Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Agrees to License Windows Source Code
msbmsb writes "Stepping away from previous tradition, "Microsoft Corp. said Wednesday it will license its Windows source code to comply with a European Union antitrust ruling." But in an effort to stop the cloning of the OS, developers will still have to pay an unspecified amount for the code. This is an addition to the "12,000 pages of technical documents and 500 hours of free technical support" to those who purchase a license."
Man, and all we get is clippy to help us out.
"If you have legs and are flammable, you are never blocking a fire exit." -- Mitch Hedberg
But in an effort to stop the cloning of the OS, developers will still have to pay an unspecified amount for the code.
One Cajillion Dollars
Does that mean that Microsoft competitors will be able to add MS(c)SecurityHoles(tm) in their products to ensure compability with all kinds of exploits?
"The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is the day they make a vacuum cleaner."
From TFA: Software developers still will have to pay for the code
Does somebody have an idea about this price ?
How long will it take before this code hits the streets?
How long will it take before a fork is on the net?
This would also be really helpfull for wine and samba developers.
200GB/2TB $7.95 Coupon: SAVE90DOLLAR
I'll admit it, I'm shocked. However, I have to ask the question? What is this going to change?
Once this hits pirate land, are we in for more trouble than good?
With the actual source and another pair of eyes looking at it, there should be more security fixes and hopefully a more secure OS.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
The question is will it be complete and compile? Don't they have to hide parts of Windows that are licensed from other companies?
Windows will still be distributed as binaries, having this source code does not give any guarantee about what's really running on your system.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I read that post three times over wondering what the hell Britain had to do with Microsoft's mentality regarding competition. Then I noticed the subject field said 'Europe'...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
If Valve were forced to release the Steam source and leave it open to competent individuals who might actually be able to keep it running.
One can only dream.
developers will still have to pay an unspecified amount for the code
That means it's either free, or will cost trillions of dollars. I vote for the latter.
DEVELOPER: I'd like to purchase your code, please.
MS: Sure, no problem! Sign here.
DEV: Wait, how much is this again?
MS: It's an unspecified amount.
DEV: Oh, okay, that's right. Here is my signature. My company will foot the bill.
MS: We will send the bill soon--it will take a few weeks to finish printing. Very good doing business with you, sir. You are an intelligent man. We are a small company.
For development questions i recall MS tech support being very expensive. I used it once and i think the question cost nearly $500 and the answer for all the money was a succinct "You can't do that".
Given a quantity discount the tech support hours that they provide must be at least $250 each, so that's $125k of "free" tech support. I doubt i'll be licensing their code any time soon.
This is a dumb arguments to justify putting a price on it, the real reason is to profit from a court decision. Do they imply people with money don't copy? We all know it's not true, quite the oppsite. Let's pretend it's true though, what will prevent a group of people to gather the money and then clone the OS?
Ever been annoyed at having to keep a FAT32 neutral-zone on your dual boot system because nobody's yet worked out how to write to NTFS without wrecking everything?
That's the kind of thing this will hopefully lead to. It's all about interoperability. Unfortunately, knowing MS, the terms and conditions will be fricking deadly, and no open-source coder will so much as look at MS code for fear of contaminating themselves legally, so we shouldn't get too optimistic...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Because abusing a monopoly position violates the law. They are convicted criminals and Blizzard isn't.
Why should an robber be forced to give up his freedom and go to jail? Because he broke the law. Simple as that.
In the US Microsoft already offers their code to governments, schools, and some limited corporations. All sign NDAs of course. The only news is that it's now happening in Europe. So don't be all surprised people outside MS are seeing the code. This isn't anything new.
Developers: We can use your help.
Because they are abusing a monoppoly, even simpler because they have a monopoly. Because this monopoly is gained and maintained trough the code they created, don't abuse of your monopoly and drastic measures won't have to be taken.
The code is already "out there" in the US government, some schools, and some corporations. And it hasn't hit the streets yet. I imagine few are afraid of the NDA. But they all probably fear that MS put something special in each copy of the code in order to track down the source of any leaks.
Developers: We can use your help.
They aren't forced to do anything. If they don't like the laws in Europe, they are free to trade elsewhere.
More likely though, they will lobby to change the laws because they don't want to lose one of their biggest markets.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
The price, in money and terms, will be too high for businesses. What it will mean that foreign governements will have similar access to what the US already has. The government(s) can make custom backdoors etc.... with their own people. They can give them back to MS who compiles and distributes.
