "Give a man a fish, he knows where to go for fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries".

Re:Here is a question

[Anonymous Coward]

If they wrote it, shouldn't they have the right to decide whether it is open or not?

At the point where they were convicted of breaking the law, they lost that right to decide. This is a punishment. It is intended to increase competition at the expense of Microsoft. It's supposed to hurt!

Re:Here is a question

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter if I think they are a monopoly. The courts, both in the US and the EU, have decided they are an effective monopoly. What you or I think means nothing.

I will now call you a fucking retard for using the word "boxen" and still expecting to be taken seriously. You fucking retard.

Re:Here is a question

[metricmusic]

The licence effectively says: if you never ever look at anything this licence covers, then this licence does not apply to you. Sort of like some country having a law that anyone who never sets foot in that country or has any sort of dealings with it, does not have to adhere to that countries laws.

tell that to this guy

Re:Here is a question

[ozmanjusri]

Remember that this is a punishment for a crime. It's supposed to hurt.

This is not the punishment, and it isn't meant to hurt. Secret APIs are one of the weapons Microsoft has used to perpetuate its monopoly. Making them publish the APIs is equivalent to instructing them to put down the gun.

The fines are their punishment for not putting down the weapon when they were ordered to.

Re:Here is a question

[ciroknight]

If you're a convincted monopolist, many things than otherwise would be legal are considered a breach of the rules.

That may be true (aside from some wording issues), but I wasn't aware that trying to run a business and make money without providing valuable gifts to your direct competitors was one of them.

Valuable gift? This isn't a cheese wheel and some bologna we're talking about here. This is a Monopolistic company, deemed guilty, who won't give up the specifications on how to build a compatible product. This is like a car company, not only welding the hood shut, but bolting on the tires with a patented bolt head (only unscrewable by paying the licencing fees), and making the engine run on a special formulation of fuel (a mixture of shit and octane..), that is non-reproducable except from direct sample and duplication. This allows Microsoft to change the Fuel-to-Shit ratio as they please, making your car undriveable on Alternative pumpgas.

Face it. This is a last ditch effort for a brute of a company to stay alive in the business they've dominated for too long. The European Union is only doing what their public ask of them, and their public has been crying out for far too long about Microsoft's shenanigans.

Re:Here is a question

[gunix]

Now that is a very interesting statement. I asume that by "you" you mean a maximum of 10% of all computer users.

Re:Here is a question

[ciroknight]

Truthfully, I believe the same on a lot of your points. Hell, I don't believe they should have to give example code to any of their shit; leave that for the hackers once they've got their hands on a valid, working copy of the API. Of course, Microsoft's operating system monopoly can be argued to have a cascade effect on the markets involved (If it wasn't for Microsoft Windows, do you seriously think we'd be running Microsoft Office?), so it can be argued as well that locking down one product, effectively locks down many, many others.

Personally, I submit my papers in PDF format ;).

Re:Here is a question

[ajaf]

Who wants to look at that ugly code? :)

Re:Here is a question

[Andrealphus]

The courts, both in the US and the EU, have decided they are an effective monopoly.

And of course the courts are founts of infallible wisdom, never wrong, and must never be questioned.

Re:Here is a question

[newandyh-r]

"If you reverse engineer - no restrictions apply" ... except ISTR that in EU law you are allowed to reverse engineer only to make compatible products - not to make competing ones.

Now, of course, if this statement by MS is giving Carte Blanche for reverse engineering overiding their own licence agreements ...

Re:Here is a question

[Anonymous Coward]

> In a free market,

Stop right there. The U.S. is *not* a free market, it's a regulated market that is somewhat free.

To be a free market, the U.S. would need to get rid of:

* Greenspan and the FED
* All federal regulations
* All intellectual property laws (copyright, trademarks, patents)
* corporate law (Corporations no longer have special status over fly-by-night lone vendors or individuals. There would be no limitted liability for companies either.)

Do you *really* want a free market? I sure don't. Given that the U.S. market is not a free market, such regulations are perfectly justified.

Ironically, if you read Adam Smith, you'd realize that he was in favour of regulating Monopolies precisely because when monopolies become big enough: they essentially become their own governments able to make their own laws (contra the free market) and charge their own taxes against competitors (contra the free market) to shut them out.

In essense, an unregulated free market inevitably leads to Oligarchy, which is contra-free market. However, there is a sweet spot where regulated free markets are sustainable, and this, in Adam Smith's words, is what we should be striving for.

Re:Here is a question

[sepluv]

Actually, No. The EC are not doing this because Microsoft are a monopoly or even a near monopoly (which is more accurate), but because they have gained their monopoly by criminal means and are using it to illegally extend their monopoly to other markets.

There is nothing wrong with monopolies, per se; it just means you have make a product which everyone thinks is better than the competitions (think BIND, Apache) unless you have got the monopoly through clandestine criminality, a la Microsoft, as opposed to free market forces.

Re:Here is a question

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Of course, Microsoft's operating system monopoly can be argued to have a cascade effect on the markets involved (If it wasn't for Microsoft Windows, do you seriously think we'd be running Microsoft Office?)

Personally, I'd say it's the other way around: if it weren't for Microsoft Office, I don't think Windows would ever have taken off. The early Windows versions of Word and Excel were good products, with genuine advantages over their rivals. MS had plenty of competition back then, and it didn't die off by magic. Without those major office applications as drivers, I can't imagine Windows developing the kind of momentum it did in the mid-90s.

That said, IMHO, the problems with Microsoft didn't start with either Windows or Office, both of which competed on their own merits with real competition until they'd established themselves as the dominant players in their respective markets. The problems began when Microsoft started throwing in other toys (IE, Media Player, etc.) on the back of Windows and/or Office, at the expense of competitors those toys couldn't beat in their own right. IME, the court cases have been aiming at the right target on this one.

Re:Here is a question

[sepluv]

Sort of like some country having a law that anyone who never sets foot in that country or has any sort of dealings with it, does not have to adhere to that countries laws

Unlike US law which states the exact opposite: if you have never set foot in the US and have no dealings with it, you are still accountable to US law (so you can be extradited there for `crimes' that are not actually crimes in the country you committed them in) but (as you are not a US citizen) you do not have the rights of the US constitution to contest those laws which villate your natural rights such as freedom of expression.

You gotta love the US of A.

Re:Here is a question

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

This is a Monopolistic company, deemed guilty, who won't give up the specifications on how to build a compatible product.

