Microsoft Sues EU

mormop writes "News.com is reporting that Microsoft is hauling the European Commission into court." The case is in response to "imposed sanctions against the software giant, including a record fine of about $621 million (497 million euro) in March 2004, in a case that also covered the bundling of Microsoft's Media Player with Windows, but the company has not entirely carried them out."

Comments

Inflammatory summary

[gbulmash]

The Slashdot summary seems to be deceptive. According to TFA, the case is "specifically concerning the issue of broad licenses for the source code of communications protocols." To sum it up more succinctly, Microsoft was ordered to open up protocols for print and file sharing and some security tasks to competitors so they could better integrate their products with MSFT server products. Microsoft got this softened to include a provision that the parties they opened up the protocols to could not publish them. Of course, this left all FOSS groups swinging in the wind because they couldn't agree to that provision and remain open source.

Microsoft agreed to let a court rule on the matter and provide more specific guidance, so the case is really about whether these protocols will be available to FOSS projects which could then publish their code that works with the protocols. TFA does not say that the case reaches any broade than that or touches on the $621 million penalties at all.

So what the case really seems to be about is not the whole EU judgement or Microsoft "hauling the EU into court" (an inflammatory phrasing), but Microsoft trying to "open up" the protocols as ordered, yet keep them closed to a certain extent by requiring an NDA from anyone who got access to them.

So, is the Slashdot summary a bit overreaching in its description of Microsoft's actions? IMO, yes. Does it make what Microsoft is doing right? IMO, no. I believe that these protocols are very basic ones and essential to interoperability. By denying them to FOSS projects, they hobble those projects in their ability to compete on an even playing field. The idea behind anti-trust sanctions is to make the playing field more even.

Opening these protocols to FOSS projects is not likely to cause Microsoft irreparable harm. The only danger I could imagine is that opening them will expose a megaplex of holes in the protocols and we'll see a rush of exploits that make the worst Microsoft security issue in its history seem like a minor incident. Then it will harm Microsoft because it will cost them billions in sales as people migrate to non-Microsoft server software to escape the invasion of worms and other exploits poking through those holes.

Re:Inflammatory summary

[hungrygrue]

Opening these protocols to FOSS projects is not likely to cause Microsoft irreparable harm. The only danger I could imagine is that opening them will expose a megaplex of holes in the protocols and we'll see a rush of exploits that make the worst Microsoft security issue in its history seem like a minor incident. Then it will harm Microsoft because it will cost them billions in sales as people migrate to non-Microsoft server software to escape the invasion of worms and other exploits poking through those holes.

It seems likely that that is very close to the argument that Microsoft will be using. They can't, on one hand, point to Linux as their primary competition in the operating systems market as proof that they don't hold a monopoly and, on the other hand, specifically try to prevent FOSS from being able to compete while allowing any and all corporate competitors access to these protocols. That just won't fly. The security argument, though, has at some legitimacy. There is a real concearn there - Their code and design has been a secret for a very long time, and they have been tacking on ever more kludges while trying to maintain as much backward compatibility as possible. The number of potential security holes is hard to immagine.

Re:Inflammatory summary

[op12]

The Slashdot summary seems to be deceptive.

I, for one, am appalled at this strange lapse in what is usually pristine summarizing and editing. Unacceptable!

Re:Inflammatory summary

[gbulmash]

I, for one, am appalled at this strange lapse in what is usually pristine summarizing and editing. Unacceptable!

Is there a "+1 sarcastic as Hell" mod? :-)

- Greg

Re:Inflammatory summary

[GWBasic]

Opening these protocols to FOSS projects is not likely to cause Microsoft irreparable harm...

...except that the paranoid record / movie industry would then not support the given protocols.

Re:Inflammatory summary

[einhverfr]

I actually don't see that as very likely. The bigger issue is that Microsoft *depends* on secrecy and lock-in to hold onto their market in the face of less expensive competition. So yes, opening up the protocols will cause them irreparable harm.

Personally I think that this is a red herring. Projects like Samba are becomming increasingly adept at reverse engineering Microsoft's proprietary protocols. And although I think that Microsoft is trying to dampen these resources with NDA's etc. I think that it will only slow things down slightly. In short, it is too little too late.

Re:Inflammatory summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this punnishment? Isn't it supposed to cause some degree of harm?

Re:Inflammatory summary

[Hosiah]

as people migrate to non-Microsoft server software

And which fairy tale universe does this happen in? LOL, neat post, good points, but sometimes I get the feeling that everybody who gives a thin damn about quality at all, already left Microsoft years ago, and the rest will continue to pay for MS products even if the disks come out of the box blank.

Re:Inflammatory summary

[diegocgteleline.es]

The number of potential security holes is hard to immagine.

Oh, well, stop the FUD. That's what people said when the WHOLE SOURCE CODE of windows 2000 was leaked. And how many holes where found? One. For internet explorer. Which only worked for old versions. Even if you consider that all the holes found affecting windows 2k after that leak are due to the leak, that's a pretty low number for the WHOLE SOURCE CODE. If it's so buggy, where are all those obscure and hidden potential kernel holes, etc etc?

Microsoft CAN write secure code. Just compare IIS 6.0 against apache 2.0 - yes, IIS looks great. They have the money so they can hire the best security people to review the code before going public if they needed it, period.

Re:Inflammatory summary

[einhverfr]

I never said it would be bad to do this, just that it would cause them harm that could not easily be repaired.

Of course collateral estoppel* in the antitrust case in the US is causing them irreparable harm too, but this is good and part of how it affects them,

*IANAL, but this has been explained to me as the principle that facts necessarily decided in one case cannot be relitigated in another unless one can demonstrate that the facts have materially changed. Courts do this to prevent inconsistancy at least in the US. Hence Microsoft cannot relitigate the fact that they have monopoly power in the desktop computer OS market, nor can they relitigate the fact that they have abused that power in an attempt to protect their monopoly. When we say "convicted monopolist" this is largely what we mean (though courts have often referred to other sorts of civil infractions as "civil convictions").

Re:Inflammatory summary

[rgmoore]

I actually don't see that as very likely. The bigger issue is that Microsoft *depends* on secrecy and lock-in to hold onto their market in the face of less expensive competition. So yes, opening up the protocols will cause them irreparable harm.

That isn't irreprable harm, though; that's just having to face the market. Being forced to compete in an actual market is supposed to be the whole point of anti-trust law. It would be ridiculous to find that Microsoft was engaged in anticompetitive behavior but not actually force them to compete as part of the judgment.

Re:Inflammatory summary

[jdogs60]

Opening these protocols to FOSS projects is not likely to cause Microsoft irreparable harm. The only danger I could imagine is that opening them will expose a megaplex of holes in the protocols and we'll see a rush of exploits that make the worst Microsoft security issue in its history seem like a minor incident. Then it will harm Microsoft because it will cost them billions in sales as people migrate to non-Microsoft server software to escape the invasion of worms and other exploits poking through those holes.

Would that not be classified as "irreparable harm"?

Re:Inflammatory summary

[Tim C]

BSD will still allow for this, since they can distribute in binary-only form.

And how exactly is that open source?

Re:Inflammatory summary

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, is the Slashdot summary a bit overreaching in its description of Microsoft's actions? IMO, yes. Does it make what Microsoft is doing right? IMO, no."

First, I think your post was pretty good. Now that I got that out of the way, you seem to make an error in the same vein as the one that your post claims slashdot makes -- and then you seem to draw similar conclusions.

A 3rd party's reporting of a certain action does not have any material bearing on that action. ie. whether or not Slashdot's summary went to far, did not go far enough, was completely accurate or was completely mistaken is inconsequential in terms of Microsoft's actions. At best they are providing opinion, at worst, they are making it difficult to discover the facts of the case. Fortunately, you were helpful in providing some of the context that the summary missed.

Yet, the fact that you don't condone MS and that you go on to suggest why they are wrong actually ends up making the slashdot summary look pretty good. Which is an interesting tactic: bash the slashdot summary only to end up agreeing with it (or at least do the same as it by drawing conclusions based on speculation)

Re:Inflammatory summary

[PhYrE2k2]

The only danger I could imagine is that opening them will expose a megaplex of holes in the protocols and we'll see a rush of exploits that make the worst Microsoft security issue in its history seem like a minor incident. Then it will harm Microsoft because it will cost them billions in sales as people migrate to non-Microsoft server software to escape the invasion of worms and other exploits poking through those holes.

The only thing needing to be opened is the protocol specs, and not the code itself behind it. I'd highly doubt that there are really that many holes in the protocol itself, as it's fairly basic I imagine (some sort of unique ID that needs to be valid on both systems, various info, and a data packet- maybe some encoding methods).

I know M$ has a really bad history, but lets give them some credit to putting more than 10 minutes of thought into something as crucial to their software as the file&print sharing protocol.

-M

Re:Inflammatory summary

[strider44]

Yeah, they should definitely put that one in.

Re:Inflammatory summary

[Alsee]

Well maybe they'll do better when they post the dupe.

-

Re:Inflammatory summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that not be classified as "irreparable harm"?

Nope, its just fair competition.

Fair competition is just business as usual for most companies but if you are a microsoftian, you probably never heard those words before....

Re:Inflammatory summary

[karamellkungen]

In Soviet America the criminals sue YOU!

Re:Inflammatory summary

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why "whole source code" is in caps when it was only fragments of the source code that leaked.

Re:Inflammatory summary

[Shaper_pmp]

It is irreparable harm, but to Microsoft's monopoly and uncontested dominance of the entire PC industry.

Thus, "irreparable harm" is not always a bad thing.

In addition, Microsoft have had a stranglehold on the world's standard PC platform for so long, it's doubtful if they could compete on a level playing field any more - look at ActiveX (the last time they tried to monopolise a new area or medium, in this case rich content on the web). ActiveX has flopped on its arse, in spite of IE's effective monopoly on the browser market, because technologically (and security-wise) it's simply shite.

Vista's another case in point - overblown, over-hyped, stuck in development hell for years, and missing every feature that would make it worth upgrading at launch.

TBH I wouldnt' be surprised if forcing Microsoft to interoperate was the beginning of the end for the company. When forced to play fairly they seem incapable of winning these days...

Re:Inflammatory summary

[Shaper_pmp]

When the bloody thing works one tenth as reliably as the TCP/IP connection on my box, on a home LAN, with only WinXP Home and Pro connected to it, then I'll give them credit for a job well done.

At the moment, with the frequent unreasonably slow transfers and random now-you-see-it-now-you-don't Windows Networking connections to my flatmate's machines (in the next room!), I reserve my right to grouch about it.

I don't know if its the implementation or the design that sucks, but MS are responsible for both of them, and boy do they suck.

Re:Inflammatory summary

[halltk1983]

umm... it said the EU in the summary

Re:Inflammatory summary

[MrCopilot]

I know M$ has a really bad history, but lets give them some credit to putting more than 10 minutes of thought into something as crucial to their software as the file&print sharing protocol.

You must be new here. Make it work. Ship IT. At MS it has always been thus.

The problem is there is no other impetus on campus except to make it work. Ugly kludges and security holes are all hidden behind the proprietary wall. It may even be a constantly embarassing problem, that has to be patched with new ugly proprietary cludges. There may even be "unknown vulnerabilities, not kludged yet.(nobody complains nobody fixes) All these years later, the EU says MS must show there protocols, vulnerabilities and all.

I don't give microsoft credit, they got enough of my money. If they want more they have to change. If IBM can do it, anybody can.

Head this whole thing off. REDHAT Style. OpenSource the next itteration of windows. Start a community project, hmmm take over REACTOS, Fill it full of trademarks and Copyright images and charge 100 bucks for win98 for the next 10 yrs. Eventually someone will rip the trademarks & images out but by that time your n the next Rev.

What's to lose? Dominance? Still bundle with new PCs at a price. Still have (now-Legal) casual copying reinforce your marketshare. Free beta-testers and coders to improve your product. Goodwill from the FOSS world. (Admit it we all would like to see MS become more human and would welcome them to the light side.) The only downside is I can see is the possibility of forking. The fork would not be much of a threat from OED or ODM only if you don't play nice with FOSS.

Maybe I could arrange a meeting with IBM, WindRiver and even a few Apple OSX guys, to help get this point across. Maybe even SUN.

Why all the fighting? Won't someone think of the children?

For DnDers

[Anonymous Coward]

You now have a concrete example of "lawful evil", for anyone who asks.

Someone using bureaucracy to bring the entire process down to a slow enough crawl that by the time it's resolved, it's no longer relevant, thus allowing the company to get away with whatever they want.

While twirling their long waxed moustaches.

Re:For DnDers

[ackthpt]

You now have a concrete example of "lawful evil", for anyone who asks. Someone using bureaucracy to bring the entire process down to a slow enough crawl that by the time it's resolved, it's no longer relevant, thus allowing the company to get away with whatever they want. While twirling their long waxed moustaches.

Actually, what immediately came to mind, while reading your post, was the Crud Puppy in User Friendly, Snidely Whiplash doesn't quite measure up to this kind of legitimized and organized evil.

curses, Dooright!