I wonder whose version of M$ I'll get in the future?
I wonder if it will cover 2003?
Actually, Microsoft is already licensing the Windows source code. However the significance of the new event is, they will not be choosing the licensor (at least not as much as before).
i censing/default.mspx. You'll see that the top item mentions "access to Microsoft Windows® source code for internal development and support purpose". And as far as I know there are already many utility producers (Symantec, WinInternals, etc) that can access NTFS source codes.
For a list of microsoft shared source licencing programs look at http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/L
Anyways do not keep your hopes too high. As you can see there are many shared source licenses (some are even like BSD), however Windows is not becoming "Open Source" soon.
Kinda hard to compete when the company in question is a convicted monopoly abuser (both in the US as well as the EU) and the country in which they're incorporated won't do anything more than slap them on the wrist.
Yes, European publishers (as well as other American publishers) cannot compete with Windows, but it is not because they cannot make a better product.
Nicely played by Microsoft.
As usual - they're not giving what anyone asks for (afaik - noone actually wants to have to look at the internals of windows), they just want to get the documentation on the protocols used so that they can intercommunicate.
By offering to license Windows, Micrsofts "crown jewels", MS has done two nice things (for them).
1) They appear to be bending over backwards to meeting the EUs demands; and
2) They will manage to set any number of unreasonable licensing terms (both monetary and otherwise), to turn this into yet another profit center (and ensure that open-source can't use any of it...)
Imo, the EU should tell them that this is *not* what was asked for, and while it's nice and whatever, please just provide what you were asked for.
Otherwise please pass go, please pay $2million dollars.
This will have consequences on projects like Wine, Samba or ReactOS because some legal mechanism will be in force so that you can't look at the Windows source and rewrite it, let alone cut-n-paste it. What those guys need to do is ensuring any development is clean-room. What I see as conceivable is that someone (the FSF for instance) pays for one licence and the devotes some effort into releasing documents which describe accurately the internals in plain language. Obviously, the people who do this job must not contribute any code to any project.
When one of those game developers is a 95% monopoly on home and office computers and their software comes pre-installed on all hardware with cost-prohibitive terms to the hardware manufacturers against installing a competitor's game software, then we'll have a look at the merits of a case against that game developer.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Name one game developer that has control over the vast majority of desktop computers. Can't? That's why they're not "forced" to reveal their trade secrets.
BTW, they're not being forced. They can stop offering their software in Europe.
Developers: We can use your help.
"Why should any company be forced to reveal their trade secrets?"
Why should any murderer be forced to spend time in prison?
Answer: because they were convicted in a court of law (or, in Microsoft's case, courts) of comitting a crime and are now being punished.
"Is Blizzard going to be forced to reveal their source code so that we can write a better version of Gear?"
Hold off your whining until Blizzard is prosecuted for abusing monopoly powers.
Now I can learn how to create secure bugfree code from the masters.
http://saveie6.com/
Why should any company be forced to reveal their trade secrets?
For the good of the market. Market freedom implies that new players can enter the market freely. When you are unable to enter the market at reasonable cost because a monopolist has used its power to lock you out, that's when the government is supposed to step in to lower market barriers, so the market remains free.
It's simple economics (any book on market forces covers this). Monopoly + raised market entry barriers = inefficient (non-free) market. This is good for the monopolist, but bad for the market (and by extension, bad for society). Corporations only exist as a tool to serve society. From the moment their actions start to hurt society they lose any privileges they may have.
Though, ofcourse, whether microsoft is an abusive monopolist is a point you can argue about.
In other words, what are you smoking (and how is this insightful)?
So MS get ordered to hand over documentation for their protocols. They do so. It's crap and they're ordered to go back and do it properly.
So they respond with "figure it out yourself. After paying us some cash obviously."
Does anyone actually think this is an acceptable response?
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
(I only mod down _bad_ trolls. Or ones that copy trolls I've seen before. Trolling, when done well, is a valid artform, and a core part of geek culture, and is to be encouraged :)
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
You act like it's something new ... just watch any infomercial, or commercial for exercise/kitchen gadgets at 2am:
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Spoken like a true Brit. Those Europeans aren't like us Brits, we're fricking great at everything.
Can someone mod me as "insightful" as well please?
On the stock market: $282 billion
Developers: We can use your help.
But I really don't have a clue of WhoTF Jack Wagner is, so I can't tell whether you're sarcastic or not :-/
Linux's source code isn't private (as far as I know) -- isn't that secure?