If I understand correctly, it's actually a company who won't give up those specifications without charging an excessive amount for them, and the legal system appears to be challenging them, quite rightly, on the latter point.

However, nothing I've seen so far seems to require them to give anything away completely for free. Perhaps I missed something in the original judgement that made this requirement?

Re:Here is a question

[QuietLagoon]

This seems reasonable - why should someone be able to sell a competing product that does the same thing as a domain controller of global catalog server after they've been able to look at Microsoft's secret APIs?

When you have a monopoly, you have to behave differently. Microsoft didn't. Microsoft was convicted of illegally leveraging a monopoly. Microsoft broke the law. Microsoft is now violating the terms of their punishment for breaking the law. It is really that simple.

Re:Here is a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Your statement is nothing to do with the question I am replying to, but as you ask:

Feel free to question the courts. Feel free to disagree with the courts. Don't think your opinion carries more weight then theirs.

So none of your wailing and gnashing of teeth changes the fact that the poster I am replying to is wrong. Just because he has some Sun machines and a few systems running Linux, doesn't make Microsoft any less of a convicted effective monopolist. Just because you disagree with the courts, that doesn't make the conviction any less real.

Re:Here is a question

[Ithika]

Thank you for saying that. Someone with a bit of knowledge, finally! :)

I wouldn't ever count myself as a free-market capitalist type, but it pisses me off even more that people who are don't even understand what it means.

I'd be inclined to suggest that the economic situation in the USA is too free, with the continued consolidation of media companies etc remaining unopposed.

Too many people on Slashdot seem to think the be-all and end-all reason for corporations is to make money. As if money was inherently useful in itself. Businesses are only useful if they benefit society; otherwise they destructive.

Re:Here is a question

[Andrealphus]

I assume you will be first in line to turn in your VCR should your all-powerful courts ever overturn the Betamax decision then, and that you're happy when the courts uphold the idea that copyright can basically be increased indefinitely on the say so of Disney?

By all means point out the decision of the court, but less of the holier than thou attitude please. Just because something is ruled in court does not make it so.

Re:Here is a question

[schon]

Seems to me as if someone hasn't been paying attention in class.

If they wrote it, shouldn't they have the right to decide whether it is open or not?

No, because they are a *MONOPOLY*. Allowing a monopoly to make the API on their *MONOPOLY PRODUCT* secret results in *ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOUR* (you know - the stuff that this whole thing is all about.)

Open Source is about choice. If you are writing a program from scratch, you can choose to license it using a compatible license.

Which has what to do with this discussion?

Re:Here is a question

[ComputerInsultant]

Whoa whoa whoa.
The license does not just say:
If you never ever look at anything this licence covers, then this licence does not apply to you.
It also says:
If you look at anything this license covers, then you must comply with this license for the next year.
This is like saying that if you step foot in this country then leave, you must obey the laws of this country for one year after you leave.
This one year no-compete clause leaves you open to an entire year of harrassment by auditors before you can resume a normal life. (And any software you developed must be continuously brought into compliance with changes within 120 days.)

So it could be impossible to ever leave.

Re:Here is a question

[mpe]

Is it reasonable to force Microsoft to produce a license that is royalty free - or are people concerned about the cost here.

The point is that this is ment to be both a punishment for Microsoft breaking the law and an attempt to rectify the damage.

By looking at the article it seems as though Microsoft wants to charge people royalties who create a competing product when those people have looked at Microsoft's secret API. This seems reasonable - why should someone be able to sell a competing product that does the same thing as a domain controller of global catalog server after they've been able to look at Microsoft's secret APIs?

The article compares this with "Community Service" which is unpaid work a court orders a convict to undertake. If the convict dosn't do this then the court will impose an alternative sentence.
Effectivly Microsoft are trying to get paid for their "community service". Which effectivly adds "contempt of court" to their list of wrong doings.

Re:Here is a question

[QuietLagoon]

If they wrote it, shouldn't they have the right to decide whether it is open or not?

If they had not broken the law, yes. However, they did break the law, so things change.

Re:Here is a question

[zotz]

"I'd be inclined to suggest that the economic situation in the USA is too free, with the continued consolidation of media companies etc remaining unopposed."

It may be too free or it may not be too free. One thing is certain though, the problems we see in the market when it comes to "items" that are protected by copyright and/or patents are not because of a free market. There are no free markets when it comes to government granted monopolies. Are there? If someone thinks they are, please explain to us all.

all the best,

drew

Re:Here is a question

[AaronGTurner]

" If you reverse engineer - no restrictions apply." Reverse engineering is not universally legal, which means the options are either pay the fee, or do something which in some jurisdictions may be illegal.

Re:Here is a question

[Anonymous Coward]

but extrapolate that out across other software companies... suddenly no person who has worked in the software industry for a company can work on opensource or even a remotely similar company.

This isn't 'secret stuff' so much as a restirction on what you can do with acquired knowledge generally.

Re:Here is a question

[Anonymous Coward]

So when are we going to see the 'world tea party' where the shout is "No juristiction without representation"? In other words if the US government want to apply their laws outside their borders then all the citizens of the countries in which they try to apply their law should be able to vote for and have their representatives in Congress and the Senate.

Re:Here is a question

[walt-sjc]

ANSI, ISO, ITU, etc. charge for standards. It's common in the industry. I have no problem with MS charging something for the standards, but what they are proposing is insane, AND has an added "per unit" fee which should NOT be allowed.

IMHO, MS gave up the right to charge a per-unit royalty when they engaged in illegal anti-competitive behavior. Hopefully the EU will see it that way too.

Re:Here is a question

[Anonymous Coward]

The reasoning for keeping APIs secret isn't based on the protection of any kind of actual innovation or property but as a means of preventing competition (vendor lock-in).

Now while some people may actually consider anti-competitive practices valid business tactics, the primary reason behind the court cases against Microsoft has been to punish and/or restrict its use of anti-competitive practices.

Re:Here is a question

[mormop]

Is it reasonable to force Microsoft to produce a license that is royalty free

Kinda depends on what sort of society you live in.If you want a free market based democracy then yes, they should be forced to open their protocols as monopolies have no place in such a society.

Microsft itself is now at the point where punitive fines like the EU's have little or no effect on the company itself. Looking back on Microsoft's previous behaviour you have a desktop that was lifted from Xerox, applications that were ripped off from other companies, a web browser that was stolen from Spyglass, Java that was bastardised and used as a tool to keep the competition out of the browser market and all built on top of open protocols like TCP/IP, SMB, HTML etc. that were given away by other people at zero cost to Microsoft.

