Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Accepts Most EU Demands, But Not Over Source
JoeGi writes "Microsoft sent a letter to EU regulators Monday accepting 20 out of the Commission's 26 demands. According to BetaNews, 'The remaining stumbling block to full compliance is source code licensing' as Microsoft is refusing access to open source projects. Microsoft officials told BetaNews they are trying 'to find a way that companies can implement these technologies in code that would get distributed with open source products, but the source code wouldn't be published itself.'"
The article says "accepts", as if they have a choice? This is the law, is it not?
Microsoft's got the same problem Sun has with the JRE. They might be able to use Sun as an excuse.
I would tell them to meet all 26 or hit the road.
Eu doesn't need microsoft - microsoft needs them so I would tell them to fsck off if they don't comply with everything. after all you are their customers and being Microsoft they should be wanting to meet the customers demands - isn't this the reason they implement their crap - you know like put out the next IE7 - cause their customers asked them for it.
Government agency tells Microsoft "You've been bad. Here is your punishment." Microsoft tells government agency "Your punishment is bad, yes. But we do not accept your punishment. Instead, here is what we'd rather the punishment be." Government agency tells Microsoft "No, you will comply." Microsoft gives some money to the government agency. Government agency says "Aaah. We've reconsidered. Microsoft has actually chosen a very reasonable punishment for itself."
fifth sigma, inc.
I don't see why Microsoft should have to turn over their source code without any kind of compensation. They did develop the product, and it seems to me that they should be able to profit from it. In my opinion the demands of the EU are in this case unreasonable.
It's because they broke the law. It's a punishment that attempts to correct some of the damage they did. It's like this a guy mugs and old lady takes the cash in her purse and bets it all on a number in roulette. He wins big then the cops nab him. The judge just said, "the money he won goes to charity as part of his punishment."
IANAL etc. etc. but
[ They can take their ball and go home. ]
Yes, but they still would not be complying with the court order and would be subject to severe penalties. They could sell 4 copies of the new product and then go but then the cat would be out of the bag already.
[ MS would threaten it, ]
How to really offend a European court. They are not in the US, they have to respect the court or they will suffer. They do not have political clout behind them anymore. In fact if they threaten to do something like that it could easily be seen as contempt.
[ "The fines for noncompliance will be lower than the cost of damage to our business if we do comply. So we're going to eat the fines." ]
This would constitute contempt and could result in a lot more than just a higher fine. The person that makes the decision not to comply can be taken to court and can be sent to prison. I think that no high paid executive wants to do that. The fine for non-compliance is a fine for dragging your feet, now they are no longer dragging their feet, they have decided to not comply they enter a whole new game. I do not know exactly what has been said but if they said 'no' they are incredibly stupid and liable to real penalties. They should say 'we are going to, but we are having real difficulty and need more time. Maybe if the court could possibly help us by changing things a little we would be able to sort this out sooner'. Any refusal is bad but to ask for help is good.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
As is often the case, the press is completely misreporting the issue. The EU never demanded that Microsoft release their own source code. What MSFT is required to do is license their network protocols and provide sufficient documentation to licensees so they can create their own implementations. A similar condition was part of the US antitrust case.
The license that MSFT offered is (1) expensive, and (2) specifically prevents licensees from releasing the source code to their own implementations. The EU is mostly upset about the cost, and is therefore completely missing the point. The only effective remedy would be to require that MSFT publish the protocol specs and allow anybody (e.g. the SAMBA team) to implement them.
Some would say that such a compulsory license amounts to the EU stealing MSFT's intellectual property. Bullshit! Do you believe that making them pay a fine is stealing their money? You can oppose the whole concept of antitrust regulation on Libertarian grounds, but that battle was fought and lost, the argument is over, and antitrust is settled law. The EU has the right to set antitrust rules and punish the violators.
The key sequence to access my Slashdot bookmark in Firefox is Alt-B-S. I don't believe this is a coincidence.
"We are working with the Commission to try to find a way that companies can implement these technologies in code that would get distributed with open source products, but the source code wouldn't be published itself so that the confidentiality of our information is preserved," the spokesperson added.
It sounds like Microsoft is not even talking about access to their source code, they are talking about whether open source projects are permitted to distribute their own code necessary for interoperating with Microsoft code in open source form.