Microsoft has licensed its source code in the past (think Citrix circa NT 3.51) to those who could meet their terms. Of course, Microsoft tried to "sweep the leg" on Citrix with NT4TSE; but Citrix, unlike so many others who have gone to bed with Microsoft, managed to survive.
Just remember about how Microsoft has *always* licensed their source code: under their terms. Sure Microsoft will license their source code. But you can bet the agreement(s) you must sign to license it will be lengthy, ambiguous where it benefits Microsoft and iron clad where it benefits Microsoft, giving only the bare minimum necessary to pacify the EU, and most definitely not free.
i hope it gets leaked on the web.
that way i can cut-and-paste it into a Obfuscated code contest!
i don't care
the any company happens to be a monoply in this case
What Europe asked for, IIRC, was documentation. Microsoft has so far failed to produce any of a sufficient standard (i.e. that can be actually understood by a programmer), so they're apparently offering source code as a substitute. For a fee, of course.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But the US government has had access to the code for years and we haven't seen much improvement. They do notify MS of at least some issues they find. The OS is probably more secure today because it. I guess things would be even worse if less people were looking at it.
Developers: We can use your help.
Did I just see a pig fly by overhead?
Shiny. Let's be bad guys.
Just something to think about, whatever side you're on.
Are you well? I'm British, but I can't help but notice that Germany IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST EXPORTER OF MANUFACTURED GOODS. Bigger than the USA (world's largest economy), bigger than China (world's largest country), bigger than Japan. The fact that Germans make more stuff than Britain I can cope with (they're bigger than us, after all) but the fact that they beat both the US and Japan is amazing. Who gives a shit if Britain MIGHT have lower unemployment (can you trust the UK unemployment numbers???).
{
oblig code
}
While a lack of compatibility with an application is completely reasonable, being unable to interact with one's operating system as one wishes is a whole other matter
Seems that this is a problem that markets should solve, not governments.
I can assure you that the Man Moth is no myth--he is very much a reality.
English is easier said than done.
Have you even HEARD of free software?
Any grammatical or spelling errors above are for comic effect, and do not signify imperfection in the writer.
This isn't a big deal.r sity/ntsrclicensees.aspx
r sity/NTSrcLicInfo.aspx
Microsoft has already licensed Windows source code to over 100 universities, listed here:
http://research.microsoft.com/collaboration/unive
More details:
http://research.microsoft.com/collaboration/unive
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Though Microsoft was defined as a monopoly in court, and it is certainly politic to tow that line here in Free Beer Land, clear vision reveals that people do have choice, there is still Apple, various Linux, and an assortment of BSDs. Irrational hyperbole can't change the facts. Question: If, as you say, Microsoft is a monopoly, are you than admitting that Linux and BSD are not viable operating systems? Of course that can't be true can it? We know in fact that Linux and BSD are viable operating systems.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
They have been asked to document their protocols such that their competitors (mostly open source) can compete. Licensing their server software is much like asking a politician one question and them answering the question they wanted you to ask. Of course the open source vendors can not sign the NDAs this will require. and Microsoft can't seem to get their shit together to document their protocols, probably their biggest problem behind the scenes.
I will be personally surprised if this is accepted or even an appropriate response to the council.
That's why Britain's economy outshines all of Europe's.
Really? On what basis? In terms of pure GDP, Germany is larger. If you prefer GDP per capital I believe Ireland and Norway beat the UK. If you want to talk about salaries I believe three or four countries rank higher. If you want to talk about standard of living about ten European countries rank higher than the UK (according to the Economist, a UK publication). If you want to talk about growth then quite a number of countries rank higher.
I'm not saying that the UK economy is not good, it is, but it is unfortunately common to come across people who think like you in Britain.
And what would the UK economy be like if it wasn't so tied to the USA? Why do you think Blair is Bush's bitch? Read up on the USA economically punishing the UK for its lack of participation in the Vietnam war if you want a taste of what the UK economy would be like if it didn't have the support of the USA...
What does Microsoft not want? Competition. In particular, they do not want open source competition in the server platform arena.
How will this aid that goal? That is the question to ask.
Why would Microsoft do this, rather than provide complete, accurate, usable documentation of the interface between Windows servers and client stations? Why license source code instead?
Simply, this provides another method for Microsoft to control competition through licensing and restrictions. This will not help the small developer, the startup or the small business. Will Microsoft really provide a license that is conducive to permitting Linux servers to replace Windows servers transparently?