Ultimately, the only way to break the monoploy is to either fine MS 50 Billion dollars to bring them down to other people's level or to create a scenario where real competition can exist. As the only real competition in the last 10 years has come from Open Source any action designed to specifically target it is, in itself, anti-competitive and should be stamped on.

Alternatively you can just accept a society where vast wealthy corporations pull the strings and the interests of the common voters are cast aside in the name of the top 5% of the population but then who'd be silly enough to let happen eh?

Re:Here is a question

[DarkVader]

Well, my opinion is that if you want to write code and use it yourself, you shouldn't be forced to release anything.

But if you want to sell it, it's quite reasonable to require that APIs be documented and available, and I don't think this should be restricted to convicted monopolists, I think it should apply to all software.

Re:Here is a question

[Lonewolf666]

As a punishment, yes. I would not consider it fair towards a company that does its business in a lawful way, but the opening of the APIs is supposed stop Microsoft from further abusing its market position in operating systems.
To that end, I would recommend forcing Microsoft to produce the documentation
-without any licence fees
-without legal limitations on their use
-and with the understanding that failing to comply leads to further punishment

Re:Here is a question

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Why should you be able to look at Microsoft's secrets..."

Knowing how to read/write, say, a MS Word document is the "secret" you are referring to? It is only a secret when you want to lock-in your customers and lock-out competition. They are not giving away any secret-sauce doing that but rather just allowing interoperability. And, of course, if you think you product is king-of-the-hill, that shouldn't be a problem. People will still use your product.

Re:Here is a question

[pershino]

The early Windows versions of Word and Excel were good products, with genuine advantages over their rivals.

The primary advantage that MS Word and Excel had over the competition (WordPerfect and Lotus 123) was that MS owned the underlying platform and deliberately broke the published API used by the competition, whilst MS products used unpublished API hooks which made its own products appear more stable. This practice has continued throughout the 1990's and into the current century. This abuse of the desktop monopoloy is illegal, and the EU commission remedy is meant to correct it.

Re:Here is a question

[pershino]

"The law Microsoft broke was in using their dominance of one market (operating systems for desktop computers) ... combined with the aforementioned reluctance to support interoperability with competing products, is unfair competition ..."

Microsoft went beyond simply being reluctant to support interoperability. Since Windows 3.0 they actively broke the (published) API hooks used by competitors in other markets (office suites, browsers,media players, etc). For example, they deliberately broke the API used by WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 to make those products appear unstable and forcing their developers to waste time and resources to work around MS's buggy API - eventually pushing them out of the market. In the meantime they used unpublished API hooks in MS Word, Excel, etc. giving the appearance of a more stable product. Additionally, MS software was sold at much lower prices, or often bundled with new computers (under illegal OEM contracts), which meant competitors where forced out of the market. Once the competition was gone, the price of MS Office rocketed to the extortionate level of today and it is no longer bundled with most systems (quickly replaced by MS Works - oxymoron). None of that even mentions the outright theft of other companies technologies (Stac anyone?).

Re:Here is a question

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The primary advantage that MS Word and Excel had over the competition (WordPerfect and Lotus 123) was that MS owned the underlying platform and deliberately broke the published API used by the competition,

I imagine the fact that they had much better user interfaces probably helped, too. And there were all those genuinely useful new features. The fact that Wordperfect for Windows suffered forced instabilities wasn't what killed it. The UI that sucked and feature set that was less complete than Word's are what killed it.

Re:Here is a question

[Anonymous Coward]

By looking at the article it seems as though Microsoft wants to charge people royalties who create a competing product when those people have looked at Microsoft's secret API. This seems reasonable - why should someone be able to sell a competing product that does the same thing as a domain controller of global catalog server after they've been able to look at Microsoft's secret APIs?

And as if Microsoft didn't borrow from Kerberos and X400 and X500 and on and on.

To me it sounds more like the wolf is complaining because there is no more chickens to eat or is that steal.

So next time a W2003 domain controller boots, remember the people at MIT and other open sourcers that provided Microsoft with ideas and code.

Re:Here is a question

[Coeurderoy]

The licence is not for microsoft products, but for interfaces that because of the monopolistic position of Microsoft are "de facto" standards. And its not a question of costs, but of who controls the way your company works, you as an owner of a company or some other company.
But to be objective it is not reasonable to force Microsoft to produce a licence, what is reasonable it do order microsoft to close down and put all its sources in the public trust.
There is actually no reason to think that microsoft will ever do business in an honest way, so there is no reason for them to exist at all.

Re:Here is a question

[Anonymous Coward]

MS Office was only successfull because it was relativey cheap (Good Advertising/Marketing helped as well), even though other products were actually better.

As far back as 1986 I was using Office suite software under X11 and it was very good, except it was expensive ($2000/network license). Overall it was still cheaper than MS Office but most managers found it difficut (ie. read impossible) to understand paying $60,000 for 30 floating licenses compared to $200,000 for 300 MS Office licenses when most of the time those 300 machines were switched off. I think their argument was "it's mine!!".

In those days "Blue screen" and "Gen Protection Faults" were rife and yet management still thought MS Office was a bargan.

Sad isn't it!

Re:Here is a question

[DrSkwid]

They introduced new widget sets into Windows through IE and Office.

The primary example I can think of is the fountain filled title bar, how people cooed over it when it appeared in Office.

Wordperfect for Windows truly sucked, it used Borland C for Windows iirc, bad move.

The winners at the time : CorelDraw, PageMaker, Photoshop used standard widgets but made usable apps that were distinctive (Photoshop, of course, had it's Mac heritage to draw upon).

Corel wanted to stop being a one trick pony and made the suite but found that this diversification was costly and their UI "innovations" for Draw were just plain awful. PageMaker got sucked up by Adobe.

Guide: Microsoft European draft licence

[anandpur]

http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/software/print.htm ?TYPE=story&AT=39185372-39023769t-10000102c

Open source software will never benefit

[jhdevos]

The European commission has said that the royalties MS asks are 'excessive'. That means that they don't think it is unreasonable to ask for royalties at all. And asking 'per-user' or 'per-server' royalties effectively makes it impossable for free software to get such a licence.

Obviously, the rest of the licence is ridiculous -- MS getting all your code, you having to implement any DRM they choose to put into it, audit-trails, very excessive royalties -- so MS has a lot of room to get closer to what the EU wants without having to let OS benefit as well.

