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 wasn't aware Microsoft had a choice regarding which demands they would accept and would not accept.
Because not being allowed to distribute code is totally opensource.
Really, wtf are these people on?
The Yasashii Syndicate ||
As an act of goodwill Microsoft has decided to open source minesweeper.
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'm sure we can get some people to upload a torrent with the code in question...oh wait!
Licensing the source-code does not do much, a much better solution would be to require them to open the patents and specifications up for their drm and media formats. This gives their competitors a firm standing to enter the market with them. It would also allow opensource implementations of their media formats on linux with full drm support.
Sorry about the pun, but it seems like accountability is easily trumped by bank account ability.
I'd give anything to see the EU tell Microsoft to follow all 26 or face a continent-wide ban. Can you imagine any single one of us, after being found guilty of something, picking and choosing our punishments in a court of law?
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.
MS' code being out there would cause nothing but SCO style problems anyway. What is needed is to force (full) disclosure of (actual) protocols and formats. The last thing we need is accusations of improperly using MS' own implementation.
Other people's code isn't necessarily good documentation and usually won't drop into another project's tree anyway. Why is there such emphasis on code? Should we be talking about specifications?
open formats/standards? They should force Microsoft to use the .odf format that KOffice and OpenOffice now use as default?
If they would just take away Microsoft's virtual monopoly on the office document format it would make it easier for users to switch to open alternatives.
I have always said that switching people to open software on Windows is the first step to switching people to open software period.
To me the lack of forced open document formats and standards compliance is the only thing keeping open software from grabbing large market share from Microsoft.
The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.
forcing MS to license any of their software under the GPL seems grossly anti-capitalistic.
No country in the world has a straight capitalism. The reason is that in an unmanaged capitalism, eventually all the money gravitates to one place. One monopoly is leveraged into another then another and eventually there is only one company. Monopolies break all the advantages offered by capitalism. They remove all incentive for innovation, supply an demand, and for making the customer happy.
Allowing MS to leverage one monopoly into multiple monopolies breaks capitalism, which is why monopolies have to follow special rules. Get it?
There's so many wrong things in your post... I don't have time to correct them all. Suffice it to say:
:)
1) BSD is open source.
2) Anything released under BSD can be forked and re-released under GPL.
3) It's absolutely possible to "integrate" software in Linux without it being GPL.
Probably missed some things... no doubt others will pick them up
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
As far as I can see, in theory, full and accurate specifications of the APIs and protocols ought to be sufficient to allow interoperability and prevent Microsoft from having an unfair advantage over competitors. The problem is that nobody trusts Microsoft to publish full and honest specs and adhere to them. They are known for having undocumented interfaces and for departing from standards. Forcing them to publish the source would let others determine the actual APIs and protocols by inspection, and we'd know whether the source they published was real because its behavior could be compared with that of Microsoft's binaries. However, this doesn't require that Microsoft license its source under the GPL. People can perfectly well implement Microsoft's APIs and protocols with their own code. What it does require, other than publishing the software with terms that do not prohibit use of the information gleaned in GPL-ed software, is freedom from patents.
Insofar as Microsoft has been convicted of monopolistic behavior, I don't think it has a choice if publishing source code under the GPL is the only way of adressing its improper behavior. It's not like something that is insufficiently in line with capitalism is "cruel and unusual punishment". If Microsoft really doesn't want to publish its source, it seems to me that the only thing to do is to force them to stand behind their specs by imposing significant penalties for differences in behavior between their software and the specs. This could even be a way of diverting the efforts of some crackers - finding discrepancies would be a thrill, and could even be remunerative if a percentage of the fine were awarded as a bounty.
I'm sure SuSE would be more than happy to take up the slack, as would many other non-American companies! This could be a really good thing for the EU.
Unfortunately, this isn't going to happen as the market is lucrative in Europe and there's NO WAY that Microsoft would give it up.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Not to quibble, but MSFT played a waiting game
in the USA -- it only took a regime change for
MSFT to be able to dictate their own punishment.
No doubt, MSFT is playing this same waiting
game in the EU.