Re:For DnDers

[Saven Marek]

Welcome to the future of law.

Get pulled over for driving while intoxicated and fined? sue the court that fined you.

Lose that case? sue that court too

etc ad nauseum

Re:For DnDers

[pandrijeczko]

You now have a concrete example of "lawful evil", for anyone who asks.

Funny you should say that because I've always thought of us "Open Sorceror" types as being of chaotic good alignment -which of course happens to be diametrically opposed to lawful evil.

Perhaps some kindly soul her will do D&D monster stats for "The Ballmer Beast" or "Bad Billy the Evil Pixie"...

Re:For DnDers

[nurb432]

This happens all the time, its how the big boys get away with having to conform to the laws.

Its sad really. ( that they get away with it, time after time )

Re:For DnDers

[Jim_Callahan]

Meh, I wouldn't pick any alignment that's not at least half-neutral to align yourself with. Consider:

Lawful Evil: We do the wrong thing on purpose, bacause it benefits someone. Screw the rest.

Chaotic Good: We do the wrong thing by accident or excuse our evil acts by redefining morality. No one benefits, but we can at least whine that it's not our fault.

Chaotic Evil: I'm charmingly straightforward in my ethics, but can't see past the end of my nose.

Lawful Good: Paladins are this alignment. Anyone that's ever played with a habitual paladin-type knows what I'm saying here.

So go for neutral: it's the only alignment set that actually stands some chance of benefitting society rather than destroying the universe.

Re:For DnDers

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

So go for neutral: it's the only alignment set that actually stands some chance of benefitting society rather than destroying the universe.

Yeah, but OTOH paladins can wield Carsomyr against the Lawful Evil Gelatinous Executives, and some of them come with an inherent 50% lawsuit resistance.

Re:For DnDers

[d34thm0nk3y]

Perhaps some kindly soul her will do D&D monster stats for "The Ballmer Beast" or "Bad Billy the Evil Pixie"...

Well, I got the picture to use in the Monster Manual

Re:For DnDers

[quarkscat]

This is not a new tactic for MSFT, either, although they can (perhaps) lay claim to that prior art. The SUN vs MSFT lawsuit regarding Java is but one shining example. The DoJ vs MSFT lawsuit regarding monopoly status was drawn out until a change of venue^H^H^H^H^Hadministration.

While MSFT does not hold a patent on FUD, they do (apparently) hold the business practices patent on "embrace, extend, extinguish".

I hope the the EU reams MSFT "a new one" in court. If MSFT truly wanted to be interoperable with other OSes and applications, they would not hide "their" protocols behind NDAs that even cover their APIs (, let alone sample source code). Such tactics are directly aimed at the F/OSS competition.

Just how hard would it be for the EU to totally ban all MSFT products from their markets for 5 years? No doubt that the WTO would become involved, but it isn't as if MSFT hasn't "dodged the bullet" of real justice before.

Re:For DnDers

[Alsee]

The nine L-ty's of alignity

----+-LAWFUL-+-CHAOTIC
 
GOOD|Legality| Liberty
----+--------+--------
EVIL|Loyalty | Lusty

Lawful Good wants to maximize legalities and rules to create the good, and then tends to assume strict conformance == good. Religions with extensive restrictions of personal conduct would be an excellent example example of Lawful Good. The problem being Lawful Good'ers expect to impose their rules on everyone, and different Lawful Good'ers tend to have different notion of what the rules should be. Different groups of Lawful Good'ers routinely label each other as 'evil'.

Chaotic Good wants to maximise liberties, and tends to be sceptical that the law (especially more than minimal law) inherently defines the right. Hippy and wild west pioneer generosity would be an excellent example of Chaotic Good, and the formation of wild west posses would be an extreme example of Chaotic Good style law enforcement. The problems being (1) general liberty makes it more challenging to catch criminals and (2) potential to disregard laws and rules that are viewed as being wrong.

Lawful Evil wants to maximize loyalties, that the best way to serve his selfish interests is through mutual loyalty and serving his group's selfish interests. The Mafia would be an excellent example of Lawful Evil, and politicians more interested in getting re-elected than in serving the public may fall in this catagory as well. The problem of course being selfish violation of anyone outside the power group.

Chaotic Evil wants to satisfy his personal lusts. He's just out for himself. The common mugger is an excellent example of Chaotic Evil. The problem of course being everyone getting screwed.

And the four neutral combos...
Neutral Good's goals are simply Lofty, the ends justify the means.
Neutral Evil simply Lacks-pity, again the ends justify the means.
Chaotic Neutral simply wants Laxity, leave me the hell alone.
Lawful Neutral takes the law as a Literality simply to maintain order, any set of rules being as valid as any other.

And of course Neutral Neutral, or True Neutral, trying to maintain Longitudinal-stability between all of the other groups.

Ok, I had to reach a bit on some of the last five. Chuckle.

-

Re:For DnDers

[halltk1983]

That was such a beautiful explanation. You hve restored my faith that not all slashdotters are shortsighted (myself included)

Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[Nerd Systems]

It looks like these days, that Microsoft is getting a little scared of the Open Source movement... especially having to share how their server software's communication protocols work. Information of this nature is easily available in the Linux community, yet Microsoft seems to have a very tight leash on their communication protocols.

I wonder what the real underlying reason to all of this legal wrangling is. Is Microsoft really that concerned by Open Source Software putting them out of business, or are they more concerned about the general public seeing how flawed and inefficient their communication protocols are?

It is all good either way to me, I'll stick with my servers all running Linux, with the communication protocols of them freely able to be examined and understood. I also know that my Linux server can handle way more connections and traffic then a Windows server ever could imagine...

It is only a matter of time, before Linux totally takes over the server market, making such legal battles a thing of the past...

Microsoft, stop being a big bully, and start sharing with the little guys...

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[Psiren]

...yet Microsoft seems to have a very tight leash on their communication protocols.

It's just business. Microsoft aren't alone in this sort of thing. Do you think IBM open everything of theirs to their competitors?

...or are they more concerned about the general public seeing how flawed and inefficient their communication protocols are?

Geez, where'd you pull that one from? What has this got to do with anything?

I also know that my Linux server can handle way more connections and traffic then a Windows server ever could imagine...

Really? Have you done any comparisons with your setup and data load, or are you just spouting what you think the Linux zealots want to hear?

It is only a matter of time, before Linux totally takes over the server market, making such legal battles a thing of the past...

I think that highly unlikely. Even if it were to happen, I can't see how it would be a good thing. Replacing one monopoly with another is hardly sensible is it, regardless of how that new monopoly behaves?

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[garcia]

It looks like these days, that Microsoft is getting a little scared of the Open Source movement... especially having to share how their server software's communication protocols work. Information of this nature is easily available in the Linux community, yet Microsoft seems to have a very tight leash on their communication protocols.

These days? I see by your UID that you've not been around on Slashdot all that long (at least w/your current username) but Microsoft has been fearing OSS for years. This is no new development.

Of course they are keeping tight controls on their communications protocols (they always did - SMB). They were never about to open their document formats or networking protocols to the public. Why should they? Their software is only marginally better than any other alternative out there -- it's just that they are the ones that interoperate with it the best because it's their format!

It is only a matter of time, before Linux totally takes over the server market, making such legal battles a thing of the past...

Welcome to 1998. This is exactly the rhetoric being tossed around then. We then moved to Linux taking over the desktop. It's 2005. While I see significant strides on both sides of that coin I don't see us "taking over the market" in either.

Windows will likely always exist. Linux will always be there as well but they certainly won't amass the domination that Microsoft has now.

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[sedyn]

If Microsoft was worried about the public seeing a shitty product produced by them then they sure have a strange way of showing it.

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[RetroGeek]

how flawed and inefficient their communication protocols are

Back in the days of Win95 and OS/2 (v4), I had a application which scanned a directory structure and gathered statistics. I had compiled the source to target both OS/2 and DOS (two executables, one for each OS). It was a command line app. At the time, we had a network traffic analyzer which I could see from my workstation.

Running the app in Win95 (MS-DOS) used about 20% more bandwidth than running the app under OS/2. Both trails were run from the same machine (dual boot) against the same networked machine. AFAIK all parameters were the same except for the OS.

So yes, I believe that the MS network code is less efficient than other OS's network code.

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was 10 years ago, you ignorant troll.

Who cares about Windows 95 anymore?

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[hackstraw]

I see by your UID that you've not been around on Slashdot all that long (at least w/your current username)

A UID is not that much.

I've been reading Slashdot since it was "Chips & Dips" in Rob Malda's dorm room at Hope college, and my UID is in the 200k range. I simply didn't create an account until whenever I did.

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[tarquin_fim_bim]

I wonder what the real underlying reason to all of this legal wrangling is

Being a European, I've never been able to get my head around the whole lawyer vs. lawyer nonsense, who gains, the lawyers. Who loses, the taxpayers that have pick up the lawyers bills. Just fuck off and die quietly Microsoft the EU no longer needs your shit.

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It's just business. Microsoft aren't alone in this sort of thing. Do you think IBM open everything of theirs to their competitors?

For the most part actually, yes they do. IBM has been pretty good about working with open standards for quite a while.

What has this got to do with anything?

It seems like a valid point to me. If MS does not want people to be able to see their protocols they must have a reason. Maybe that reason is to stop interoperability or maybe it is because they are full of security holes or even stolen code. It is perfectly reasonable to speculate as to their motives.

I can't see how it would be a good thing. Replacing one monopoly with another is hardly sensible is it, regardless of how that new monopoly behaves?

You can't have a monopoly on Linux. Thats is most of the point. As open source it will never be locked to one vendor. With an MS monopoly customers are subject to the whims of MS. They pay what MS wants or go without and they are restricted to the features MS is willing to allow. With Linux if one vendor charges too much, you can go with a different vendor and prices reflect the fact that there is competition. If you want functionality added/fixed you can do it yourself or hire anyone you want to do it. You seem to have a very skewed idea of what a monopoly is.

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it a monopoly?

oh thats right, you dont know waht you are talking about

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[Da Twink Daddy]

Replacing one monopoly with another is hardly sensible is it, regardless of how that new monopoly behaves?

I repectfully disagree, on statistical grounds.

Suppose we have a population of entities, and in the population 30% have desirable quality X. Suppose futher that a sample will have desireable quality X if the majority of entities in the sample have quality X. If we take a random sample of size 1, that sample has a 30% chance of having quality X. If we take a random sample of size 3, that sample has a .3^3 + 3*.3^2*.7 = .027 + .189 = .216 = 21.6% change for having quality X. As the size of the sample increases, the chance that it will have quality X decreases.

This means that we are better off having a random monopoly than a random non-monopoly situation, if looking for desirable trait X to be widespread. Of course, if desireable quality X has a test associated with it, it's better to /choose/ your sample.

Now take quality X to be "good"-ness (subjective, I know, but the math still works under an extension that takes this into account, I think). That an entity to be a software provider, and our sample to be server OS providers.

Now, it's clear that it's better to have a random company have a monopoly until it's clear that they don't have "good"-ness. I think it's clear that windows doesn't not have "good"-ness; the jury is still out on linux having the quality or not.

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[John Nowak]

People cooperating from around the world voluntarily and producing an ubiquitous product is ... oh I can't even comment on how dumb you are. "You are dumb." There.

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[Psiren]

For the most part actually, yes they do. IBM has been pretty good about working with open standards for quite a while.

Okay, maybe I picked a poor example. My point was, there are countless software vendors out there that don't open their specs/protocols. Whether you think this is good or bad is another discussion, but picking on Microsoft alone is hardly fair.

It seems like a valid point to me. If MS does not want people to be able to see their protocols they must have a reason. Maybe that reason is to stop interoperability or maybe it is because they are full of security holes or even stolen code. It is perfectly reasonable to speculate as to their motives.

And speculation is all it is, so it's irrelavant as far as I'm concerned.

You can't have a monopoly on Linux. Thats is most of the point. As open source it will never be locked to one vendor. With an MS monopoly customers are subject to the whims of MS. They pay what MS wants or go without and they are restricted to the features MS is willing to allow. With Linux if one vendor charges too much, you can go with a different vendor and prices reflect the fact that there is competition. If you want functionality added/fixed you can do it yourself or hire anyone you want to do it. You seem to have a very skewed idea of what a monopoly is.

Maybe monopoly was too strong a word. It also depends on what you're using the label Linux to refer too, a distribution or the kernel alone. I was assuming the former. Now there are certianly a lot of choices out there for distributions, but lets be honest, they all contain pretty much the same software. My point was really focusing on the technical side, rather than cost. If Linux were to take over the server market entirely, everyone would be using much the same technologies and software. Yes, if you wanted something different you could write it yourself, but theres nothing stopping you doing that on Windows either. Given that Microsoft's approach to technologies is somewhat different to the Linux one, I can only see their complete demise as a bad thing.

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[spence2680]

"It is only a matter of time, before Linux totally takes over the server market, making such legal battles a thing of the past... Microsoft, stop being a big bully, and start sharing with the little guys..."