Jan

Re:Open source software will never benefit

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the european union is going around this in the wrong way. Instead of having Microsoft publish their interfaces to the public, which arguably contain trade secrets important to Microsoft, waranting them to ask for a license fee, they should have imposed on microsoft to comply with a set of open standards (which should be royalty free) that allow for the same kind of interoperability.

Make them share printers using ipp, files using NFS v4, authenticate users using ldap, without extending those standards in incompatible ways.
In such a way, interoperability with microsoft servers could be guaranteed. As an added bonus, Microsoft gets the burden of implementing the interoperability, instead of the third party having to comply with every funny requirement Microsoft chooses to add.

Re:Open source software will never benefit

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, the rest of the licence is ridiculous -- MS getting all your code, you having to implement any DRM they choose to put into it, audit-trails, very excessive royalties -- so MS has a lot of room to get closer to what the EU wants without having to let OS benefit as well.

Same old story. Make the first proposal absolutely ridiculous, and subsequent proposals, however harsh, seem reasonable in comparison. It sounds like Microsoft are taking lessons from lawmakers.

Re:Open source software will never benefit

[drsmithy]

Make them share printers using ipp, files using NFS v4, authenticate users using ldap, without extending those standards in incompatible ways.

What if those open standards can't handle the featureset Microsoft, or their customers, want/already have ?

Re:Open source software will never benefit

[ciroknight]

While your alternative punishment has merit, I don't think it would work. Forcing a company to build a product doesn't seem to me like it would be a fair punishment, and I believe Microsoft's lawyers could argue that for so long, that the EU would forget what they were punishing them for, sorta how the US Justice system dropped the ball on MS.

Secondly, Microsoft could say that "theirs came first", publishing their own standards, and effectively bending everyone to them anyways. Of course, someone would come along and re-implement everything in a much better way, but that would take time, and in that time, they could start doing the same thing they've done now. They've got the effective power of a small nation, and I don't believe they're ready to give up without a fight.

Re:Open source software will never benefit

[sepluv]

Microsoft have one of those: a feature set. I actually disagree with the grandparent, but seriously now SMB isn't really the best designed protocol.

Re:Open source software will never benefit

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen what they did to Kerberos?

Clearly Microsoft is incapable of doing this.

Re:Open source software will never benefit

[Anonymous Coward]

Should they also elimninate their current interfaces?

If not, your alternate suggestion would probably result in lawyers arguing over whether Microsoft's implementations of open standards don'twork as well as its proprietary ones. Even if it were obvious to anyone technically minded, it would be extremely hard to argue in court.

Article summary

[ites]

1. You will pay royalties
2. Open source is explicitly disallowed
3. Microsoft can audit your development
4. They get to see your code
5. They get to see your technology
6. They get to choose the auditor
7. You may have to pay the audit
8. Microsoft suggest you "trust them".

ROTFL. Excellent article.

If this is the price of interconnection, it makes it all the easier to justify why Microsoft's server technology should be isolated, relegated, and eventually thrown discarded.

There are, after all, alternatives.

Re:Article summary

[intermediate_represe]

9. All your code base are belong to us

Because

[Catskul]

Because they broke European law and this is supposed to make up for their infraction. (At least thats how I understand it)

Re:Because

[orin]

And it does. They have to allow people that they don't want to allow to look at some of their code. What the license is about is making sure that those people that look at their code don't go off and make a replica operating system without in some way compensating Microsoft. Now the fees are high - but it does seem reasonable that if someone builds a competing product based on the fact that they've actually seen the guts of Microsoft's product (rather than building it independently and separately) that Microsoft is in some way compensated for this. The niggling detail is how much compensation is appropriate?

Re:Because

[lachlan76]

There's a difference between the implementation and the API.

Re:Because

[Catskul]

The were charged with opening up interoperablity. Publishing the API is probably sufficient to do this. No one needs to look at their code. Its like publishing the pinouts to a chip... no. they do NOT need to be *compensated* for this. No one needs to see the guts.

Re:Because

[AstroDrabb]

What the license is about is making sure that those people that look at their code don't go off and make a replica operating system without in some way compensating Microsoft.

Are you serious? Do you _really_ think someone/some company can turn around and build a replica OS from a few "secret" API calls? Get real. Look how many years MS has tried to build an acceptable OS. It wasn't until Win2k that they had anything worth the money. MS spent many years in man hours and billions in development costs. I don't think disclosing some of their server/client communications protocols is going to allow someone to come along and build a Win32 replica.

All of your agruments you have made so far have been as if MS is just some good-ole-company that has just been trying to compete fairly. That is not the case. MS has leveraged their monopoly illegaly for a long time now and have been convicted of that in two separate nations. Now it is time for MS to pay the penalty. The main point of the punishment, IMO, is not what is best for MS (that wouldn't be much of a punishment), but to ask what is best for the industry/society. IMO, the best thing would be to force MS to disclose their "secret" OS API's so that the whole industry can leverage those on an equal footing instead of having all MS software have the leg-up because MS controls the OS.

Your arguments sound as if you believe that MS cannot compete on a level playing field. That if their competitors also have access to the same server API's, then MS will no longer be able to deliver a better product. Is MS really that bad at developing programs that if they are not the _only_ ones to have access to "secret" API's than their non-OS products will fail?

No GPL, but what about Public Domain?

[PhilHibbs]

Section 2.4 states: "The licenses granted in Section 2.1(a) do not include any license right, power or other authority to subject Licensed Server Implementations or derivative works thereof in whole or in part to any of the terms of any other license that requires such Licensed Server Implementations or derivative works thereof to be disclosed or distributed in source code form."

So you can't write LSI applications that are under the GPL, ebcause that licence requires that source be made available, but I can't see anything in that paragraph that prohibits anyone from releasing the source code into the public domain. It's a lot easier to reverse-engineer a protocol when you have a source implementation of it :-)

Re:No GPL, but what about Public Domain?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't see anything in that paragraph that prohibits anyone from releasing the source code into the public domain.

If you release software into the public domain you can be sued when it breaks in some countries (notably the USA). That's why the BSD style license exists - it does absolutely nothing that releasing into the public domain doesn't, except for disclaiming liability.

Re:No GPL, but what about Public Domain?

[roemcke]

Fast forward to paragraph 6 about confidentiality. Just be careful when reading it, or your head will explode...

I think I was the first person in 7,500.000 years managing to read this without getting killed..

Re:No GPL, but what about Public Domain?