Politicians are pretty much alike the whole
world over; money talks, and more money talks
louder. American politicians may find (to their
consternation) that they were bought far too
cheaply compared to their brethern in the EU.
This isn't about microsoft's license on their code. This is about them demanding that you don't open source your own implementation after you have read their documentation.
This has more information than the BetaNews article - full AP Text.
Microsoft says it will meet most EU demands
By ALLISON LINN
AP BUSINESS WRITER
Microsoft Corp. says it will meet most demands by European Union regulators on making software blueprints available to competitors, including lowering licensing fees, but is seeking further talks on some issues.
Microsoft said it delivered a letter to EU regulators on Monday detailing its intentions.
The EU last month threatened new fines if Microsoft doesn't make it easier and cheaper for competitors to see the blueprints, known as source code.
Brad Smith, Microsoft's top lawyer, said the Redmond, Wash.-based company told the European Union it isn't opposed to licensing the code to open-source developers as long as it's assured that its intellectual property will be safeguarded.
Open-source programs led by the Linux operating system pose perhaps the most serious threat to Microsoft because their code is freely shared, while Microsoft closely guards its source code.
Click Here
Smith said Microsoft also wants clarification on whether concerns that view its source code can develop and distribute software outside of Europe.
EU spokesman Jonathan Todd said Monday afternoon that he could not yet confirm that the Commission received Microsoft's latest letter, but said "We have received a letter in response" to our questions that Microsoft sent before Easter.
He said the EU was "studying it carefully." He gave no further comment on the content of Microsoft's letter or on Monday's announcement
The EU compelled Microsoft, in a March 2004 antitrust ruling in which it fined the company 497 million euros ($640 million dollars), to share the source code with competitors who make server software so their products can better communicate with Windows-powered computers.
European regulators also ordered Microsoft to produce a Windows version minus its multimedia player to provide a more level playing field for competitors such as RealNetworks Inc.
Microsoft has complied with that order but says it will only make the software available in Europe. Dow Jones Newswires reported last week that Dell Inc., a leading computer maker, would not offer the stripped-down Windows version as an option.
Company officials would not provide The Associated Press with a copy of the letter they submitted to the EU on Monday.
But they listed these changes that they said they had accepted in the server source code reviewing procedure:
-Microsoft will customize licenses for developers who want to pick and choose from source code rather than buying a preset package.
-The company will give competitors a price break on reviewing source code and more time to decide whether they want to license it - charging 500 euros ($645) a day for up to eight days instead of allowing a maximum of two days at 3,850 euros ($4,965) for the first day or 5,390 euros ($6,950) for two days.
Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said the company was working on a new set of prices for licenses to address the commission's concerns that previously proposed fees of $100 to $600 (77 euros to 465 euros) per server were too high.
Desler would not elaborate on any details of the new royalty fee structure.
Andy Gavil, a Howard University law professor who is co-writing a book on Microsoft's antitrust battles, says the company has good reason to try to elongate the process, especially given its plans to appeal the March 2004 order.
Microsoft has been ordered to comply with the ruling even as it seeks an appeal.
Gavil said Microsoft is concerned about losing the freedom to build new features into its operating systems and that sharing too much with competitors will weaken its business.
"In a sense, they're trying to define a software philosophy and a business strategy," Gavil said.
Smith emphatically denied that the company has any interest in slowing down the proces
Waiting for Microsoft themselves, to put out a form of GPL they can use, to their advantage of course.
"To be is to do." -Socrates
"To do is to be." -Jean-Paul Sartre
"Do-be-do-be-do." -Frank Sinatra
For craps sake. If the government takes me to court and slaps the shit out of me, I do my god damned punishment or the police stick their boots up my ass. I didn't realize these things were open for negotiation. Lets all just get it out in the open: Big companies own us... pretty much literally.
It seems like everyone in this thread is assuming the EU is just going to take it, but no where in that story did I read that they had made a response or statement. They haven't given in yet, it'll be interesting to see how this story unfolds.
Open source != Linux. There's more involved here than a few nasty proprietary protocols people want to port to Linux.