For some reason, I don't think you have Micrsoft's best interests at heart... :)

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[John Hasler]

> If Linux were to take over the server market
> entirely, everyone would be using much the same
> technologies and software.

There are multiple implementations of just about anything you'd want to run on a Linux server. Unlike Microsoft, Free Software encourages choice.

And if you don't like Linux try one of the BSDs.

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[John Hasler]

In the absence of competition your "goodness" tends to disappear. And a single point of failure is always to be avioded. Monopolies are single points of failure.

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[Psiren]

It looks like I'm not going to win this argument, but just before I go to bed I'll respond to this last one.

There are multiple implementations of just about anything you'd want to run on a Linux server. Unlike Microsoft, Free Software encourages choice.

Yes, absolutely, and for the most part they all interoperate fine, but they're all fundamentally using the same technology - they're all using the same protocols etc. Microsoft approaches it all entirely differently. Whats the equivalent of AD domains in Linux? Group Policies? See, the technology and approach is very different in many ways, and that's what we shouldn't lose. Would it be better if this stuff was more open? Sure, why not. But to lose that alternative approach entirely would just be a bad thing.

Okay, that's all I'm going to say on it.

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[Rod Beauvex]

BLASPHEMER!!!

95 is alive!

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[Chemicalscum]

Windows will likely always exist

Like the dinosaurs, the dodo or homo neanderthalensis.

Linux will always be there as well but they certainly won't amass the domination that Microsoft has now.

Current projections indicate that Linux's share of the server market (total dollar sales of servers preloaded with Linux by the major manufactuers) will exceed that of MS by 2012.

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[killjoe]

"Okay, maybe I picked a poor example. My point was, there are countless software vendors out there that don't open their specs/protocols. Whether you think this is good or bad is another discussion, but picking on Microsoft alone is hardly fair."

Picking on microsoft????? Where have been. This is punishment for criminal activity by Microsoft. When a rapist gets sentenced to jail is it picking on that person? MS is being punished for it's criminal behavior.

"Yes, if you wanted something different you could write it yourself, but theres nothing stopping you doing that on Windows either."

You really don't get it do you. MS is stopping you buy keeping it's core technologies, file formtats, communication pipes etc secret. That does not happen in the open source world.

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[Pecisk]

AD domains = Novell, iPlanet stuff, which actually works much better. Group policies - you can get it now with 2.6 kernel and POSIX ACL support.

Microsoft *claims* to be user friendly, however, I better stick with Samba and it's console tools, because they simply *works*. Microsoft AD domains - Win2, Win2k3 - however, is another story. Sorry, but I have been sick of Microsoft error handling and "black box" mentality.

It is like claiming smoking is actually making you smarter. It is just matter of addiction when you will find a reasons why you want to stick with this and nothing else.

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Yes, absolutely, and for the most part they all interoperate fine, but they're all fundamentally using the same technology - they're all using the same protocols etc. Microsoft approaches it all entirely differently.

You've got that much right, MS approaches it all differently. What usually happens is a new technology emerges from several places. This technology is hampered by the fact that all the different ways of doing it do not work together. The different implementers get together and come to a consensus. They write an official open protocol that is not owned by anyone. Usually at this point MS does not have an implementation although they are often a member of these committees. After everyone signs off on the new protocol they all go back to their respective projects and companies and implement the standard.

...Everyone except MS of course. They go back and write something completely different and closed, or if the market is already entrenched with the new standard something close to the standard but that breaks the standard in important ways. Often they patent those ways. Then they bundle this new protocol or standard with Windows ensuring that no one can sell a competing product unless they have an OS to bundle it with. This makes the MS "broken version" the new de-facto industry standard.

You claim the world is better off with the real standard and the MS standard. I disagree very strongly. There is nothing wrong with competing standards as they drive competition, but when one of them is bundled with a monopoly product, competition is bypassed. How many systems run half-assed, insecure, and buggy protocols because of this illegal behavior on the part of MS? It has slowed down the progress of the industry and killed dozens of new innovations. When the only competitors in a space are companies in that space indirectly (i.e. selling services with an OS, computers with an OS, or giving away an OS for free) instead of directly competing with the monopoly, you know the competitive market is broken. Tabbed browsing windows were introduced more than six years ago and have been standard on every browser but IE for years. 90% of people still do not have the benefit of this improvement because of MS. IE partially implements five year old standards for markup and as a result the whole web is half a decade behind technologically. This applies not only to web standards and protocols, but across the entire software space.

Competing standards are fine. MS does not allow for competing standards or competition in general. They use every dirty trick including breaking the law and bribing politicians to insure that there is no competition and we all suffer for it while they get rich. Making excuses for the company that has single handedly done more damage to the software industry than any other is astounding. Do you still want to be stuck using the same outdated technology in another five years?

Next up

[robyannetta]

Microsoft vs Earth
Microsoft vs The Martians
Microsoft vs Santa Claus
Microsoft vs Mike Nelson, Crow, Tom Servo
Microsoft vs ... Oh, the hell with it.

Re:Next up

[tehshen]

Microsoft vs Hell? They have no chance; all the lawyers are there!

Re:Next up

[hunterx11]

Microsoft vs Santa Claus

You must have missed the memo--the results are in on this one. It may be months away, but I hope you have a happy Christosoft.

Re:Next up

[IcyNeko]

Microsoft Vs Godzilla & Mothra
Microsoft Vs Mike Tyson's Punch-Out

Re:Next up

[Mr. Underbridge]

Microsoft vs Mike Nelson

I think you're thinking of Mike Rowe and his company.

Re:Next up

[zakkie]

Actually, it's easier to say has been, is and will always be

Microsoft vs everyone else

Ciao

Zak

Re:Next up

[alefbet]

Microsoft vs Hell? They have no chance; all the lawyers are there!

But which one is "they" and which one is "there"?

Re:Next up

[LordKaT]

Maybe he was thinking of Satna Calus vs. The Martians ... But that would be Microsoft vs. Joel Robinson

Re:Next up

[lilmouse]

No worries, Gates bought out Satan about 5 years ago - didn't you hear about that?

--LWM

Re:Next up

[jstockdale]

Microsoft vs Hell?

So, I'm kinda confused, why again would Microsoft sue themselves?

*ducks*

-S ...

Re:Next up

[Anonymous Coward]

I know but I would hope that at least Satan would be able to overpower a bunch of MS lawyers.

It's a joke. Laugh.

Re:Next up

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft vs Hell? They have no chance; all the lawyers are there!

Yes, I almost feel sorry for the Devil...

monopolist sues regulatory body

[tota]

what next?

Re:monopolist sues regulatory body

[goldspider]

"what's next?"

Slashbot story submitter forsakes sensationalist rhetoric and accurately represents story with headline and summary.

I won't be holding my breath.

So now...

[jellomizer]

So now you can Sue People who don't buy and use your products. Because they didn't buy and use their products. That sounds rather monopolistic to me.

Re:So now...

[goldspider]

No, but i'll wager the grammar police will want to have a few words with you.

Re:So now...

[sconeu]

So now you can Sue People who don't buy and use your products. Because they didn't buy and use their products.

Yep. It's been done. Bus line sues women for car-pooling.

Re:So now...

[cp.tar]

Looking at parent and grandparent... checking message text... checking .sigs...

Oh, my...

Re:So now...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Microsoft is not suing anyone for not buying and using their products. That's not the reason they are filing a suit.

2. One entity can sue any other entity for any reason. I can sue you for being fugly. That's not to say the judge wouldn't throw it out, but I certainly am allowed to do it. This isn't a new thing, btw, that's what the law has always allowed for. There's no 'so now you can do this or that', there's only you not knowing what the reality is.

Thanks for posting, and better luck next time.

Re:So now...

[Jim_Callahan]

It is. Good thing that has absolutely nothing to do with the case the article is discussing.

urgh - stupid sensationalist crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft and the Commission decided to leave the issue to the Court of First Instance.

"This filing is the result of the agreement reached with the Commission in June to put this particular issue to the court for guidance and to avoid any further delay in the process," a Microsoft representative said of the filing.

aka, there's no need for terms like "hauling into court"

In Soviet Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

uh.. eh, forget it.

Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

This time, Microsoft has blundered. The only entity that has more cash than Microsoft is a national or quasi-national government. The European Union can outspend Microsoft any day.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Timesprout]

Fuck that. I dont want my taxes going to some lawyer to play legal games with MS. We are putting a European army together now, this is probably as good time to test that it works. Lets try fighting instead of legal wrangling.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

Yeah, right.. European army.
This is a fallacy, not one single power in Europe has agreed to such a thing and it's doubtful they ever will. At most you're looking at closer military cooperation in the future akin to NATO, however for the most part all the cooperation pieces are in place.

Pretty much every single European nation balks at the idea of a European army, there are so many barriers and nightmares as to make it next to impossible.

First you've got the basic language barrier, then you've got the equipment barrier. You may think that everybody in western europe has standardised on certain types of ammunition but think again, as an example standard 5.56mm bullets for the British SA-80 (L85A2) actually cause jamming problems, so much so that the SA-80 now using its own type of 5.56mm ammunition.
You've also got vehicles and national pride issues, everybody is going to want to use their tanks or their APC's for the European army. So, again you'll have people bickering over which percentage of a nations make of tank is used rather than the best one for the job, you'll also have the issues of ammunition again. Western European tanks use 120mm rounds, East European tanks use 125mm rounds adding to logistical headaches.

It goes on and on, it's safe to say there will never be a European army. The closest we'll ever see is something akin to NATO and a rapid reaction force.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Celt]

Hmm I don't know about that,
Here in Ireland we could do with more then 3 Navy ships...we don't have any decent miltary planes to speak of, as for tanks we have a good few Scorpion tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpion_(tank)) alright but other then that nothing worth talking about.

Oh shit! Maybe MS will invade us first when the EU starts a war against them :P

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Maybe MS will invade us first when the EU starts a war against them :P"

Nope, they already own you. Look who bribed^H^H^H^H^H^H"sponsored" your government's presidency of the EU while the big push for software patents was going on.

Has your government no pride ?

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

If I was in Irelands position, i'd not bother with a Navy, heavilly armoured vehicles or modern fighter aircraft and focus more on support aircraft and a support infrastructure. (Providing support to NATO/European military operations)
Ireland faces no immediate threats and has the UK and western Europe to act as a buffer between itself and any possible threats.
Ireland simply does not have the economic clout to have modern armed forces spanning the entire spectrum of aircraft, vehicles and ships.

And anyway, Iceland would most likely be the first to be invaded. It's in a strategic spot. ;)

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[gallir]

> Oh shit! Maybe MS will invade us first.

It's done. Ask your politicians, especially those in Dublin.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear of the UN? It works just fine.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[DiscoDave_25]

Does America count as a threat?

After all you're OUR buffer to them here in the UK...

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Excen]

We are putting a European army together now, this is probably as good time to test that it works.

Right. The French would drag the entire organization down with their whining over poor food, the whole shooting-guns-thing, and the fact that they couldn't just roll over like their cheese-eating forefathers.

And I'm not even going to go touch what the Amsterdam regiment is going to do to motivation. . .

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[TeknoHog]

First you've got the basic language barrier, then you've got the equipment barrier.

How can NATO work, then?

There's a significant overlap between NATO and EU already, so anything that stands in the way of an EU army should be a problem for NATO as well.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[flyingsquid]

We are putting a European army together now, this is probably as good time to test that it works. Lets try fighting instead of legal wrangling.

I can see the dispatches now:

"Reports are coming in that Microsoft's rapid assault has caught the Polish Army off guard and put them into full retreat. Vladimir Putin expressed little concern over a suspicious buildup of Microsoft tanks along the Russian border, citing assurances from Bill Gates that Microsoft would honor the recently signed Microsoft-Russia nonagression pact. Throughout Microsoft-held territory, police went door-to-door rounding up Mac users for internment in camps. The French reported that their retreat-and-surrender operation was proceeding brilliantly, despite a massive shortage of white flags."

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Woah, did you hear that? That was the joke going way above your head.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[coopaq]

everybody is going to want to use their tanks or their APC's for the European army.

"Enemy APC Spotted!"

"We've got company overhead!"

oh my bad... you said said European army. Not in BF2.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[mpcooke3]

Quite.

What a naive idea. Imagine British soldiers fighting alongside the French.