In different words, Microsoft is trying to keep "confidential" exactly what the commission is requiring them to make public.
Furthermore, since the only group of people they are trying to impose restrictions on is open source (since binary-only vendors have full access under the agreement already), this is a direct attack by Microsoft on open source.
Well, it's good to see that Microsoft is validating open source through their action. Let's hope that the EU doesn't let them get away with this.
MS would threaten it, maybe stop selling Windows in Europe for a few weeks, then both sides would panic and split the difference.
Another possibility is that MS could stop selling Windows in Europe and Europe could respond by nationalizing the copyright on all Microsoft, Inc properties and releasing them into the public domain. Meaning they wouldn't need Microsoft to sell windows. Hey, look at that trade surplus with the U.S. abruptly swell.
Might be a bit difficult to pull off technically, but at some point the EU is going to do something if it wants to be considered a group of sovereign countries with their own laws, as opposed to just a funny kind of U.S. territory to which the constitutional protections on human rights don't apply. Cave on this and they'll be walked all over for the rest of their existence.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
EU: We find that you (MS) are breaking competition laws, and we order you to take these here 26 measures to allow other companies to enter into fair competition. You either take all these steps unconditionally, pay a fine per unit of time of non-compliance, or ultimately could be denied access to the EU market.
MS: Of course we respect your decision and intend to comply fully. Well, almost fully. You see, some of the measures you have ordered would tend to interfere with our monopoly and our capacity to abuse it. We are in a position to negotiate the terms of your punishment, because.. Well, because all your base are belong to us! EU customers are so completely locked in our proprietary formats that they will revolt if you deny them our products!
This is like Don Corleone telling the court: yes, your honour, it's true, I am a mafia don. And I accept your punishment, except if it is too severe I will naturally have to use my position as criminal mastermind and have you whacked.
What am I missing?
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
You propose, what? That MS bribes every single political party in every single country in Europe?
You may find that "Europe" is not a single state, like the USA. It's a helluva lot of states in what's just slightly more than a diplomatic treaty. So who are you proposing to bribe? _All_ of them?
You may also find that the political landscape in Europe is a _lot_ different than in the USA. Politicians here actually have to fight for their votes, rather than just sell themselves openly to the highest bidder. The result is a system which is _far_ less inclined to bend over to a corporation and shaft their voters. Au contraire, if in doubt they'll shaft the corporations for extra votes.
Political majority means a fragile alliance of parties, neither of which has the majority, and all of which are trying to exploit their allies mistakes for their own benefit. Any one party who'd publicly bend over to a monopoly, would quickly find themselves switched from leader of the majority coalition to being _the_ opposition, because all their former allies did the populist thing and formed a coalition without them.
More importantly, that wouldn't even buy a whole term for MS. If the political alliances form the other way around, who's the current leader can change right in the middle of a term.
So what do you propose? That MS bribes every single political party, in every single country in Europe? I'm sure you can see how that's impractical.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
"Another possibility is that MS could stop selling Windows in Europe and Europe could respond by nationalizing the copyright on all Microsoft, Inc properties and releasing them into the public domain."
I love how this "solution" is bandied about. Is this really the precedent you want to set? IE, a European country suddenly is doing "too well" in the US, so they just nationalized? Europeans love to talk tough about how their software industry is just going to _pulverize_ the US's, but if everyone just keeps ignoring the other guy's copright, there won't be much industry left.
_Real people_ own Microsoft. It's not like it's just some shadowy group of owners plotting evil against the world. If you're an American with _any_ money in the stock market (which includes such things as 401k's, mutual funds, IRAs, etc), you most likely own some Microsoft stock. The political repercussions of hitting Microsoft like this are FAR greater than most Europeans on here apparently imagine. Five rich guys don't amount to much. Fify million middle-class Joes are a rather substantial voting bloc, and the last thing you want for them to start voting is "SCREW THE EU!"
The least of such sanctions would be from the WTO. Are you just going to ignore those, proving, in reality, you don't give a fig about keeping your word than Microsoft? That all this talk of "international rules" is really just doublespeak for organized mob rule?
In fact, it could lead to a full out economic embargo - you can't just take what you want when it becomes convienient in the civilized world, because people will simply stop giving. If the EU does indeed have a trade surplus, you just shot your own foot making some sort of idiotic statement about the EU.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.