[PhilHibbs]

Have you got a link to the actual licence then? I've never seen it linked anywhere.

Re:No GPL, but what about Public Domain?

[zotz]

If that is the only problem and these are the controlling restrictions, the BSD would work fine for the purpose proposed. No?

all the best,

drew

Re:No GPL, but what about Public Domain?

[Kjella]

If you release software into the public domain you can be sued when it breaks in some countries (notably the USA). That's why the BSD style license exists - it does absolutely nothing that releasing into the public domain doesn't, except for disclaiming liability.

You can be sued in either case, I believe. Depending on the liability (gross negligence, willful), commercial or not (some countries have laws which could make you liable for giving away e.g. a defective bike) there's always a chance. The question is if it makes a difference in the outcome.

Can you quote even one example where someone has been found liable after releasing something in the public domain? I consider pretty much an urban legend (or it was such that they'd completely disregard the BSD license as well).

Of course, in the land of the sue-happy, you cover your ass and avoid legal expenses. Here the plaintiff would get laughed out of court and pay *my* expenses as well.

As for public domain stuff, it does not need to carry a copyright license or anything else referring to the author, so it is not quite like BSD. Of course, it is good form and normal courtesy to do so, but not required at all.

Kjella

Re:No GPL, but what about Public Domain?

[roemcke]

It is here Here

(I just followed the links in the ./ article ;-)

Re:No GPL, but what about Public Domain?

[EnderWiggin99]

It's $5/view.

Pay at the door.

Re:Ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but you are from Penn State AND are a subscriber, yet all you have to say is "Thats (sic) one ugly son of a bitch...." ? You sir, fail it.

How does being a subscriber make you more ugly ?

interoperability as in beer

[FidelCatsro]

". The EC said the license excluded open-source vendors and charged unjustifiably high royalty fees -- all bad for business."

The EU Gouvernance may be highly flawed in several areas ,Though it is not made up of total idiots.
I do belive MS really needs to fire its consultants and contract lawyers as Really they should have known this one would get them in trouble.

If you get orderd by a court to comply with an order ,you dont start acting like a 3 year old who has had their crayons taken away for drawing on the walls.
This is exactly what MS tried to do , basically they are saying "Honestly Mother i wont draw on the walls anymore , i will stick to painting on the floor"

""And this is the same Microsoft whose chairman Bill Gates recently lectured the industry that boosting interoperability "will be the only way for companies to make customers' lives easier"?
The very same."
He was telling the truth , but i doubt he cares about making our peoples lives easier , only making the proffits and market share larger

Re:interoperability as in beer

[The Famous Brett Wat]

If you get orderd by a court to comply with an order ,you dont start acting like a 3 year old who has had their crayons taken away for drawing on the walls.

I dunno -- it paid off for them in their antitrust case with the US Department of Justice, didn't it? Admittedly, the judge got pretty peeved with them, but I think that got the judge into more trouble than it did Microsoft.

NOPE

[Anonymous Coward]

NO code is required to be released by the EU compliance request. None. Nada (Not NDA). Zip.

MS have broken the law. Either they open up the API to competitors or they go (all of them) to jail. As an individual, I don't get the choice of charging for my time if I am forced to do community service, am I. If I pay a fine, I don't get to deduct costs, do I. If I'm under a restriction order, I don't get to break it because it stops me from going anywhere I want.

So why does MS get to charge for interoperability?

Note also that the EUCD means that if interoperability requires breaking DRM, then you CANNOT reverse engineer. If the protocols are patented, then you cannot bypass them.

See how easy it is.

Re:NOPE

[michael_cain]

MS have broken the law. Either they open up the API to competitors or they go (all of them) to jail.

I believe in this case, they either conform to the ruling or they are no longer allowed to sell the products in the EU (nor can someone import it from another country). MS gets roughly one-third of their revenue from EU sales. I would certainly like to see the EU authorities announce such a ban, starting in 90 days or so. MS, watching their stock price tank as the market considers that revenue loss, would cave in a minute.

Re:NOPE

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently this license is just a license to use relevant software patents on the APIs in question. It seems that nobody (at threshold 3) has mentioned yet that this nasty license would be unnecessary (in Europe) _if_ software patents never happen in Europe. Come to that, this very license seems a pretty strong argument against allowing software patents in general.

What I don't get

[Anonymous Coward]

One.

Why fees? Why any? This is not something Microsoft is fucking selling. This is a legal judgement. What, next will Ken Lay be charging hourly consulting wages for the time the government keeps him in jail? By what right can Microsoft even consider this? Is the law that illogical?

Two.

They say this is incompatible with open source. How could it not be? The GPL is very plain; no encumbrances, period. If there are any limitations on how this information can be used, it's incompatible with the GPL. If it's incompatible with the GPL it's incompatible with almost all important open source out there. Microsoft can't put licensing restrictions of any kind on this information and still claim compatibility with open source.

---

So what now? If Europe doesn't want this, what would they accept? Would they accept something that something BSD-ish can be used with, but not the GPL? Would they accept licensing fees if they were smaller? Would they move from Microsoft's anticompetitive actions being an unconvicted illegal action to a legal tax Microsoft may put on open source in exchange for compatibility with SMB? Will they settle for forcing all of open source to adopt some new bizarre unique license which offers the rights of the GPL except for the tentacles of Microsoft's NDAs still reaching through? What does Europe want, what will they settle for? And will they accept the next license? Can we expect hundreds of licenses, all just ever so slightly superficially more giving on Microsoft's part but all still specifically engineered to keep SMB out of SUSE, rejected over and over until a year and a half from now the EU gives in and just accepts whatever Microsoft handed them the week before?

Someone explain to me.

Re:What I don't get

[drsmithy]

They say this is incompatible with open source. How could it not be? The GPL is very plain; no encumbrances, period.

Say what ? The whole point of the GPL is to trade the "typical" set of "encumbrances" with a single one - doing anything with GPed code and then distributing it means you have to GPL your work.

GPLed code could hardly be called "unencumbered". "Differently encumbered", perhaps.

If it's incompatible with the GPL it's incompatible with almost all important open source out there.

This is certainly true - the GPL being a more *restrictive* type of OSS license.

Re:What I don't get

[Tim C]

On your first point, if the ruling didn't explicitly state that the licence must be granted free of charge, then MS is entirely within their rights to charge a fee. Similarly, the EU is within their rights to tell them to sod off and come back with a more realistic offering, as they have done.

If it's incompatible with the GPL it's incompatible with almost all important open source out there.