We'd kill each other before we even saw the enemy.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[GrahamCox]

so much so that the SA-80 now using its own type of 5.56mm ammunition

Yep, it's actually 5.55mm, problem solved... :)

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, that was my first thought.
Iceland is a non-issue, Iceland's defence is mostly provided for by the US (ever allied with a computer player in Red Alert, built teslas in their base, then unallied?)
Which does leave Ireland as the buffer state. For a potential war against the US, I agree, for a smaller economic power such as Ireland (with a population of only 4 million, a GDP to match and tourist as it's largest economy) high-tech warfare systems are beyond reach (the entire Irish defence budget in a year would cover 9 Eurofighters and no personnel).
Ireland's priorities would be protecting the south end of the Irish sea & the bay of Biscae with France & the UK and the north end of the Irish sea with the UK (being an essential supply link. This would be accomplished with smaller vessels (frigate/corvette sized with destroyers for backbone) primarily to provide airscreen, small torpedo-boat type vessels to attack other ships and a few aircraft (for recon, enemy-recon interception, potshot-flybys of limited numbers of enemy ships and to break up enemy air attacks).
Besides that Ireland would be useful as base for larger nations forces, except for one minor issue, most of western ireland is either bog or mountain - there's lots of open space but most of it would be pretty difficult to utilise (but not impossible). So, with most of the other European powers air forces stationed in western Ireland, it would be hard to bomb. Now, the local geography could prove valuable to navies, there is HUGE space between the peninsulas offering some protection from the sea, but also land either side of the water - proper placement of missile batteries should make a successful attack on the ships virtually impossible. There are currently 5 aircraft carriers owned by European nations which could park themselves between the peninsulas and provide additional air defence. The entire fighter force that they would have to deal with would be carrier-launched only, (working on a 'let 'em come' strategy), which probably comes to around 60 aircraft per carrier (total count is 85, but that includes non-combat aircraft). The enemy aircraft would be succeptable to their host-carriers being destroyed.
The mountains of the area do go very close to the sea so could be ideal places to build protected coastal defence installations (they also make it really hard to attack stuff at ground level with a plane, if either flies in high where it can't actually hit the target, or it comes in low over the mountain and is a free kill for an AA equipment set up on it.)
Even if enemy forces were able to fight as far as the coast an invasion would be very hard, mountains almost as soon as they get inland, closely followed by bogs (which are slow to traverse and nearly impossible to take heavy vehicles on) and (no offence to Ireland) pretty poor road infrastructure, there's practically no dual carriageway east of Cork.

However, the US does have some advanatages:
1) It's already well entrenched in Europe, although this could also be a curse if the troops were forced to surrender as the US would be without several thousand troops.
2) Lots of European high-tech equipment is actually US built, Tomahawks, Sidewinders, Patriot missiles, etc. Once they're fired you don't get any more. But there are good homegrown alternatives, the exocet for example
3) Stealth (aka cheating in queensbury rules warfare). The current generation of stealth aircraft is ~15 years old and can be spotted by the latest radar
4) Long-range bombing, something Europe simply doesn't posses, unless we get Russia in
5) European aircraft carriers are all very small, the largest bearing 40 aircraft, larger ones are due to come online for at least a decade
6) Noone in Europe seems to keep mothball fleets, whereas the US call pull the USS Iowa back out, Europe has all it's cards on the table.
7) Food, a vast amount of the world's wheat is grown in Canada, which might be hard to get at.

Of course, there's no predicting what would hap

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[PickyH3D]

Wouldn't Russia have invaded Poland from the East due to the secret pact in the agreement?

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Romans managed it... ...well sort of

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Catbeller]

And the Americans report that although disaster relief following the invasion is as good as could possibly be expected, the real responsiblity lies with the local governments, who forgot to inform the President of the invasion in a timely matter; documents signed by the President indicating his knowledge of the impending decimation of the Apple headquarters notwithstanding. Not that they would play a "blame game", of course. And it's Clinton's fault, ultimately, senior adminstration officials say in an off-the-record interview. And no one could possibly have expected this move.

Newsweek magazine reports that White House officals dithered for three days following the Gate attack bomber wings, debating the proper legal role of the Federal government in local disaster relief. Consensus opinion ultimately was in favor of local responsiblity for local disasters, with the Federal government reserving its forces, thus teaching the Americans on the ground the value of the need for separation of state and federal powers, leaving them an incentive to learn critical self-reliance.

Bush announced that Cheney will head the investigation of his administration's failure in the face of Redmon's long-anticipated invasion. All other hearings on administrative failure have been cancelled by House Speaker Hastert.

The French assistance for Americans under seige at HP at the very beginning of the invasion does not seem to occupy the short-term memories of the American combatants, who persist in calling them "surrender monkeys" in spite of all evidence of French military assistance for the last four years in Afghanistan.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the EU already at war with Microsoft - specifically biological war?

Most of the computer viruses are aimed squarely at Microsoft products and are developed in the EU, right?

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[robertjw]

Umm.. No.

From good ol wikipedia's entry on WWII
the exact date at which the war commenced differs between historians, with the most common date given as the German invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939

You need to play more WWII video games, everybody knows that the Germans invaded Poland, made a pact with Russia (that they later broke) and the French surrendered after about 2 minutes of fighting.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Vulcann]

Pretty much every single European nation balks at the idea of a European army, there are so many barriers and nightmares as to ...

While I agree that you're points seem problematic, consider India's military as a working case where these issues do not present a problem.

India has about 10 times (or more) the number of languages under its hood than all of the EU and North America put together. Its military hardware while largely Russian, has Israeli, American, British and French and indigenous Indian hardware pretty widely distributed within it. As far as national pride goes about whose hardware goes where, I doubt if that would be a bickering point for long. It'll be the survival of the fittest. Clearly inferior products wont survive.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Green Salad]

...Oh shit! Maybe MS will invade us first when the EU starts a war against them...

May I assume the EU war staffers are using Excel, Word and Outlook to plan their war against MS?

The MS invasion strikes me as a done deal.

Unlike you Europeans, my tin-foil hat has a grounding strap!

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

NATO is not an army, NATO is a loose alliance of nations.
There are big differences between an army and an alliance, with an army you have integrated units working side by side. Under NATO operations each country has its own area of operations, for example Kosovo etc.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[KDR_11k]

And the whole discussion is pointless as both sides have ICBMs.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[stupidkiwi]

I thought that the previous poster said "European Army". in this part of the world (New Zealand) we see England as the Fifty First State of USA. We see France and Germany being the core of the future European Army.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Larsing]

Does it, now..?

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[koi88]

Does America count as a threat?

Well, if Bush thinks there might be terrorists, be afraid (so don't tell him about the IRA!).
You know, preemptive strikes against "possible threats" are official policy now.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Thomas Miconi]

What a naive idea. Imagine British soldiers fighting alongside the French.

We'd kill each other before we even saw the enemy.

No way !

We'd be too busy bashing the Germans !

Thomas-

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Elektroschock]

Bullshit, there are NATO standards. And who cares about such minor issues? After all it is about national contingents who get applied together.

Each tank unit caries its own ammunition. It is no problem with screws, why shall it be with ammunition?

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so they have an army. Care to name some military victories for which this Indian army is best known?

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[PickyH3D]

Heh, there was a secret agreement in the non-aggression pact involving Poland between Germany and Russia, which was made so that Russia could have roughly half of it. This was to disorganize the Russian army (short notice) so that Germany could more easily defeat it. History is fun ... not the most reliable source, but a source nonetheless. I do not have time to find a better one.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

Holy crap, Microsoft now has nuclear weapons and ICBMs?! ;)

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

that freaking game ROCKS.

I like the tanks much better than APC's....

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[KDR_11k]

Not directly but they own someone who does.

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[brettper]

and the French surrendered after about 2 minutes of fighting.
Actually it was more like six weeks but who's counting?

Re:Deeper pockets than Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Despise US does its best to sabotage it, it still works. With all the cccp spies gone there is no balance in the corruption anymore.

2005 War Begins

[ackthpt]

Counsel: We get signal.
European Commission: What!
Counsel: Main screen turn on.
European Commission: It's you!!
Gates: How are you gentlemen!!
Gates: All your base are belong to us!

Re:2005 War Begins

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I was going to mod this topic but I have a question

How is this even REMOTELY funny? maybe it was fun like 5 years ago, but all this crap (Simpsons, futurama, family guy, whatever) gets modded up every damn time.

WHY!?!

Re:2005 War Begins

[xoboots]

You are right, that wasn't funny. Still, I think there is a big difference between something like that "joke" and the various Simpsons references that one is apt to see. A Simpsons reference (or similar) is almost invariably given as a verbatim quote used in context. They aren't really jokes -- they are supporting evidence. The Simpsons are typically quoted today in the same way that Shakespeare or Kierkegaard once were. They provide a common point of reference.

On the other hand, these "all your base", "in soviet russia", "beowolf cluster", "insensitive clod" type 'jokes' are simply rehashing of a situation molded to the subject at hand. It is the lamest possible joke of all -- repeating someone else's witicism just after they said it but in the wrong context. Slashdot can claim to have invented an even lamer version of that by combining that form of "humour" with the other lamest form of humour, perpetuation. Actually, perpetuation can be funny -- but usually only when done very well and by very skilled comedians and it typically requires some fresh material at its base.

Anyways, the end result leaves one reminded of Hollywood's incessant use of fart jokes. Hey, maybe it isn't a slashdot phenomenon after all.

Re:2005 War Begins

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the insensitive clod-joke WAS a simpsons-joke?

Bottom of the Page

[Landshark17]

At the bottom of the page there's a button for "Microsoft Alerts"

Do I really need to say it?

Re:Bottom of the Page

[merreborn]

At the bottom of the page there's a button for "Microsoft Alerts"

Do I really need to say it?

Um... Yes.

Talk About Duh ?

[burdicda]

Microsoft suing the EU in a European Courtroom...
Whos.....they must be smokin some of their software

Re:Talk About Duh ?

[cpghost]

Microsoft suing the EU in a European Courtroom...

It's not unusual for EU institutions to loose lawsuits before european courts. That's why they too employ an army of lawyers.

Re:Talk About Duh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

..crack?

Re:Talk About Duh ?

[Elad Alon]

I thought people sue the state all the time.

If you can get them?

[phorm]

So my understanding is that if somebody asks, MS must open the protocols and provide info. What's the point of an NDA if anyone else could get the disclosure from Microsoft? Who are you hiding it from?

Re:If you can get them?

[TLLOTS]

It keeps open source from using the information protected by those NDA's. Why? Because if they implement code into their open source projects based on information they gain by agreeing to the NDA, then they cannot publish the source code (and thereby have it as open source) without essentially violating the NDA.

Wow...

[sdirrim]

Is this but another step for Microsoft's world domination?

I for one welcome our new corporate overlords

[scenestar]

Even though the chance of MSFT winning is small (europe has a powerfull yet "sane" government) But If they were to beat the EU into submission it should be considered the dawn of the european era in which corporations are more powerfull than governments.

Re:I for one welcome our new corporate overlords

[deaddrunk]

In comparison to most of the governments in the world. I'd rather be a Briton in Europe than say a Christian in Pakistan or a black man in the USA.

Re:I for one welcome our new corporate overlords

[DDiabolical]

europe has a powerfull yet "sane" government

Wow, I just don't know where to start. It might be easier to just shoot you and be done with it.

Re:I for one welcome our new corporate overlords

[WilliamSChips]

black man in the USA.

s/black/poor/

Re:I for one welcome our new corporate overlords

[twiddlingbits]

We have some black men over here who have done pretty good for themselves such as Supreme Court Justice, Secetary of State, CEO of major corporations, etc. Can't say a Christian in Pakistan could accomplish that! A Briton in Europe perhaps. And by the way we provide Government everything for our poor, I'm sure Pakistan doesn't and I have no clue about the welfare systems in the EU. So black man in American is NOT the worst thing to be. I would say being a Christian FEMALE in Saudi would be much worse.

Re:I for one welcome our new corporate overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

How in the hell does sensationalist, racist stuff like that get modded "insightful"? How do you know how a Christian is treated in Pakistan? Have you been there? Have you talked to Christian missionaries who have gone there? Worse than that, you are helping to fuel racism and forcing the divide between the colors by making what I'm assuming is a joke (yes, I understand sarcasm). It is sad that comments like that are even made. It lends credibility to the diarrhea that people like Al Sharpton and Kanye West are spewing about New Orleans. Why don't we all try to be people and stop seeing colors and divides?

Re:I for one welcome our new corporate overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

s/Christian/idiot

So far as I'm concerned the more dead religious people the better (even if that means blowing themselves up)

Re:I for one welcome our new corporate overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't say a Christian in Pakistan could accomplish that! Please find proof of this, before making generalizations.

Re:I for one welcome our new corporate overlords

[Nf1nk]

There is a saying about an exception proving a rule. In this case it is sadly true, To say that others have it worse than american blacks, is not to say that they do not have it bad. Saying chirstian women ia saudi have it worse is a lot like saying, "it could be worse, it could be raining". As a nation, and as a world, we need to work to provide everyone with the educational resouces to succeed, but we need to do it without quotas, or forced integration. This is not an easy thing to do.

Re:I for one welcome our new corporate overlords

[Jim_Callahan]

Eh, they don't have it bad. Being poor can screw you over a good bit in the old US of A, but being black makes practically no difference anymore. Even being poor here just means you can only afford 2 packs of cigarettes a day instead of 5, a 36-inch TV instead of a 20-foot projector system, and a car that's five years old instead of 6 months old. Of course, being black means you would have to put up with annoying activist organizations insisting that you can't make it on your own and need a handout, which I know would annoy the hell out of me if I was its target...

