Slashdot Mirror
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."
This just tells you Microsoft got pwned.
I understand that you're a Microsoft basher, but I'll explain things in simple terms for you. ;-)
Microsoft did break the law, but the law they broke was not developing their own protocols and APIs rather than using standards. In a free market, nothing says you have to be interoperable with everyone else, or to follow someone else's standards. With Microsoft's market share in some markets, it's doubtful whether anyone other than Microsoft has any right to claim to be "standard" anyway; try submitting all your CVs in .sxw format some time and see how far you get. If someone else has a better products then Microsoft's failure to promote interoperability and open standards will hurt them; that's the risk they choose to take in running their business that way, but it's their choice whether to take it.
The law Microsoft broke was in using their dominance of one market (operating systems for desktop computers) to promote their products in other fields. That, combined with the aforementioned reluctance to support interoperability with competing products, is unfair competition, and that's what they've been called on, both in the US and in Europe.
One possible remedy for this, now that the situation exists and Microsoft has effectively locked in custom in the secondary market through illegal means, is to force Microsoft to allow interoperability in that market. This is the important part of the penalty the courts handed down in Europe.
However, that doesn't make it open season on Microsoft. If you want to compete, you still have to do your own work. Microsoft aren't allowed to unreasonably prevent you from interoperating with their products (hence the disclosure requirements) but neither are they required to let you benefit for free from their work (for example, by providing sample interoperability code for your benefit at their own expense).
FWIW, I'm hardly a Microsoft apologist as my past posts here will demonstrate, but neither do I believe open source developers have some God-given right to privileges not enjoyed by the rest of the software development industry, just because they use words like "open" or "free" in their marketing. If you want to play with the big boys, you have to grow up and play by the big boys' rules.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I really cant believe what im reading, people really are out to get Microsoft, it seems to me really that the problem is OpenSource, its systems like this that will eventually cripple the software industry expecting to get everything for free is total ridiculous. Would you go to burger king and ask for there secret recipes so that you could open a rival chain, i dont think so ... as for the EU they really should have a say, they do not have technical advisors on this, its just some fat old german sat at a desk thinking how can i get more money from microsoft this week
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.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.