For instance:
- On the Windows platform itself, there's a number of open source apps which can't do everything MS apps can because the MS apps are using undocumented API's.
- non-Windows media players can't make use of extensions to AVI/WMA and DRM because of closed MS specifications.
It would be a big win for open source if MS just released full documentation of all of their API's - it would certainly level the playing field somewhat.
A "sponsor program" to allow patents or core algorithms to be used in a royalty-free fashion would be another big win, but I doubt that would ever happen.
Both Microsoft and the European Community government are new entities. Neither has the limits of their powers defined or tested.
Many people besides the programming community and the politicians are watching this fight as it will define how the other major oligopalistic corporations will deal with the EU bureaucrats in the future.
Microsoft needs the EU enforcement apparatice to maintain its monopoly and the European Union bureaucracy runs on Microsoft's software.
This whole showdown is a 'tempest in a teacup' or 'tussles in Brussels' and will die down to an endless Eurocratic paper shuffle that will never be fully resolved. It's the kind of money-making machine for upper-class European lawyers that Brussels is becoming world-famous for. It will become just one more of the million and one things that makes Europe less attractive to do business in. It will be 'resolved' in the same matter that all European Community business issues get resolved; with local flavor. In Italy by bribe, in Germany by rigorous preparation of ten thousand pages of chickenshit regulations, and in France by a nod and wink that enables the enarcs to get their customary payoffs and the rest of the people to bask in the 'gloire de la republic'; that is, series of substance-less but emotionally-charged gestures.
What's more important is that Microsoft would release all APIs and specifications for protocols and file formats royalty free to the open source community. While source might help, APIs and specifications are more important.
So is the stipulation that Microsoft release their source code for current products only, or for current AND future products? I'd say that makes a pretty big difference. If it's just current products, they'll probably go along with the EU eventually and just release a new version of Windows real quick like (Windows 2005? XP and a half?) before Longhorn ever comes out. If it's both current and future, then I'd say the EU is being a bit unreasonable...
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.
It's a touchy situation for both Microsoft and Open Source development.
The only way to write fully interoperable code is to have access to the source code, says the EU. Microsoft counters with a system that allows access to *some* code, and it's very expensive to gain access to it.
This would cut most Open Source projects out because they don't have the bankroll to pay for these fees, and even if they did most of them would be unwilling to pay for Microsoft code they can only look at.
Many commercial firms spend gobs of money on all things most companies spend gobs of money on anyways, and can pay these fees.
On the other hand, Microsoft may also be worried that if they allow access to the source without a high barrier to entry, it could mean lots of Microsoft code floating around the Internet. This is a distinct possibility, considering that you can already get every Microsoft product online.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I keep seeing the distinction between the API and the source code, but more often than not the code is the only reliable documentation of the API anyway - original API specs get horribly out of date during implementation. Many API specs include sample implementations too. So saying MS needs to license the API but not the source is somewhat contradictory.
The easiest and cheapest way for MS to "license the API" is simply to license the source and let the purchaser dig through and find what they need.
Just a glance through the rantings of the Samba team will show you that the protocols they are trying to use are full of bugs and special cases that change with the operating system you are communicating with. The "full API" is probably a combination of the original design specs patched with bug reports and the comments within the implementation code.
To publish a complete API (without implementation code) would cost MS a decent amount of money to simply produce it in the first place.
opening the source would be admitting that they are infringing a number of patents
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
"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.
"Intellectual property" amounts to an artificial government-granted monopoly, anyway. Companies like Microsoft would not be able to exist at all without it.
Anti-trust suits are really the government suing another part of itself.
The governments represented by the EU cannot pass any law they like; they must respect the treaties they've signed, including those on copyrights and patents. These treaties do not permit confiscation of the copyrights or patents of a US-based company, and the U.S. could pursue trade sanctions if the EU attempted this.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The problem for MS is that:
1. "EU government" really means something fundamentally different than "USA government". No, I'm not gonna bash the USA or anything. The EU just isn't one country. The U stands for UNION, and it's a union of independent nations.