Forget about the BSD, Apache and Mozila licences or something?

Arguably, the most important OSS licence is the one that introduces the most people to the concept of open source software, and right now, I'd say that that's the Mozilla Public Licence. If there's one piece of open source software that Jo Average User is likely to use or know about, it's Firefox.

That's not to say that the GPL isn't extremely important, but the quoted statement ignores the huge amount of important, non-GPL software that's available under open source licences.

Re:What I don't get

[EzInKy]

Say what ? The whole point of the GPL is to trade the "typical" set of "encumbrances" with a single one - doing anything with GPed code and then distributing it means you have to GPL your work.

The GPL says no such thing. Want to make a picture? Use any GPL'd program to create that picture and the picture is still yours. Want to create music? Use GPL'd software and the music is still yours also. The only time the GPL requires you to GPL your work is when you copy GPL'd into your work. It requires nothing for simple use.

Re:What I don't get

[dlapine]

Please remember the GPL encumbrances only come into play when you redistribute the code. If you use GPL software for in-house work, there are no restrictions as to what can be done with it. This is the most overlooked aspect of the GPL- it doesn't limit your use in any way at all until you redistribute it.

Bad for Business

[joshsnow]

The EC said the license excluded open-source vendors and charged unjustifiably high royalty fees -- all bad for business

Hmm. If the royalty fees were not "unjustifiably high" would this still be found to be "bad for business"?

Re:Bad for Business

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably

I like this:

[FoboldFKY]

The licenses granted in Section 2.1(a) do not include any license right, power or other authority to subject Licensed Server Implementations or derivative works thereof in whole or in part to any of the terms of any other license that requires such Licensed Server Implementations or derivative works thereof to be disclosed or distributed in source code form.

That's all one sentence... I guess MS wanted the OSS guys to suffocate just by reading the license. A truly insidious plan...

Auditors...

[Anonymous Coward]

... are just experts who sell their opinions. Any auditor chosen by Microsoft will say whatever Microsoft want them to say.

So... if my company signed up to this license agreement, they would be giving Microsoft the right to harrass and fine us arbitrarily.

Bend over and take it?

So what next Windows API's?

[NigelJohnstone]

So if they're doing this for server protocol, what next, future Windows API with a license?

i.e.:

1. You build your corporate application on Windows.
2. Your company becomes dependent on it.
3. Windows XP is discontinued. The new version has a 'new' 'enhanced' slightly different API.
4. You want the documentation.
5. Microsoft says, no problem, but it will cost you.
6. Your screwed, you take the hit of shifting your people over to a new platform, or you take the hit and give Microsoft what it wants.

Re:So what next Windows API's?

[Anonymous Coward]

6. Your screwed

What about my screwed?

Re:So what next Windows API's?

[kisak]

That is why the EU ruling is so important; it has set a precedence. If MS tries the old tricks again, the EU commision or the EU high court will fast be able to impose new fines if any competitor complains to them. This is the one reason the EU commision took on MS in the first place, they were feed up with MS being able to do the same monopoly tricks for each new software marked or new technology (the case the EU commision looked at was of course Media players, while the US government had previously found MS guilty with web-browsers). When the US government under the corrupt leadership of Bush didn't want to stop the MS monopoly game, the EU had to step up to the plate.

Re:So what next Windows API's?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is completely and totally within the rights of Microsoft. They are not obligated to give out documentation. They are not obligated to give out SDKs. But they do provide much of this information for free and pretty much always have, even when their competitors, like IBM, charged hundreds or thousands of dollars for it.

Can Microsoft change it? Yes. Can Microsoft break it? Yes. Can Microsoft charge you for it? Yes. Welcome to the *real world*.

Re:So what next Windows API's?

[IamTheRealMike]

As far as I'm concerned they have almost no rights - criminals usually don't. If they are really good for society then they'll make money post-opening because they have the best implementation of Win32 and the best OS on which to run Windows apps (as opposed to say Linux+Wine). That would be a free market and that's what they desperately want to avoid.

The main reason they don't is that they're shit scared that they don't have the best product, and won't have the best product in future. Therefore they need to retain control of Win32 and its associated protocols and APIs, because if Linux because fully win32 compatible overnight suddenly there'd be much less need for them.

Re:So what next Windows API's?

[BioCS.Nerd]

But wouldn't this just encourage migration to a more free and stable platform ("Stable" as in your application is likely to run across several new versions of the platform)?

Consider the whole VB6 situation MS is in. A large sum of developers who want access to an old feature set that they're dependent on are being forced to move to a new feature set (Albeit from what I've read a much better one). These people are bitching and moaning and likely to move on to a new, more stable (same context as before) platform to develop, e.g. Real Basic, or perhaps a Real Language ;)

Re:So what next Windows API's?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of, sort of, as if GM had exclusives on motor fuel, and changed the composition occasionally, letting the competiton guess at the changes required to their motors. Or if the power companies could change voltages at random, and only they were supplying key components.
Copyright should require:
Open standard for docs, and interoperability.

Future maintenance and availability of copyrighted material, basically if you let it go out of print, or refuse to supply replacement at a reasonable or comparable price the copyright expires.

Eliminate DRM and DMCA, there are already laws against breaking and entering, or theft i.e. plagiarism.

Patents on non-material ideas or concepts should be eliminated completely.

Sorry for putting several concepts in one message.

Bets microsoft will "sort this out"

[danbond_98]

What's the betting that microsoft make some carefully placed "donations" to people in charge of overseeing the changes to this and suddenly very minor changes are accepted as sufficient? I really can't see them letting this get changed too much in case it actually helps open source.

Found guilty = get more money!!!

[Wolface]

MS lawyers have to be the nectar of law schools dude. Either I'm not understanding this thing or this utter BS. I think this is the first time in my lifetime that I've seen a result like this :

"And now it's looking to make more money for breaking the law? So surely Microsoft must be flush enough to give the open-source guys a break? Do they have to pay royalties too?
No."

Can I get sued like that so I can become rich too?

"Microsoft has proposed a royalty fee of 5 percent of your company's net revenue obtained from a software product that has used Microsoft's file and print protocols, and 2.5 percent if the protocols are used for an embedded product."

WOW just wow...

Re:Ugly

[caluml]

The requested URL could not be retrieved

While trying to retrieve the URL: http://bbltxt.com/

The following error was encountered:

Unable to determine IP address from host name for bbltxt.com

The dnsserver returned:

Name Server for domain 'bbltxt.com' is unavailable.