Oh, wait, this is /.. Yes, clearly America is a totally facist country that hates black people and females, and it has been ever since Bush went back in time with the help of the lich-king of the illuminati to use a mind-control beam powered by the blood of dead iraqui orphans to coerce the founding fathers into basing the nation on personal responsi^W^W corporate hedgemony. Vive la Revolucion!

Re:I for one welcome our new corporate overlords

[Dausha]

Would you rather be a poor man in Mexico or Indonesia?

Re:I for one welcome our new corporate overlords

[WilliamSChips]

Your point is right, but it is not the point of my comment. My comment was that class is a much more important factor than race in the USA. A rich black American would have it much better than a poor white American. (And yes, a poor Mexican or Indonesian would have it much worse than both. But that's still not my point)

Re:I for one welcome our new corporate overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

...like Condolezza Rice? Bill Cosby? ? Tiger Woods? etc, etc, etc?

Very retard comparison. It'd been better to say a muslim in America (or in a non-muslim country these days, to be realistic)

Re:I for one welcome our new corporate overlords

[deaddrunk]

Ahmadis in Pakistan who proselytise or preach Christianity are routinely persecuted. My source is from the UK government's Country Information Policy Unit. Not racist, merely true.

Re:I for one welcome our new corporate overlords

[deaddrunk]

Not really since those are the exceptions.

I Have a Question

[Mateo_LeFou]

You know how every few days/weeks some Microsoft executive is being interviewed and/or making a stump speech about how intensely devoted they are to interoperability?

Where the Hell is anyone who knows anything about anything? Why is it the only non-slashdot place I've seen them get called out is in the Opera guy's blog?

Seriously. This is a question about journalism, viz: Is there any (journalism)?

Re:I Have a Question

[Bender Unit 22]

right on.
closed standards are how they can control the market and make life difficult for open source.
People in general should be focusing on open standards more than open source since we need that before we truely could get the freedom to choose the software we please.

Re:I Have a Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry - that's ciritical thought against Microsoft. We'll have to put you down on the "Zealot" list now. And I think we'll check "mother's basement" and "smelly" down by your name just to be sure.

For future reference, you meant to say "boy - I'm sure glad the mainstream media accepts RATIONAL truth and ignores irrational demands for interoperability with inferior, hobbiest software." We would also accept "boy, do my Dockers feel nice." Say it with a straight face - we'll be watching.

So in a nutshell..

[ackthpt]

So in a nutshell, it's Microsoft's business as usual: Lock down proprietary formats to ensure future revenue streams.

Not surprising, this is why they want their pwn XML standard. They actually demonstrate very little faith in the merits of their products, such as MS Office, by such acts.

Re:So in a nutshell..

[PickyH3D]

Even though they have made it, the MS-XML standard is still open.

Re:So in a nutshell..

[ajs318]

If you make washing machines, you can design them so the bearings will wear out eventually and so your customers will have to buy a new one. If you make VCRs, you can design them so the heat rising from the electronics causes the rubber tyre on the idler wheel to perish eventually and so your customers will have to buy a new one. If you make cars, you can design them so they rust in certain places and so your customers will have to buy a new one. If you make gas boilers, you can design them so the heat exchanger eventually clogs up with limescale, or corrodes through and begins leaking, or the power supply circuit on the motherboard overheats, and so your customers will have to buy a new one.

And if you time it right, the customer probably won't even suspect that it was deliberate. They'll just come back to you and buy another one, again carefully designed to break down in future, and believe this one will last forever; just like those women who keep going back to husbands that beat them up, because this time he really has changed, he really means it.

But with software, there are no moving part or other bits to wear out: once a user has a copy of a piece of software, it's as good as the day they first got it, forever, and there is no chance to build in obsolescence ..... or is there?

By changing the file format, so that files created with newer versions of the software cannot be loaded into older versions, Microsoft can create something akin to a built-in time bomb. You can stick with Word 97, say; it might serve your needs more than adequately, but sooner or later someone you know is going to get a new PC and that will have a newer version of Word on it. And while it can deal with your old Word 97 files, getting it to save files that Word 97 can read is deliberately made a royal PITA: the option is hard to find in the first place, and you get discouraging requesters with dire warnings of data loss &c. All of a sudden, the Word 97 with which you've been quite happily chugging along since the days of dot matrix printers, Britpop on LPs, movies on VHS cassettes and skinning up under a table upstairs in the Havana club is no good, just because it can't read your friend's documents which were created in a newer version of Word. A version which was deliberately designed to be incompatible with your copy, which in turn was deliberately designed to be incompatible with previous versions.

And the only thing allowing Microsoft to get away with this is the fact that their file formats are locked up. Otherwise you could write a few lines of perl {or whatever language they use on windows} just to strip out the bits Word 97 really can't handle, and not have to pay for a new copy of Microsoft Office. Or if the file formats were designed from the outset with graceful degradation in mind, you probably wouldn't need even to do that.

How?

[abrotman]

How in the hell does Bill Gates walk around with such enormous balls?

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

He has special ball-carrying equipment.

Re:How?

[Alien Being]

Steve: There is a pestilence upon this land. Nothing is sacred. Even those who carry balls are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.

Bill: Did you say 'balls'?

Steve: Yes. Balls are my trade. I am a Ballmer. My name is 'Steven the Ballmer'. I arrange, support, and transport balls.

Re:How?

[msdschris]

I taught him long ago.

Re:How?

[TeknoHog]

At least it should be easier for EU to kick him in the nuts this time :D

Re:How?

[MrCopilot]

How in the hell does Bill Gates walk around with such enormous balls?

He rolls around on them, obviously.

Re:How?

[bhsx]

That is the strangest bit of fantasy dialogue I've ever read. EVER!
Kudos

On the surface

[kerohazel]

It's interesting because, on the surface, Microsoft appears to be actually loosening up a bit about its fistful of secrets. "Why don't we set down some general rules about who can see our code, and let the courts decide on a case-by-case basis?"

It almost had me fooled, too. Then I remembered that Microsoft, with its army of lawyers, would surely turn any lawsuit with a small F/OSS group into a circus. It seems MS doesn't even have to push through its agenda these days, all it has to do is agree to looser terms and then throw money at it to tighten it further.

Oh, and first /. post. :)

Re:On the surface

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft, with its army of lawyers

I don't know how old you are, but some of us remember a time before the evil empire had an army of lawyers. That was a time before the Clinton/Reno Justice Department decided to repay their political supporters in Silicon Valley by hauling MS into anti-trust court

I've observed MS for many years. There is one word that describes them: "relentless". Their relentlessness is how MS has always crushed all opposition; not by being better, or stronger, but by never ever giving up, and continuing until the opposition runs out of food and water.

With anything that MS does:
Version 1 is a joke.
Version 2 is still pretty pathetic.
Version 3 is an "also-ran".
Version 4 is poised to be the leader.
Version 5 crushes all.

MS Legal is still at version 3. They've just barely begun to fight yet.

I predicted the horrors that would come to pass if MS ever discovered that there was such a thing as a court system. It saddens me that my prediction was right. Pandora's box has been opened, and I doubt that we'll ever see MS go back to sleep in the legal arena.

Re:On the surface

[Alsee]

Oh, and first /. post. :)

And this is the second! Woohoo! :)

-

Re:On the surface

[Elektroschock]

It is certainly intresting how far they go.

Think of a person who gets convicted in court, then asks the government to revise the court verdict, then sues the court for compension.

The whole verdict against microsoft shows who weak competition policy actually is. And you can expect that the EU Commission will get angry about them.

At the swpat debate a bunch of stupid MS lobbyists already crossed the line. MS has huge corporate affairs problems in the EU and this will get worse for them. The more people they get involved the more they lose.

George W. Bush coordinates federalaid: +1, True

[Anonymous Coward]

Coordinate my @ss.

Defend America: Deport "President" George W. Bush To The United Kingdom.

Patriotically as always,
Kilgore Trout, M.D.

Right because Microsoft says so...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft and the Commission decided to leave the issue to the Court of First Instance. "This filing is the result of the agreement reached with the Commission in June to put this particular issue to the court for guidance and to avoid any further delay in the process," a Microsoft representative said of the filing.

aka, there's no need for terms like "hauling into court"

Riiiiiiiiiiight. Because a Microsoft representative said they were asking the court for guidance. So you see, it's just a friendly chat with a Judge, maybe a few attorneys and possibly a jury. That's all. They just want some guidance. Just wanna "know the lay of the land." Ya know? Just wanna "feel things out." Nice and casual. Just a couple of depositions, maybe seek some damages -- nothing fancy. No need to make a big deal out of it. They just want some neighborly, legally-binding advice.

No, its Microsoft's plan for World Damnation

[stuffduff]

That's 16 Tonnes, thank you!

Thank you !

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but i'll wager the grammar police will want to have a few words with you.

It always makes me laugh to see a grammar flame that is grammatically incorrect.

Re:Thank you !

[aaza]

AC, please enlighten us as to how the "flame" is grammatically incorrect. Aside from the non-capitialisation of the first-person personal pronoun, which I put down to a broken keyboard, what is wrong with the sentence as stated?

Next time, please include your explanation with your laughter, as it makes it easier for everyone to not make the same mistakes in the future. This is how we learn.

Microsoft's interoperatility

[diegocgteleline.es]

Microsoft's interoperability plans are: "We want to support as much stuff from other as we can, but we DON'T want anyone to support our own stuff"

They REALLY don't want to open those protocols.

Re:Microsoft's interoperatility

[GrungyLotG]

I have a feeling if these protocols were opened, little would be achived. Everyone knows the next "critical security update" would block any non-MS clients by default, and make you jump through 25 dialogs to change this setting. What I do agree with, however, is the position that communication protocols should not beable to remain closed. By locking clients into one product, it greatly limits the number of competitors: No products could emerge that can be compatable with this software.

Re:Microsoft's interoperatility

[Anonymous Coward]

Like adding OpenDocument support to MS Word?

I R LINUX FAN BOI

[Anonymous Coward]

I R LINUX FAN BOI

ScuttleMonkey needs to RTFA once in a while

[Anonymous Coward]

This is I think the third or fourth time this week I'vee seen ScuttleMonkey edit together a story that blows the linked article's content way out of proportion. ScuttleMonkey isn't the only editor who does this of course, just the one I've noticed recently.

Come on editors.. Hitting the paranoia button is not only a good way to generate (speculative, innacurate) discussion and get people to see more ads but it's also a great way to lose your readership.

Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source? -- YES

[Skiron]

I still believe the whole issue of why they will not release certain criteria, and also the extreme delays they suffer fromis due to them using FOSS/OSS/GPL stuff.

Why re-invent the wheel (not that MS ever did, but you get my drift)?

I think they have certain stuff in their code _they_ cannot allow to be viewed due to this - hell, if you got a monopoly then what is there to be scared of? Nothing...

Linux

[BeanThere]

Replacing one monopoly with another is hardly sensible is it

"Linux" is not a monopoly and can never be .. there are DOZENS if not hundreds of companies supplying Linux, working on Linux, supporting Linux, improving Linux etc., and due to the Linux, it will always be this way. Always.

The GPL levels all uneven market entry barriers - anyone can get in to the market, and everyone can come in at exactly the same level as existing players, because the entire codebase of each competitor is available.

This calls for an Upper Deck

[Anonymous Coward]

I've often said there is nobody I'd do that to. But now that I think about it...

correction

[diegocgteleline.es]

"IIS 6.0 against Apache 2.0

Re:correction

[diegocgteleline.es]

Oh well, slashdot breaks the links. Whatever. http://secunia.com/product/73/ and http://secunia.com/product/1438/

Who cares...

[Anonymous Coward]

This will all be meaningless in 10 years when we are buying new computers pre-installed with Open Source software instead of being forced to use Windows. Microsoft has gone from market domination to downright bed wetting in the past 5 years... it's only going to get worse for them unless they play ball, and playing ball means they interoperate with Open Source. The writing is on the wall, and they know it. They are just trying to stall while still making a buck at this point.

Re:Who cares...

[trewornan]

Sorry but that's dead wrong. Microsoft are fighting real hard at this point, they're just doing it quietly so as not to "legitimise" open source. They're attacking on multiple fronts ... software patents, DRM, trusted computing, document formats, changing protocols and of course a ceaseless stream of FUD. Microsoft think they can take out open source and they're trying to buy the legislation they need right now.

Access to what documentation exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone considered that perhaps they simply don't have docs which are complete and accurate enough to allow a reliable reimplementation? I mean, how old is SMB/CIFS? How many kludges has it got tacked on? Where do you get the idea that, at this point, anyone could write a spec for that protocol that accurately and completely describes how it behaves short of just forking over the code?

From a PR standpoint, having this come out would be bad. But with an NDA, no one will ever be able to tell the story.

Re:Access to what documentation exactly?