What passes for "EU government" or "EU agency" is just a shifty diplomatic treaty between countries that follow their own interests and have their own population to impress. If you bribe, say, a German bureaucrat in an EU agency, you'll have all the other EU countries screaming bloody murder, if only to push their own bureaucrat in his/her place.
(Which also answers the usual "bet the EU wouldn't do that to their own companies" moans: there isn't such a thing as an EU company. If the EU failed to punish, say, a German monopoly, it would have France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, etc, screaming bloody murder.)
So there isn't just one government to bribe. By the time you went through all the governments to bribe, one of them would have the next election.
2. Speaking of elections, most EU countries have more interesting politics. They don't have two parties, both cattering to the corporations, for a start. Your average European's country's election is "won" by an unstable alliance of parties, neither of which usually has a majority on its own.
It's a system which works precisely _because_ politicians are, well, politicians. (Said in all possible contempt.) It's a system where, in fact, they make populism and demagogy work.
The "winner" doesn't get 4 years in which they can just rake in bribes and catter to the higher bidder with impunity, and the opposition doesn't just wait for their turn to rake in the bribes with impunity. There isn't any such thing as having an almost guaranteed turn at it: lose enough popularity and you can turn from an alliance leader to a minor member of someone else's alliance in the next elections. And even if you "won", the more other parties you need in a coalition for a majority, the more concessions you'll have to make to get them to support you, so better not end up too low.
And more importantly, even if you won, alliances can be formed the other way around at any moment, if that is perceived as the more populist thing to do for those small parties in your coalition. If the "winning" party has, say, 41% of the places in the parliament, they might at any moment find themselves switched from leading a majority coalition of parties, to being the opposition because everyone else made a 59% coalition against them. The small members of a coalition really have nothing to lose from switching sides like that: they'll end up members of the majority coalition either way, so they might as well just pick the side that looks more popular.
Bribery does exist in Europe's politics, but it's usually a lot more subtle than that, and offers more subtle benefits. You won't see a politician just openly being bought by a cartel and lobbying full time for them, or a party just openly forcing the DOJ to bend over for a corporation. That's the kind of thing that's plain political suicide down here, one way or the other: if you don't get kicked out by your party to save face, that party becomes the opposition very quickly as alliances form the other way around.
So basically short of bribing every single political party in Europe, it's not easy for MS to just "give some money to the government" and get a free ride out. And bribing every single political party would be a pretty costly exercise even for MS.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
A sample conversation among international friends:
European: "Well, but you see friend, this is necessary for the people. We're doing it for the people, after all."
American: "Yeah, I get that, but aren't you afraid they'll just withdraw from the market?"
European: "Ha! They wouldn't dare lose such a large piece of our thriving market. Why, why, that's 25 billion a year! Besides, do you really think our government would allow it? We could force them to stay after all. We could nationalize their entire business! What would they do then? Huh?"
American: "I dunno... *shrugs* Who is John Galt?"
The idea behind this settlement is for new competition to enter the server market. Open Soure is an important force in the industry and should therefor be able to compete. At this moment Microsoft is going for an easy ride.
By the way, this insightful post gives a nice idea of why this license is incompatiable with open source. It's not all about the money. There are aspects of this license that go beyond the question of whether or not it can be implemented in open source. The license also cripples closed source implementations.
Under this license, if you implement the server interfaces, you cannot deviate from what MS says your implementation has to be. This poses a great problem for companies that want to innovate beyond Microsofts "standards" or that do not want to implement such features as DRM.
The EU should aim for a healthy server market in the best interest of its citizans. This would include multiple, unencumbered and independant implementations, some of which will probably be open source.
While I do not deny that it is possible for an entity to make a 25 billion dollar profit per year while retaining value and integrity, I can not think of a single real-life example.
It seems to me that in order to acquire such massive profits while retaining "value and integrity" one would have to have a very good product, "value and integrity," and the desire to profit.
In an area like desktop computing, I don't see how there could be such a giant gap between the profits of competing companies in what is supposed to be an open market, without the companty on the good end of the gap not really caring about keeping the market open.