This means that:

The cache was not able to resolve the hostname presented in the URL.
Check if the address is correct.

Try using www.dnsstuff.com to sort out any DNS problems you're having.

European Comission

[akzeac]

So, do we love the European Comission today? The same guys that who software patents so bad?

Re:European Comission

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the same guys. This is the DG Competition as opposed to the DG Market who does the software patent stuff. It is rumored they don't really like each other.

Re:Ugly

[caluml]

Hmm - seems OK.

Re:Ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you so much for sharing.

Re:Ugly

[MancunianMaskMan]

BTW: can someone explain that "Borg-esque" icon to me? I have trawled /. faqs and such to no avail. I cannot contain my curiosity any longer as to what those red and black blurs in Bill's face are supposed to depict. Please help!

Published API

[dunstan]

You're assuming that the API/file formats/wire protocols are freestanding items. Two things

1) They change the APIs within major versions. Anybody remember how everything except MS products broke with NT SP3?

2) They don't have an unblemished record for publishing *all* the API

Re:Published API

[mattyrobinson69]

if they change api to make stuff not work in future, hopefully the eu will come down on them even harder for taking the piss

Re:Published API

[I'm Don Giovanni]

"They don't have an unblemished record for publishing *all* the API"

Microsoft does publish *all* APIs that are meant to be published. Internal functions are not meant to be "published", as internal functions by their nature can change or be removed altogether.

What does Microsoft have aginst the GPL anyway?

[jonwil]

Is it simply because the GPL prevents them from doing an "embrace and extend" on the code? (is there any GPL code out there that would even be of much use to microsoft anyway?)
Or is there some other reason they are so anti-GPL?

Re:What does Microsoft have aginst the GPL anyway?

[RotateLeftByte]

Yes.
I guess that there could be a lot of GPL code inside Windows and they don't want to get caught. Therefore, if the GPL dies then they can breathe a big sigh of relief.
Imagine the scale of the damages if they got caught like this. $x for the infringement and $y for each copy of the software sold. If they sufficiently pissed off the Judge (Who Me Surely not says BillG) it could make their stock become Junk. The Judge could even order it all opened up for inspection by interested companies(Now where have I seen that before. Yep SCO) so there is a precident for this type of order. Then watch the numbers of law suits escalate. Naturally, this is just speculation and guesswork and I have no evidence that this is true but...
This is Microsoft...

Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly,

Under normal circumstances, when you work for someone, it's completely reasonable to be changed for your work.

However, when you're sentenced to do community service, you have to work for free. You can't, at the end of the day, hand over a bill for services rendered.

Re:Analogy

[mpe]

However, when you're sentenced to do community service, you have to work for free. You can't, at the end of the day, hand over a bill for services rendered.

You could do. But you couldn't force anyone to pay it. Most likely this would be a "foot shooting" exercise.

Royalty of 5%

[binand]

Does that mean 5% of your net revenues will go to Microsoft as royalties, even if you have a silly little W2k3 server sitting the corner?

Royalties for some servers, but not for others...

[OwlWhacker]

Do you have to pay royalties for accessing a Web server?

Does the Firefox team have to pay royalties to Microsoft because the browser could access an IIS server?

Do you have to pay royalties for creating an e-mail client that collects via POP3 from Microsoft Exchange?

No.

So why should anybody be expected to pay in order to develop an application that accesses a file/print server?

I believe that it's in the best interest of the end-user that such servers should have open protocols and APIs.

This would certainly help prevent illegal monopolies from maintaining their anti-competitive actions.

your sig

[Anonymous Coward]

There is currently an AAAA record for www.google.com - but it's a CNAME for www.google.akadns.net (their DNS providers ) who don't have a record.

this doesn't make any sense. either they have an AAAA record (which they haven't) or they don't. it either is an AAAA or a CNAME. there can't be a AAAA that's a CNAME.

"what's your name, peter?" "paul"

same thing.

get a clue.

Wow!

[erroneus]

And a part not mentioned much is the probability that Microsoft will sue you if they "feel" that you're not implementing thier functionality well enough... not to mention paying the cost of the audit.

Good grief! It's no wonder why the EU would reject that. But imagine, if you will, accepting someone to do "community service" as criminal punishment and then they sue you for having to do community service!

Someone mentioned a cold war? I doubt it. This will come to a head quickly and likely, Microsoft's manner will result in more push for Open Source/Open Standards in government computing. After all, with that sort of contempt of court, what government could trust its data (its SECRETS) to this company?

Re:Amazing

[Dr_Barnowl]

Burger King employees don't speak a different language. You don't need to buy a phrase book to have a hope of ordering a Whopper and Fries. The same is also true in McDonalds, Wendys and many other smaller burger establishments.

Now imagine that instead of a phrasebook, you had to buy a universal translator. And the only people that made them was the burger vendors ; the translator is expensive enough that you'd really only want to buy one. And they don't work as well in the other big chains, and forget using it at Honest Als Burger Shack. And Pizza Hut? Ahahaha.

You're pretty much gonna have to eat Whoppers. The language of burger flippers is complicated, some say deliberately so, and people have a hard time deciphering it. Now, some of the other establishments produce translators that work on BurgerKing-ese. But they're not perfect (although in some cases their grammar is technically better). It would be so much easier if they had access to a proper BK dictionary.

But BK don't want that. They want people to keep buying Whoppers, and avoid the other chains because they speak a "funny" language (some of them don't even have pretty menus!) Now some politos are pestering them. They don't want them to give away the secret recipe (although it's not really a secret anymore, and there are a lot of people who say that the other chains have better sandwiches, or even prefer grilling their own). They don't have to give away the secret recipe ; they just have to make it easier for people to order burgers.

I guess Microsoft are a bit like Burger King ; they do want us to keep buying Whoppers....

Re:Royalties for some servers, but not for others.

[cardpuncher]

Do you have to pay royalties for accessing a Web server?

As I read the Windows server licence, you may well do. Although Windows 2003 Web Server Edition has no per-user licensing requirements, the standard version of 2003 Server Client Access Licensing Requirements say (my emphasis):

Windows CALs are not required when access to the server software is unauthenticated and conducted through the Internet

The implication is that if you carry out a browsing session which is authenticated against a Windows user account - or indeed accessed from a local network - that you *do* pay royalties for accessing the server.

Re:Ugly

[geminidomino]

(On this chance that this is a serious question)
A reference to Star Trek: The Next Generation's "Borg," a race of drone-like, hive minded cyborgs intent on assimilating all advanced life, technology, etc... into its collective.