[kerohazel]

That isn't the issue. Microsoft is forking over material related to their protocols, and they're not allowing the recipients to redistribute the material. Be it code or protocol docs, it's the same problem. And from the sound of the article, an NDA is exactly what Microsoft is using to keep competitors' mouths shut.

Re:Access to what documentation exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Want accurate documentation? Have you talked to the people behind www.samba.org?

Regards

Re:George W. Bush coordinates federalaid: +1, True

[masklinn]

No thanks, please ship him to Venezuela instead, they'll more than likely welcome him with much joy and parties and feasts.

Oh brother

[Anonymous Coward]

"Lets try fighting instead of legal wrangling."

Dude, other than Germany and England, there's not a decent soldier in Europe.

Oh wait. The French. Bwahahahahahaha.

Re:Oh brother

[trewornan]

I've got to take issue with that - what about the Danes, the Poles, the Finns, etc. We'd just have to hope the French, Italians, etc sided with the US.

Microsoft Student

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the slashdot review of Microsoft Student, which is supposed to be quite a nice app?

Or does slashdot only report on the bad things MS does?

Re:Microsoft Student

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the slashdot review of Microsoft Student?

It will be on Slashdot when either:

• A Microsoft PR-person pays Malda and Co. to post a "story"
• Roland Piquepaille posts it to his blog
• Someone releases an Open Source alternative (potential headline: "M$ $tudent Destined to FAIL!")

Re:Microsoft Student

[cnerd2025]

Well I'm sure we could arrange a review of M$ Student as well as Apple Keynote, etc. /. doesn't do reviews. /. anounces other articles and how they relate to various nerdy fields (most of the time, anyway). Some of the stuff doesn't really matter in nerdom, but it's usually OK. I'm surprised you could actually want to stick up for M$ after reading this or reading what Mr. Balmer said the other day. His remarks were more outrageous than Dick Cheney's remarks on the Senate Floor. M$ doesn't do completely bad things. Their software is very prototype-esque. Bugs aren't worked out. They come up with (or copy) a mediocre to good idea that is relatively user-friendly and is (used to be) cheap. If you look at their software, people would not hate them for just that. What people hate M$ for are their business tactics many (including myself) consider highly unethical. Saying that you are going to "fucking kill google" and "fucking bury [Eric Schmidt] like I did before" is not professional speech nor ethical business practice. M$ is a convicted monopolist here in the US, but they got lucky with a very light sentence. They should understand that they are lucky to get this rather light sentence. Just over $600 million is a small amount to them.

"What do you call a person without a soul nor conscience? A corporation..."
-Andrew Elgert

Re:Microsoft Student

[Shaper_pmp]

I've never used Microsoft Student, but from perusing their site it just looks like a lobotomised version of Works, with a kiddy-friendly frontend. It might be great for kids, but it's not news. Is it a new development? No. Does it extend the bounds of human knowledge? No. Is it an interesting project other people can contribute to or get involved with? No. Is it even a charitable effort? No, it costs.

It may indeed be a "nice" application, but this is hardly news. "Man bites dog" is news - "man pats dog on head and gives him a bone" isn't. It's hardly fair to blame /. for a fundamental aspect of humanity - we find bad news fascinating, and good news only vaguely interesting. Likewise, "Company X breaks law, is convicted, then uses punishment to its advantage" is interesting. "Company X produces a not-bad product" is not. There are sites which publish these kinds of articles - they're called press-release aggregators. Why are you reading slashdot if all you want is uncritical product announcements?

As for the /. crowd's general anti-MS slant, that's what you get when you get a bunch of engineers, hackers and nerds who value things like technological advance, openness, freedom of action, privacy and decentralisation... and a company that does everything it can to hide or lock away its intellectual property, sues reverse-engineerers, slanders (and knowingly lies about) competitors, unnecessarily locks users into their systems, lobotomises and unnecessarily centralises their own products to retain control over their userbase, has been known to invade their users' privacy, and has abused their illegal monopoly position to actively retarded technological advancement in computing when it's to the benefit of their bottom line.

It's also important to note that Slashdot does report when Microsoft does something good - I've read stories abot the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's charitable donations, and several other (more Microsoft-related) stories.

True, even in the comments sections of these stories there's often a lot of carping from /. users, but users != editors. The editors are reporting the stories, even if the users don't necessarily like MS as a result. Why don't slashdot users like MS? For all the reasons listed at the beginning of my post.

The thing is, they only do charitable things where it doesn't affect their profit one cent, and for every one small thing they do that's charitable or good, they're caught doing ten or twenty things that shit all over developers, competitors, the law or their own users.

The disparity between the numbers of "good" and "bad" Microsoft stories is more a reflection of their actions than necessarily of bias in the Slashdot editors.

We hear a lot more stories about Microsoft shitting on people, because they spend a lot more of their time shitting on people, simple as that.

Code and design not secret though

[SuperKendall]

Their code and design has been a secret for a very long time

Actually, they have not - the groups that are writing exploits have long ago dissasembled the code for these things and know exactly how they work. That's where the exploits come from.

So by continuing to keep these protocols secret the only people they are preventing from obtaining this data are the ones that need it for ligimate needs, and thus would be less included to want to have to reverse engineer the whole system. The people writing exploits will probably find it a little more convienient knowing the specs, but it will not tell them much they don't already know.

bigger issue...

[spence2680]

"Opening these protocols to FOSS projects is not likely to cause Microsoft irreparable harm. The only danger I could imagine is that opening them will expose a megaplex of holes in the protocols and we'll see a rush of exploits..."

I think a bigger issue lies around Microsoft being forced to "give away" technology (source code) that they've invested money to develop. Lets face it, the Microsoft developers who created the code didn't work pro-bona.

Microsoft has spent an untold number of dollars to develop, interate and develop again that technology. Requiring Microsoft to give away code seems to set a dangerious precedent in the commerical software world.

Re:bigger issue...

[temcat]

Code is an implementation of a protocol. Nobody asks them to give the code - just the specs.

A Lie

[John Hasler]

> ...broad licenses for the source code of
> communications protocols...

That's a lie. Publication of protocols does not require the publication of any source code whatsoever. Same goes for file formats.

Re:A Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends how well the protocol is documented. I could imagine that the most complete description of the protocols available at MS is the source itself.

Open protocols and IBM

[SuperKendall]

It's just business. Microsoft aren't alone in this sort of thing. Do you think IBM open everything of theirs to their competitors?

Well, there's Eclipse the leading IDE. Yes, they opened the plugin spec for that.

Or there's IBM using open Grid protocols for grid computing projects.

The mistake you are making is in thinking it's "Just Business". That never is quite true as the overall character of businesses is defined by the people that run them. Do you think Oracle or Apple would operate the same way without the leaders they have at the helm? It is no different for Microsoft who have Balmer and Gates, each of whom have told open source exactly where they can put that olive branch of interoperability.

Bundling is bad?

[wiredlogic]

I don't know why Microsoft is constantly under attack for its bundled applications. Media player has been a part of Windows since 3.1. It has until recently been a simple low-key application but I don't see why MS should be penalized for enhancing their product (love it or not).

The same thing went on when MS included the original MSN client in Win95 and AOL cried foul. Should MS not be allowed to run their own dialup service? Is it wrong for MS to run its revamped MSN websites then? This is something of a moot point since the original MSN sucked and AOL had nothing to worry about.

Then there was the browser bundling debate. Considering that Mosaic and Navigator were being given away for free to all but business users why must MS be berated for giving out a free IE with Windows? IE 1-3 were pretty mediocre and any other company with enough motivation could have out competed them with a better browser and tried to forge a workable business model (however unlikely) or get bought out by MS.

Should MS be punished for bundling TCP/IP when this is a service that could be provided by third party applications?

Then they have their insidious sub-licensed version of the Norton drive defragmenter. Do we just sit back and let them get away with this blatant corporate favoritism? How can another defragmentation company expect to compete against that? Should we even allow MS to sell products that use NTFS since it "unfairly" obsoletes the defregmentation market?

There used to be third party graphical shell replacements for Win3.1 and a few for Win95. Shouldn't we force MS to sell an OS with just the kernel and drivers and no GUI so we can have fair competition in this important marketspace.

Why isn't MS accused of unfairly dominating the plain text editor market by bundling notepad? I say there should be a special EU version of Windows with notepad removed in the interest of fair and balanced competition.

Re:Bundling is bad?

[pandrijeczko]

I don't know why Microsoft is constantly under attack for its bundled applications.

There's an "argument" that says an operating system should only be a kernel, some hardware drivers & a few tools that allow you to communicate with the hardware. Everything else you install above that should be selectable by the user of the OS, not bundled in so tightly that it cannot be removed easily for an alternative third-party solution.

Should MS not be allowed to run their own dialup service?

That isn't the question. The real question is "Should Microsoft be allowed to leverage it's own dial-up service freely with it's OS when other dial-up services would need to pay a heavy fee to do the same."

Considering that Mosaic and Navigator were being given away for free to all but business users why must MS be berated for giving out a free IE with Windows?

Because IE was bundled into Windows far too tightly & was used as a mechanism to enforce Microsoft's own HTML extensions onto the users - this made other browsers deliberately incompatible.

Should MS be punished for bundling TCP/IP when this is a service that could be provided by third party applications?

No but then they are not being punished for this. TCP/IP is an entirely open suite of protocols into which MS can contribute as freely as anyone else as long as the protocols remain open. Microsoft was essentially *forced* to adopt TCP/IP because it's own NetBEUI protocols (and the IPX/SPX protocols it stole from Novell) were not suitable for Internet operation. The fact that they did adopt it is a good thing because it makes interoperation with other systems that much easier.

Then they have their insidious sub-licensed version of the Norton drive defragmenter.

It could be argued that MS provided this within Windows because their file systems are prone to suffering from fragmentation. But it is still an inferior tool to other 3rd-party defragmenting solutions.

Should we even allow MS to sell products that use NTFS since it "unfairly" obsoletes the defregmentation market?

It's better than FAT but NTFS still suffers from bad fragmentation over a period of time.

Shouldn't we force MS to sell an OS with just the kernel and drivers and no GUI so we can have fair competition in this important marketspace.

No, not at all. Without going into arguments about whether a GUI is good or bad, Windows has always meant "GUI". Windows 3.1, 95, 98 and ME were essentially GUIs running over MS-DOS anyway. Plus the fact that the desktop environment of a taskbar, icons and menus is essentially all provided by a single application, Explorer, which can be changed for third party alternatives (like Directory Opus or Lightstep) relatively simply.

Why isn't MS accused of unfairly dominating the plain text editor market by bundling notepad?

You could argue that it is unfair of them to bundle notepad with Windows on the same basis. Whilst it is simply a text editor, it does change the "accepted" format of text files by including an additional linefeed after every carriage return (UNIX and most other systems just use carriage return). However, apps like IE and WMP are more insidious because they respecively enforce MS'es proprietary HTML extensions and codecs on the user.

You need to remember that Microsoft's own marketing machine portrays Windows as an easy operating system to use for even the least computer-literate user. As such, it could be argued that the ability to choose and install alternative applications to those provided by Microsoft should also be made much easier.

I'm sure people are going to make comparisons here to Linux distributions including certain applications also. However, I would argue here that there are enough distros around for anyone to choose one that includes most of the apps they want to use - besides, RedHat and SuSE (and I suspect other distros) do include complex installation programs that allow you to specify individual apps that you do or don't want installed if you drill down deep enough.

Re:Bundling is bad?

[tdubya]

I don't know why Microsoft is constantly under attack for its bundled applications. There's an "argument" that says an operating system should only be a kernel, some hardware drivers & a few tools that allow you to communicate with the hardware. Everything else you install above that should be selectable by the user of the OS, not bundled in so tightly that it cannot be removed easily for an alternative third-party solution. -------- Wouldn't this apply to everybody though, not just Microsoft? What about OS X and Itunes? What about Solaris and Java?

Re:Bundling is bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeatedly, the linux community tries to clarify this point. The OS is the kernel. Or in Microsoft's case, a huge glob of code. Adding an application like a web browser into a kernel does nothing but drag it down. The more crap you put into the OS, the more memory and faster processors that are required. The OS provides a system for attaching applications.

For Mac OSX, the OS is BSD and iTunes is an application which by the way also runs on Windows. Solaris is a variant of UNIX. Same principle applies here as with Linux. Java has no connection with the kernel other than being an application that

Re:Bundling is bad?

[GaryPatterson]

OS X does include a bunch of bundled apps, but they are trivially removed.

Don't like iTunes? Delete it. You'll never see it again.

Don't like the QuickTime player? Delete it. You'll never see it again.

Don't like iMovie, Safari, iDVD, etc, etc, etc...

That's the difference. You can easily remove any application that comes with OS X and that's the end of it.

Other parts of the OS, such as the QuickTime framework (not the app, but the multimedia layer) are harder to remove, but many people would argue that they're in the OS layer, much like the window manager and memory manager.

It's very hard to see a parallel case against OS X, and even if you do find one, the fact that Apple are not a monopoly means that it's not an issue of illegally leveraging marketshare to hurt competition.

