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

[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

[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

[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

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.

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?

[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.

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?

[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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear of the UN? It works just fine.

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?

[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: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.

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!

Talk About Duh ?

[burdicda]

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

Re:Next up

[tehshen]

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

How?

[abrotman]

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

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.

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: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.

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: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"?

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.

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: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.

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.