I mean what do you use a computer for? Is there any service that microsoft provides that is not equally providable through another company (barring proprietary file formats)?
Apple, Linux, Windows, BSD, OSX, etc. All of these are just wrappers that enable you to interact with your computers hardware. That's it. They vary in the degree of interaction required, and the amount of interaction you are capable of.
They are all pretty much equally capable of preforming the same tasks, they can all access the internet, they can all do word processing, etc etc everything your average person needs to do.
A major part of the reason that windows is so huge is that microsoft got it to be the default install on just about any pre-built computer.
Really want to make a free market for desktop computing? Require that hardware and operating systems are sold seperately, or that the end user at least has a choice of what to have installed on a pre-built computer.
Force the user to make a choice. And require documentation on what you can do and how you can do it with the operating system freely available.
There you go, free market for desktops influenced only by people's preference, (this is assuming a group of people entirely new to the concept of desktop computing, not the set of people we have now who are ingrained in windows) willingness to learn, and affordability of the OS.
Note that I am not arguing with you, your comment is just what started my typing, I've been rambling without much aim ever since.
kaens.blogspot.com
They aren't. They are expected to publish honest and accurate descriptions of their APIs in such a way that open source can use them.
They are twisting the words to get the support of the terminally ignorant.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Microsoft currently has 2 choices:
- Comply and nothing painful happens.
- Don't comply and be in for a world of pain.
There are *no* alternatives to these options.
There is *no* negociation possible.
This is the EU, not the US.
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.
MS was simply asked to license their APIs and protocols fairly to everyone, without discrimination. (E.g., no pulling a stunt like "nope, we won't license them to Mozilla because we still want to kill that threat to our monopoly.")
That's all its about. APIs and protocol specs. No MS source code has to be involved, other than a few _header_ files. Or not even those, in the case of protocols.
So MS thinks it's smart and comes up with a scheme that says "sure, you can get our specs if you sign this license saying that you can't open source _your_ code that implements those specs."
Basically a way to say "grr, ok, you can see our specs but only as long as you're not one of those OSS commies. Then screw you, you can't interface with our products."
"If these protocols can be implemented in Linux without forcing MS's software to be opened under the GPL, they should be forced to do that."
Which is exactly what the EU asked. That's what this fight is all about.
Noone asked MS to provide implementation code of its own, nor to GPL any of its implementation code. It's just basically saying "let others interface with your code." Including, yes, Linux programs, MacOS programs, or whoever else wants to use those protocols.
And MS is basically saying "Nope, no OSS guys will talk to _our_ servers."
That's what this is all about. MS is trying to kill OSS via a license that discriminates against OSS developpers. The EU says "sorry, you can't do that. We said non-discriminating and we meant it."
But again, that never was about GPL-in any of _Microsoft's_ code. It just has to do with whether MS is allowed to say you can't GPL _your_ code (that incidentally calls their APIs or talks to one of their servers via a proprietary MS protocol.)
And frankly, much as I'm not even pro-OSS, I don't think MS should be allowed to decide that. They (think they) make a good OS. Fine. But they shouldn't be in a position to dictate whose programs are allowed to run on it.
Because allowing that is the shortest way to a monopoly.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
"What MSFT is required to do is license their network protocols and provide sufficient documentation to licensees so they can create their own implementations. " Exactly. They still don't have to offer access to there libraries when they don't want to. Third party aps might be required to include redundant libraries separately.
It is 'stealing' their intellectual property. The only problem is that IP is an artificial construct that can be taken away. IP is just a social contract: Society enforces Pantents and Copyrights as far as your use of your rights helps better society in some way. If at any point you break the social contract by abusing your rights, all that the government has to do is stop enforcing IP laws as far as a certain company's IP is concerned. Just like in most european countries the government can expropiate land for a bargain price to build a highway, your IP can be taken away. The difference is you can still use your network standards after you've lost your property, so AFAIK, the government won't pay you a dime.
Did you ever wonder why Brazil has ignored pharmaceutical patents for the last 20 years? What about Chinese and Japanese cloning of American products on the 80s? Governments do it because they can.