Re:Bundling is bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

bundled in so tightly that it cannot be removed easily for an alternative third-party solution

You give your own answer, right there. No OSX, no Linux distribution, no *Solaris, no *BSD, etc etc has user applications so tightly bundled that it would represent an unnecesarry challenge for most users to remove them. Unlike Windows.

Re:Bundling is bad?

[TheoB]

So... you're saying Microsoft is illegally leveraging their marketshare by making their bundled apps difficult to delete, thus closing off the valuable "I deleted my media player and don't know how to reinstall it" market from outside competition?

I don't buy it. "Difficult to delete bundled apps" is a design critique, not an antitrust violation. The question is whether including the apps in the first place unfairly blocks effective competition, and if so, Apple is just as guilty of it as Microsoft.

Incidentally, you CAN remove apps such as Media Player, IE, and even Paint by going to Add or Remove Programs | Add/Remove Windows Components. Mind, I've never met anyone who's bothered, but I've never met anyone who's ditched Quicktime on their Mac either...

Re:Bundling is bad?

[GaryPatterson]

I may not have made my point very well... The antitrust violation is (as you point out) around Microsoft using monopoly power to ensure that competitors cannot compete. The method is the bundling of apps and the inability of vendors to change that software bundle.

Apple cannot be as guilty as Microsoft, even if they do exactly the same thing, because they don't hold the same position in the market. They're not a monopoly by any definition, so they can't be accused of antitrust violations under US law.

I'm not so sure that removing IE is as easy as you say. I'll give it a try when I get home tonight.

Re:Bundling is bad?

[Shaper_pmp]

Microsoft wasn't sanctioned for "bundling software with their OS". They were sanctioned for "illegally misusing their existing monopoly to extend it into other areas", a long-established prtoection against monopolies.

It so happens they did this by bundling software with their OS, but "how they comitted the crime" != "the crime itself".

For an easier example, being handed money by a bank teller isn't a crime, but if I run in there with a gun, wave it in their faces and demand all the money in the safe, that's certainly not legal.

When you're a monopoly you have an unreasonable amount of power to have invested in any one entity, so additional restrictions apply than apply to organisations with less power. In the same way a couple of hundred years ago we needed specific rules limiting the power of the monarchy in England - normal people weren't told "before you approve a change in the law you need to consult Parliament" (or similar), because normal people can't change the law.

"Incidentally, you CAN remove apps such as Media Player, IE, and even Paint by going to Add or Remove Programs | Add/Remove Windows Components. Mind, I've never met anyone who's bothered, but I've never met anyone who's ditched Quicktime on their Mac either..."

"Even Paint"? Actually, Paint should be one of the easiest things to remove, since it's a trivial, self-contained application. IE and WMP (in contrast) are collections of software components, which are (intentionally) tightly integrated into the Windows shell. While you might be able to easily get rid of the Start menu item (or even a specific .exe file), removing all the hooks and controls they dump all over your Windows systenm (and which other programs then use) is a nightmare of a job, if it's even possible for an end-user.

For an empirical demonstration of this, why did it take so long for MS to produce a WMP-free version of windows? Surely if you're right they chould have just disabled the WMP option in the Windows install, total time taken ~ 5 minutes? As it was they spent ages on it, and only released it so close to the deadline everyone thought the fines would start kicking in before they did.

And IE? Microsoft actually claimed it was impossible to remove "IE" from "Windows" during their US antitrust case. Sure, they had a good reason to perjure themselves at the time, but they were taking a fuck of a risk if it's as simple as turning off an install option.

This is no different than BitKeeper

[RichardtheSmith]

Being told you "have to" interoperate with Open Source is not trivial.

Re:This is no different than BitKeeper

[John Hasler]

They are being told no such thing.

Re:This is no different than BitKeeper

[adtifyj]

But, whether they like it or not, being told to interoperate is the fruit of thier own success. Microsoft is legally classified as a monopoly, and so it is governments responsibility to stand over them to ensure that innovation is not stifled.

Regarding BitKeeper, paying customers recieve a product that is extremely good at inter-operating, and BitMover always went out of their way to assist open source developers export their data in a variety of ways.

The objection was about an open source client being developed to talk to the BitKeeper TCP talk. Personally I think the offical client would never have been threatened by the open source client, but I can understand BitMover's response. The approach that was used to develop the open source client was hardly strict clean-room reverse engineering with specifications being developed by one team, and the coding done by another. Consequently, BitMover became scared of a herd of cats, and withdrew their free-to-download client.

Yes, because they're a monopoly

[hirschma]

Bundling is inherently good - it benefits the consumer, except in the case of monopoly.

Microsoft established, through questionable means, a monopoly for desktop operating systems. They are now trying to parlay that into other monopolies.

In short, they're being "punished" before they can establish absolute control over things like media formats, network protocols, document formats - although it is more or less too late, now.

Re:There will never be an European army

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people said there would never be an European currency.

Dealing with the unknown..

[Conor Turton]

Microsoft is dealing with something they've not come across before. Not only have they not got the protection of a government who does everything it can to look after it's own but the officials can't be bought off like Washington and the EU has enough power to stand up to US pressure - it's not like we're depending on US financial aid.

Re:Dealing with the unknown..

[RAMMS EIN]

``the officials can't be bought off like Washington and the EU has enough power to stand up to US pressure''

Oh come on. The EU gets some things right, but I don't believe for a second that there is no corruption. How do you think the bill to legalize all manner of software patents ended up being voted on at a meeting for agriculture and fisheries? It's not because politicians thought the bill was in everybodies best interest.

I also don't think there is too much power to stand up to the US - not with all member states still putting their own desires above the common interest. Why do you think so many EU countries sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq? Certainly not because everybody involved these wars are just and sending troops is the right thing to do.

Probably, corporate government isn't as out of control in the EU as it is in the US, and the EU tends to take the (morally) better decisions, but European politics is far from perfect.

Re:Dealing with the unknown..

[Anonymous Coward]

Corruption is endemic in the institutions of the EU but not because items are considered in Ag and Fish committees. BTW, in this case, Ag and Fish is just a name. These committees are the same people rotating through the main business of the day but it doesn't mean they can't consider other urgent items at the time.

No, the EU is corrupt because the commissioners are too lazy, too incompetent, and too mired in the 'political old boys club'. They don't want to step on other 'old boy' politicians' toes or to think that spending our money wisely might be a good thing...

As a result, simple accounting procedures, such as having unique transactions numbers against all transactions is thought dangerously modern and radical in the EU. This allows all sorts of simple fraudulent deals amounting to many millions to go unnoticed. And for Commissioner Edith Cresson (amongst others) to give her retired dentist boyfriend a nice little monthly retainer (including rent free accomodation) researching certain aspects of the AIDS virus (for which he was eminently qualified *cough* *cough*).

Even the whole commission resigning in the 90s made no difference. For the first time in 50 years, when the EU employed a qualified accountant to head up the whole accounts department, she was got rid of in pretty short shrift. She was too aware of the vast holes in the system. Can't have that sort of thing rocking the boat my dear Jules! Not cricket, eh, what?

Re:Dealing with the unknown..

[Shaper_pmp]

The EU invests much more power in unelected bureaucrats (and much less in elected officials) than the US system. Thus it's far, far easier to corrupt because one only has to buy out a member once, not every four years, and blatantly corrupt individuals are far harder to replace.

However, the EU also has lots of little voices, any one of whom can speak up and block or delay legislation. When the little guys can speak up it's an excellent system (c.f. Poland on software patents), but often deals are done between the largest players (who tend also to be the most corrupt), and the little guys are railroaded into going along with it. Then it's even easier to corrupt than the US system.

The EU also (historically) has a much stronger anti-corporate slant than the US, although it'll be interesting to see how long this lasts now there's a single powerful entity in Europe for corporations to cozy up to.

In short, the structure of the EU is far more corruptable, but the people are starting from a more anti-corporate position. If the people stay strong the EU will be protected against the most rapacious attempts on their rights - however, if the people drop the ball the EU will be in the pocket of coroporations faster than the US.

Basically, in the great race to a facist totalitarian police state we've got better acceleration, but we're starting from further behind.

Incidentally, has anyone seen the The 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism? Very, very, very scary. Apart (possibly) from point 5 ( "Rampant sexism"), it looks like a shopping list of the current US political system (and point 5 does go on to specify specifics like "adamantly anti-abortion", "homophobic" and "draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country", all of which sound pretty familiar to me...

Aimed for open-source

[phorm]

Indeed. I understand this point. But the idea of the NDA in general seems odd. If anyone can view the source by asking (with an NDA) wouldn't that make the only ones who *couldn't* use the code be open-sourced projects?

Basically, a clause that serves only to detriment OSS...

Re:Aimed for open-source

[Anonymous Coward]

Well duh, it is microsoft. That is exactly the point.

Links

[Alphix]

The filing with the ECJ is here and previous documents can be found here.

Note that FSF Europe (among others) is listed as a supporting party to the commission in some of the earlier documents which is quite amusing.

When a company sues a country...

[Badflash]

or an union of countries, there is a problem. When those countries will learn to sue those monopolistic companies, WE the people will get something in return. No shareholders should have so much power, and no CEOs should be able to sue countries. In fact, this whole model is a pain in the ass. Give power back to the people! Not the companies (and their RICH share holders!)

Re:When a company sues a country...

[lordholm]

Both, companies and individuals should be able to sue a country or a union of countries.

Do you really believe that states behave properly all the time?

The fact that these actions are possible is vital for guaranteeing human rights.

Re:When a company sues a country...

[Badflash]

Me not seeing link between human rights and (companies and people) being able to sue government. People vote to elect a prime minister or president. They vote once in 4 years to give their right to vote for 4 years. And government isn't misbehaving most part of the time. Look at any American BIG corporations and you'll see that human rights are forgotten by those. Even Amercian Government. And everybody knows that Amercian government is dictated by Bush or the "other" big corporations.

Re:When a company sues a country...

[lordholm]

Well, here in Europe, we have an supernational court that handles the abuses against human rights that is conducted by governments. This means that human rights legislation that is supernational overrides national legislation.

There have been several times, when especially individuals have had their rights trampled on by governments, after the national measures (of suing the government for example) are exhausted, one can turn to the ECHR and sue the state.

For a list of cases if you doubt the link between the right of suing the government and human rights, refer to http://www.echr.coe.int/echr

Also, it is a matter of principle and vital for the rule of law that no one, especially the law makers should be above the law. Not being able to sue the government makes the government above the law, which is a bad thing.

And if individuals should be able to sue the government, why should not companies be able to? Imagine, a one or two man firm that is damaged by the government unlawfully confiscating the firms' property. Should they not be able to complain about this in the legal system the same way as an individual. And what would make this any different from a large company suing the government?

The right of individuals and companies suing the government is vital to the rule of law, human rights and democracy, since it ensures that no one is above the law.

First China now the EU

[gelfling]

MS is starting to sound like the US government.

Re:First China now the EU

[chawly]

Must admit to a certain confusion mental confusion. Are you sure that Microsoft is not just a synonyme for the US Goverment ?

Re:First China now the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they are not. Even if they do use similar bully tactics.

Re:First China now the EU

[chawly]

Thank you for your enlightenment. I was in fact pretty sure that Mr. Gates was not the current president of the United States, but I was being to see Mr. Bush as the president of a division of Microsoft. The "market capture" division, perhaps. Thanks for setting me straight.

Text end of line characters

[SiliconTrip]

"Whilst it is simply a text editor, it does change the "accepted" format of text files by including an additional linefeed after every carriage return (UNIX and most other systems just use carriage return)."

I can't help but be picky here.

Unix end of line characters are "linefeed" 0xA
Mac (not Darwin) end of line characters are "carraige return" 0xD
Dos/Windows uses CRLF 0xD0xA

So when you edit a DOS file, in a unix app that isn't aware, you see control M (^M) characters on the end of each line. As the CR comes before the LF.

When you edit a mac text file, in a unix app, all the text appears on one line.

Technically CRLF is the correct way to end a line.

LF only moves down a line without returning the carraige (positioning the cursor/printhead at 0)
Thus getting that staircase effect when you print text files on some printers.

CR repositions the print head at position 0 but without moving down a line, so you get over print.

It could be argued that back in the early days, that using 2 characters for an end of line was too resource hungry, so using one was standardised.

And for those who are interested

Carraige Return: CR 13 0xD '\r'
Line Feed: LF 10 0xA '\n'

Re:Text end of line characters

[Anonymous Coward]

CRLF is only correct because theold teletypes took 0.2 seconds. Since it operated at 10cps, printing two "invisible" characters means that the mechanism gets enough time to start at the beginning of the next line.

Re:Text end of line characters

[nickos]

Technically CRLF is the correct way to end a line.

LF only moves down a line without returning the carraige (positioning the cursor/printhead at 0) ...
CR repositions the print head at position 0 but without moving down a line, so you get over print.

Of course this makes sense on a teletype, but the semantic model used nowadays in text files does not need to describe the actions of a print carriage. Given this, one character is fine.

