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.'"
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.
The other option is for Microsoft to just stop selling and supporting software in the EU. I honestly believe the EU would recant if MS pulled something like this.
I take it you failed both math and law classes in high school?
No one walks away from 25 billion in profit a year to avoid being fined 1.4 billion. No one with any brains creates a giant new market for their competition. No one in their right mind refuses to comply with the people who direct the army and police.
If Ballmer tried this he'd be fired by the end of the day. If the board of directors all went insane and did not fire him the EU would direct MS Europe to split from their parent company and comply with the orders. If they still refused they'd toss the European director in a prison and tell the next in command to comply.
MS may have some pull but get real.
The problem is, MS doesn't view it as 25 billion in profit. They genuinely think that by opening up their source, they make *all* of their profit, worldwide, vulnerable. If they think it'll lose them the US and Japan to stay in Europe, they will *absolutely* walk away from the EU.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
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."
I honestly believe they'd pull out before opening their source. Yes, they will try evey other option they have first. Yes, one of those options is bound to work and allow a mutually agreeable solution. But the threat of pulling out may pull some of the bite out of the EU's ferocity. How long do you think the careers of a politician who "forced" MS out would be with their constituency being companies, government agencies and private individuals being forced to switch to an alternative? I guess it depends on how deeply imbedded the EU is with MS software, but in the US with Windows being on the desktop of just about every person in power... MS has a lot of leeway. Switching over would be a large expense for some organizations, especially ones with custom software and documents in proprietary formats.
Yes, it would prove that they are a monopoly. It would also prove that there isn't anything anyone can do about it.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
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.
Not to insult *your* intelligence, but modern Windows OSes *do* work. I work for a web development/hosting division within a large multinational, and almost *all* of our problems relate to networking and third party software issues; it's very rare indeed that we have a machine go down because of an OS problem, and that's true for the Linux, Solaris and Windows machines.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
there is nothing - NOTHING - stopping superior alternatives from being adopted, if they are sufficiently better.
That's the key if they are sufficiently better. Microsoft has ensured through anticompetitive tactics that that threshold is far, far higher than any benefit. Find that BeOS is significantly better a desktop than Windows? (It was, BTW) Well, not only will you not be able to read any of the Word documents they've worked so hard to obfuscate, but you won't be able to read any of the websites whose standards they've co-opted, or run any of the applications whose API's have been intentionally hidden. You won't be able to buy this from a vendor who has one of Microsoft's patently illegal forced exclusivity contracts. And of course you may get sued from a pretty explicitly Microsoft-funded umbrella corporation who claims rights over your OS. Because Microsoft forbade, again illegally, non-Microsoft software to be placed on the desktop after sale, the compatible competitors were forced off, so you can kiss a lot of the open standards goodbye.
A real open market with competition would have a reasonable threshold above which people would switch to a better system. There is no indication this is how the markets around Windows or Microsoft Word or Exchange Server are functioning, and there is plenty of evidence as to why this is the case.
there is nothing - NOTHING - stopping superior alternatives from being adopted, if they are sufficiently better.
Dr Dos was superior to DOS in every way. It was significantly cheaper, faster, more stable, and 100% compatible with MS Dos. Because of this Microsoft re-wrote Windows 3.1 to randomly crash if it was run on top of DrDos. They then promoted "awareness" that DrDos was unstable and would crash Windows 3.1. That's not competing on features, that's using something you sell in one area to irrecoverably damage a competitor's product in an underhanded fashion. They were, BTW, convicted of this.
there is nothing - NOTHING - stopping superior alternatives from being adopted, if they are sufficiently better.
OS2Warp ran Windows applications better than Windows 3.1 did. It multithreaded and multitasked, and was pretty stable... an impressive feat for a Dos-based system. What did Microsoft do? They charged all of their system manufacturers based on how many systems they sold, not how many systems with Windows they sold. In other words, if you were a mixed house and wanted to sell OS2 Warp-based systems, each system you sold with OS2 Warp would cost you one OS2 Warp license you used and one Windows license you didn't and could never use. Thus, Microsoft used their position very directly to prevent competitors from getting on shelves, in a fashion completely illegal. They were, BTW, convicted of this.
there is nothing - NOTHING - stopping superior alternatives from being adopted, if they are sufficiently better.
You can't engage in illegal anticompetitive behaviors and still represent something as an even playing field. Period. I'm sorry if this sounds patronizing to you, but it's a pretty easy concept. If there was a way I could explain it that was complicated and difficult I would.
Not all Monopolies are evil or behave in an anticompetitive fashion. While Intel's hands aren't squeaky clean, it did decide to largely compete based upon power and marketing when rivals appeared. Google has a near-monopoly on search activities, and it hasn't abused that position. I can only think of one example of outright sabotage of interoperability with a competitor's parts from Shimano. But with Microsoft the list of abuses is very, very long. They even did a lot of anticompetitive stuff that failed, like bundling Messenger into every copy of Windows, refusing to allow it to be uninstalled, and if it found that you did uninstall it, the bloody OS would reinstall it. Or their attempts to corrupt Java (which, BTW, they were convicted of). Or their attempts to patent-en
The ______ Agenda
"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.