A larger version

Inspired by this:
Locutus of Borg(Picard)

Re:Amazing

[Aldric]

No. They broke the law and are now planning to profit from the judgement against them. If they don't like it they can piss off out of Europe, I certainly won't complain about their stuff not being sold here.

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

So, because the law *doesn't* say I can't charge for my time, I can get paid for my communuty service?

Cool.

And the MPL gives your IP to the mozilla team. Which is why there aren't many contributions to it by companies.

I don't know what to think!!!!

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

The EU decision, really leaves me scratching my head. Is this good or bad?

First, I use, develop for, and generally enjoy Windows (I also use, develop for, and enjoy Linux F/OSS). Point being I'm not a MS basher, but I think all can agree this license is RIDICULOUS!!!

In general however, I don't know what to think of the EU decision. In general I don't like a company being forced to release IP, but in this case it is as punishment so I guess I'm OK with that.

However, the wording of the decision just leaves me confused. They are allowed to charge licensing fees, but also apparently are supposed to make it accessable to OS software. First even with reasonable fees, I'm not sure how this would REALLY work.

So they adjust fee structure to make it reasonable and an OS project licenses it (maybe backing from one of big boys (IBM, etc) will pay for this). However, once this code is included in OS projects then anyone can look at this code and not have much need to license from MS. Then code from MS begins showing up in other OS projects because they have seen it in other projects (even though they don't have license from MS).

This just seems like a dream situation for MS to me (or am I crazy). Yes, there is IP associated with these protocals MS would probably rather keep secret, but really its not like they are being forced to give away Windows or Office. So they are "forced" to start making some (not horribly valuabe in the grand scheme) IP available. All they have to do is wait for some OSS projects to start using this inappropriatly (without license) and BAM they get what they've always wanted!!!

They can of sue these projects (which no doubt they will), but more importantly it gives them VERY valuable ammunition for there PR department. They can then point to examples where OSS community is STEALING and are pirates and basically go on the offensive like MPAA has. PR and public perception is SO important in this fight, I worry this could give MS a chance to point at some bad apples as concrete examples of the evils of OSS.

This would let them spread lots of FUD, but I think it could really work and hurt OSS!!! Enough companies still have problems understanding/supporting OSS this would just give MS a huge bullhorn to use to warn other companies "Look what these OSS guys did to us and our IP!!!! Do you want to let them steal your stuff????".

Just seems for giving up something reaitivly unimportant to them, they could potentially take a HUGE swipe at F/OSS and gain support for what they've been saying all along (F/OSS is bad!)

Just don't know what to think? Or do I just worry too much?

Re:I don't know what to think!!!!

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

What I guess I'm trying to say above is I think they should either have done nothing or just specifically forced it to be released as OSS. It just feels like they wussed out. Maybe this is as far as they law would allow them to go, but this half-ass approach seems it could end up making things worse instead of helping. I just envision MS eventually putting forward a license just OS friendly enough to get some takers and then sit back and wait to attack.

True, but irrelevant

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Stop right there. The U.S. is *not* a free market, it's a regulated market that is somewhat free.

I'll concede that my use of the term "free market" was over-stating things, but none of your objections to the terminology actually addresses the point I was making: a company in this market is (by default) under no obligation to produce products that interoperate with anyone else's if they don't want to.

Also please note that we're talking about Europe, not the US, here. Establishing whether our markets or more or less free than those across the Atlantic is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:Amazing

[mattyrobinson69]

i dont think you understand. Microsoft got to where they are by illegal practices.

They keep their apis closed in order to keep their competitors from competing.

a comparison ive seen is a company which owns 95% of the car market making their cars only work with a particular kind of gas, which is secret.

microsoft arent being asked to open any code, just enough information to make other software products work with their software.

Within anti-trust rules yes

[NigelJohnstone]

Within anti-trust rules yes they are free to screw over their customers.

The reason they are in court for this one, is because their Windows monopoly clients favour their Servers and they seek to keep it that way via withholding the interoperability information.

You can't leverage a monopoly to gain another monopoly like that, its a breach of anti-trust rules, and the withholding of the APIs is just the lever they're using.

Now as the price for giving up that lever, they want their competitors to be $80/seat or 5% of revenue more expensive and to exclude some competitors they haven't been able to compete against, those pesky open source servers.

Its worth pointing out that they can do this to Real, Sun etc. today, but tomorrow it could be any major corp thats been stupid enough to become over dependent on MS.

Imagine you depended on .NET and .NET changed and became deprecated, but the new .NET would cost you your patents. Ouch!

Same goes with their DRM, can you imagine what will happen when you are dependent on MS to access your documents? How much will you pay then!?

Welcome to the real world indeed.

Agreed... But

[maximjd]

While I agree that Microsoft has broken the law, they don't play fair, and that they should either publish a set of API's or conform to some standards - I have to admit that they're doing this the smart way. They throw out a piece of trash like the one discussed and let the EU get up in arms about it - they don't care, what's $5 Million a day to them? But, then they later come to the table - most likely before any deadline with injunctions - and submit an amended agreement. Because Microsoft has made the new agreement more fair than their initial one, it's more likely to be accepted. AND - they'll probably get an extension on coming up with a new agreement if that one is rejected. This is heavyweight bargaining IMHO... And Microsoft has proven they're good at it - sounds a lot like a certain anti-trust case in the US...

Just like ATARI in the 80's...

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, there was a court case that ruled that ATARI didn't have to reveal their secrets. In the long term, it didn't matter. People still were able to puzzle out what everything did.

God, I feel so old now.

just like an RIAA contract

[Anonymous Coward]

5% of 'net' eh? Ok, I spent bundles promoting and distributing my software so my net is zero. Sorry, artists, er mickysoft, you wanted to get paid? so sorry.

A good case for requiring open standards...

[yeremein]

The EU should just mandate that government-owned systems must use protocols and file formats whose specifications are publicly available royalty-free. Any other arrangement allows a vendor (be it Microsoft or anybody) to hold your data hostage.

Well..

[d_jedi]

that was a completely objective article, with no hint of bias anywhere. ..
can my slashdot mod powers mod that story as a troll?

This looks like...

[Anonymous Coward]

...another MS stalling/negotiation game. I really think that it is time some governments stood up and said. "Here's the judgement. Here's what you have to do. Here is the daily penalty for failing to do so. In leiu of an additional lump sum fine, the daily penalty shall be effective immediately. Have a nice day."