Re:Text end of line characters

[SiliconTrip]

From my experience it appears that modern printers follow this rule as well.

Sending a unix text file to my laser printer produces the "staircase" effect.

While sending a Mac text file, produces a page where all the text appears on one line.

By cat(1)ting a Mac text file on my terminal window, all the text appears on 1 line.

By their names it makes sense that both characters are needed. "Linefeed" and "Carriage Return"

Or is character 10 being referred to as "New Line" now a days, in which case only it is needed.

Now in cinemas

[Anonymous Coward]

Court Wars: Episode V "The Empire strikes back"

Microsoft can use an adaptive strategy

[Neelay Thaker]

First of all, the idea of making Microsoft share its proprietary protocols and algorithms seems faulty. Whatever protocol details Microsoft shares, rival vendors will never be able to compete at par with Microsoft for writing utilities for Microsoft's own OS. The very idea of "fair trade" seems loose there. Instead of sharing source code, Microsoft could share protocol "specifications" such as interfaces and properties. The free open source software groups could then use these specifications to develop software without being at risk of violating the NDA.

Its a better plan

[Anonymous Coward]

"and the rest will continue to pay for MS products even if the disks come out of the box blank."

Actually, that's the upside. It seems a lot more reliable than the actual MS Server product, and has a marginally superior sysadmin interface.

google

[Anonymous Coward]

since google has a search engine monopoly should they have to let Microsoft look at it's code?

Re:google

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh, what is it with Slashdot and Google? For christ sake:

* Google is not a monopoly
* Google is not behaving in an anti-competitive way
* Google is not lobying EU governments to change laws

Get over it. Google is not the next Microsoft. If it tries to be (and I doubt it ever will), then the next new thing in search will just take over. My money's on semantic web.

Re:google

[Peter_JS_Blue]

Its not quite the same thing. To interoperate with Google requires only that you point your browser at www.google.com, to interoperate with Windows requires some degree of information and effort.

power

[wzzzzrd]

this is all about power, and microsoft has lost this case long ago. in europe, they have no bonus. europe is 95% as corrupt and lobby-made as the usa, but these 5% do make a difference. it's not about bundling windows with a certain type of software, that's a facade. it's just a game, and microsoft will lose. and the only reason they are fighting is: europe is a growing and yet undecided market.

Re:power

[Elektroschock]

It is a game they will lose, because they go too far. the more lobbyists they throw on them the worse it gets. Europe is not corrupt but it is a lack of representation of other views.

The EU Commission has a lot options left.

well, actually...

[N3wsByt3]

There are quite a few EU countries that would agree to an european army (of some sorts). Some trials to that extend have already been tried out, even. Notably France, Germany and the Benelux-countries are interested in the concept.

Alas, many are against it too, most notably the UK...and since it's still a veto-right in this regard...

I would say it's an argument for having a europe at two speeds; one for those who want to go further, and one for the rest who don't feel like it. Seems fair too.

But alas, even to that the UK objects.

Garcia is an example of why /. is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

You are one of the biggest fools on this site Garcia. You constantly go on about propaganda and about how you are "right." Yet you'll bag anyone else out if they don't fit the slightest view of your universe. And judging someone by their UID? HAHA that is laughable. Especially considering the guys UID was in the lower hundred thousands.

You are pretty obnoxious, if I met you in real life I'd give you a slap across the face.

Re:Garcia is an example of why /. is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially considering the guys UID was in the lower hundred thousands.

Nerd Systems (912027) - That would be one of the more recent UIDs.

You are pretty obnoxious, if I met you in real life I'd give you a slap across the face.

Luckily I'd be able to beat the fuck out of you and not even give a shit. Just remember that I'm not some puny little shit that trolls.

Dumbass.

no difference (?)

[N3wsByt3]

"...but being black makes practically no difference anymore..."

Statistics disagree. Socio-economical, it makes a BIG difference.

Patents...

[sadler121]

which is covered by lots of patents, and even though they grant use of those patents roylaty free, they still keep F/OSS from using them because they a specificly exempted.

Re:Patents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta love this guy's sig, especially when his resume has this little jewel:

Utah Valley State Collage (January 2004 April 2004)

It's REDICULOUS

Re:Patents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yu spilling Nazy!

Cite?

[Dire Bonobo]

> Current projections indicate that Linux's share of the server market
> (total dollar sales of servers preloaded with Linux by the major
> manufactuers) will exceed that of MS by 2012.

Not that I don't trust the word of some random Slashdot poster, but, well, I don't. Any cites for that claim, and any reason to believe such projections are accurate enough to be extended out 7 years, which is rather a long time in computer terms?

Not that it matters---Linux exceeding MS's market share won't amount to the domination MS has now, which was the original poster's point.

And which is probably true.

And which is probably good---too much domination from any OS---even if it's "ours"---risks stifling the industry.

Did North Korea join the EU?

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, in North Korea, you get to sue the regulatory agencies.

let's hope the ruling gets reversed

[cahiha]

The European Union screwed up: forcing Microsoft to publish protocols to only proprietary vendors is just about the worst outcome possible. Furthermore, source code for portions of the system is nearly useless.

Microsoft should instead be forced to publish openly and without restrictions specifications (but not source code) for all communications protocols and file formats used by their software, with steep penalties if their software fails to comply with those protocols and formats.

MOD Parent Up

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD Parent Up

"Monopoly"

[mcc]

My point was, there are countless software vendors out there that don't open their specs/protocols.

The difference is that those software vendors have not been convicted of illegal monopoly actions in a court of law. Microsoft has, in multiple jurisdictions.

Maybe monopoly was too strong a word.

There's this widespread misconception that "monopoly" means "it is the most popular product" or "it is the only popular product". This is not the case. "Monopoly", in the sense people talk about when they talk about governments enforcing things against monopolies, has different and very specific legal connotations having to do with the way in which market power is collected and used. This is a very important distinction to make. Governments are not in the business of punishing products or businesses just for being successful. They are, however, in the business of identifying products or businesses which are having undue and negative effects on their own market, and remedying this situation.

Of course, apparently if you are a government, do your own job and Microsoft will sue you.

And imagine if you found them!

[brandonY]

How embarrassing it would be if half of your army surrendered at the first shot!

</flame>

Re:And imagine if you found them!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're being rude.
The British usually wait for the second shot before fleeing and leaving their allies to die. A question of debating how fast to run away from the battlefield, I suppose ?

Two words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Entente Cordiale

I have heard of suing your customers ...

[Peter_JS_Blue]

.. but suing an entire continent strikes me as an act of extreme desperation to say the least, plus veiled threats of suing Asia for daring to use FOSS !!. Perhaps they are using the SCO/RIAA business manual and simply adding a few more zeros to the numbers.

Add to the fact MS might have lost China and quite a few other contries too and you might get the idea that MS is destined to be an irrelevant national player instead of International player.

Perhaps we should start a score board.

Open Source Monopolists

[David Off]

> You can't have a monopoly on Linux. Thats is most of the point. As open source it will never be locked to one vendor.

That's not really true though. Take Apache, they are an effective monopoly in many areas. The mere sniff that Apache may be considering doing a version of your project and interested and developers dry up - much like if Google or Microsoft had done the same.

An example? Take Harmony (remember that?) an Apache OSS effort to build a Java Virtual Machine ahd Class Library. Just the announcement has been enough for people to lose interest in other OSS JVMs - we're waiting for Harmony they say. The fact that Harmony has gone, and seems to be going, nowhere doesn't matter (they are currently tied down on coding standards rather than coding).

The Apache guys have every inch the arrogance of Microsoft or Google coders. GNU Classpath - "a misdesigned crock"... other JVMs "could be coded on a Sunday afternoon".

Yes yes I understand the legals, you can just fork but when you have a mindset as strong as say Apache it is hard to make any independent headway.

Re:Open Source Monopolists

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

but when you have a mindset as strong as say Apache it is hard to make any independent headway.

I disagree. I mean sure it is always hard to oust an incumbent because it takes effort to switch to something new. If, however, someone made a better fork of Apache I'm firmly convinced people would switch. If you don't believe me take a look at XFree86. What Apache has more than anything else is reputation because people respect the quality of the work they have done. It is in no way a monopoly and there is no technological lock-in. Apache runs on multiple OSs, uses open protocols, and is open to be modified. Products chosen based upon quality and upon the reputation of the authors is a very good thing and is certainly not a monopoly.

Re:Open Source Monopolists

[David Off]

I just think Apache group is using its near Web server monopoly (for what is a great product) to extend and embrace into other sectors - like Open Source JVMs where they have no track record. Unless of course, it is all really funded by that other old monopolist, IBM, to annoy Sun.

Power and arrogance

[gilesjuk]

It just shows the power and arrogance of Microsoft when they start suing groups of politicians and law makers.

The EU is acting on behalf of the EU people to stop the monopolistic practises of Microsoft.

In the EU

[Gnutte]

Microsoft sues you!

No, DON'T mod parent up

[Shaper_pmp]

IIRC, this is all they're being asked to provide - documentation on their protocols, interfaces and APIs.

The confusion between this and the actual "source code" was introduced by MS and their lawyers, because saying "they want to look at our Intellectual Property" sounds a lot more sympathetic than "they want us to give competitors the merest chance of interoperating with our software".

Encouraging News

[tuxtastic]

I love hearing news like this. I glow with happiness every time MS gets knocked down a peg.

In Soviet Russia

[4r0g]

Microsoft sues the Government!

Re:In Soviet Russia

[WilliamSChips]

As much as the Bush administration is trying to say that the EU is communist, it isn't.

WARNING: SFW but Excrutiating Photo

[IceAgeComing]

And I had almost banished that image from my mind. Please, next time think of the vanishing group of innocents who have not seen this photo yet.

EU Commission is two-faced, anti-trust case weak

[FlorianMueller]

The EU Commission is the executive government of the European Union, and besides its purely administrative functions (such as anti-trust control and handing out EU subsidies), the Commission also has a key role in legislative processes. While it's the task of parliaments in most democracies to take legislative initiatives, it's always the Commission that first drafts a proposal for an EU directive, and the Commission has a project management role throughout the process.

The Commission doesn't really have a coherent strategy with respect to the software market. On the one hand, they are after Microsoft for allegedly anti-competitive conduct. On the other hand, the Commission was a key driving force behind the EU software patent directive that, fortunately, the European Parliament threw out on 6 July. The Commission has for years been lying to the European public with respect to the effect that their proposed legislation would have had. They said that it wouldn't have allowed for patents on software, but that's what it was all about, and everybody knew it. I know that some accuse the Bush government of having misled the public on Iraq and WMDs and terrorist connections, but the Commission lied even more shamelessly with respect to software patents.

Let's assume the Commission were to succeed with its Microsoft anti-trust case, and let's also assume they had succeeded with their effort to legalize software patents in Europe. On the bottom line, the software market would have been far less competitive than if the Commission hadn't done anything at all.

Of course, those are different DGS (directorates-general) of the Commission. It's DG COMP (Competition) that's after Microsoft, and DG MARKT (Internal Market) that proposed a software patent directive which was in fact drafted (!) by the Business Software Alliance, i.e. by a Microsoft-controlled organization.

The commissioner in charge of internal market policy, former Irish finance minister Charlie McCreevy, is the biggest ally Microsoft has ever had in politics. Note that Microsoft is Ireland's largest taxpayer because Microsoft conducts all of its European business out of the Irish tax haven (Ireland itself only accounts for about 1% of the EU market).

I can understand why some people in the Commission, with the support of some companies, pursue the Windows media player and API thing there. They believe that it's key to prove that Microsoft acts anti-competitively, as a warning and as a better basis for future proceedings like that. However, I don't think this "Windows Reduced Media Edition" thing makes any sense on its own if judged by any reasonable standards.

Brits and French in same army?.....nah

[Anonymous Coward]

First of, the French would instantly surrender to the Brits, and the Brits would them bore each other to death if they did not all die from the Brits' horrible cooking.....Kidley pie and Conkers and Lardy Cake.....yyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeccccccccccccccccchhhhhhhh h!!

grin

OTOH

[Lifewish]

Being told you "have to" let Open Source interoperate with you is merely an obvious consequence of attempting to hold onto a monopoly by means of lock-in.

What ruling?

[KitesWorld]

The European Union screwed up: forcing Microsoft to publish protocols to only proprietary vendors is just about the worst outcome possible. Furthermore, source code for portions of the system is nearly useless.

Just so you know, the case is in progress - there has not yet been a ruling to reverse. The EC [European Commission - an administrative body, and not the EU] had an agreement with microsoft that is now going to court to test it's validity.

I'll agree with the second paragraph, however.

what about this?

[xpyr]

Microsoft was ordered to show the source code that they use for the communication protocols, this is fine for the proprietary software sector because of NDA's to sign. But that won't work with FOSS as they're required to show the source code for their software. Where as Microsoft doesn't want their source code to be known to the public.

So maybe for FOSS they show the specifications for each of their communication protocols. The complete specification. That way no source code is actually needed from Microsoft.