Microsoft's ultimate goal as a business is to protect the interests of its shareholders, meaning protect Microsoft's market and maximize revenue and profitability. If this doesn't aid, or at least very minimally harm that goal, then they wouldn't be doing it without a knock-down drag-out fight.
Larry
Well, the artcile cleary states:
Microsoft is to open up the source code behind its server communication protocols, in an attempt to get the European Commission off its back.
I'm pretty sure this isn't Windows... actually, being a developer myself I KNOW this is not the Windows source code. It's just source code to the protocols. It's a great step forward no less, but anyway.
There will be no additional charge for access to the code.
Er... and the article summary states that developers will have to pay an unspecified amount of money... Ok...
RTFA! That's all I have to say. It's a really short article you know.
That should be enough for the trouble of taking it off their hands. And I'll sign all sorts of agreements promising to never share it with anyone, too. Gladly.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
And also why the Irish economy is kicking the British economy's ass. Britain is in decline, while Ireland and much of europe is in the ascendency.
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
Like any self respecting Brit would use the term "fricking"!
how are they abusing a monopoly that was generated by the successful marketting of their product? For the sake of arguement here, if I were to develop a very successful product and some company wanted to build a competing product that worked just like mine; I wouldn't want to be forced to provide the designs to that other company and reduce THEIR R&D costs. I already paid mine. There's nothing out there that says interoperability with Windows is a requirement. If their product is so great, it should be able to shine on it's own. When did we start calling "momentum" a monopoly? Yes I realize the courts have justified all this; I still don't have to agree with it. MS is bad enough on it's own without our having to help them out.
The world according to SComps
This is an end-run around the requirement to provide complete and accurate protocol documentation, for the purposes of third party inter-operation.
Notice how any third party that uses that code in lieu of the protocol documentation is now unable to inter-operate without forking money over to Microsoft ... sleazy.
Of course, many of us have long suspected that Microsoft really doesn't understand software engineering disciplines well enough to make their products adhere to such specifications. They may think "here's the code" is the best they can do without actually revising their development practices. Well, tough noogies, this is just the price for their previous abusive practices.
but I had to post this http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/c0rnn/moron .jpg
these will be out soon enough. nothing that has roots in technology stays secret for very long.
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
That's right. Brits aren't Europeans. Oh wait...
I'm not sure this first step will be fully successful, but it seems to me that Microsoft has no choice but to release sooner or later its control of the lower level layers of Windows:
Assuming a competitive, market-based, economy, any software of sufficiently broad usage is bound to become free, as its marginal production cost is null. The free software movement is nothing more than the social expression of this basic economical fact. As a consequence, the software industry is bound to live on the margins generated by software innovation and specialization.
Read more...
Ever hear of a "free" market? Does that concept ring a bell?
The problem with a monopoly is that there is no free market any more. The monopoly exerts too much control. So to get a normal, free market to function again, you have to control the monopoly.
Digression: Though corporations are legal persons, they aren't real persons. Therefore I don't give a rip about freedom for corporations. I care about freedom for real people - for human beings. If restoring human freedom requires restricting corporations, I'm for it. (And it's looking more and more like this is the case, and not just with monopolies like Microsoft.)
the EU twisting their arm to do it. They don't wanna... So, there is something to see here.
Because of monopoly issues, Microsoft was forced to disclose complete and accurate interface information to allow non-Microsoft workgroup servers to receive full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. The European Commission/courts/... did not force them to licence the source. However, the European Commission deems the disclosure of Microsoft's documentation so far insufficient.
Microsoft's press announcement even states that Microsoft goes beyond the EU decision with this voluntary move to licence (for a price) Windows source code to for the technologies covered by the European Commission's Decision of March 2004.
In the Business Week article, Microsoft's chief counsel Brad Smith warns that which "open source advocates will not be allowed to publish for free". This probably means one will have to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to see the source, and who knows what will be in there. And as already mentioned, we also don't know the licence fee yet.
Please be specific - how did Microsoft abuse their monopoly, especially in the EU? There are many competitors to Microsoft. Tobit comes to mind, for example, as an alternative to Exchange.
Cheers, Fogger
Um... I didn't do it!
Actually, It's becuase we have better Supply Side policies.
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
Not quite.
The world according to SComps
GUess they figure they can protect it with the gazillion software patents they have been churning out, at least in the US. Like the one on organizing photos in chronological order.
I am with you on this. As a programmer, I feel that this is utter crap. Everyone says that they are a monoply. Please tell me how they are a monoply? You can always buy another OS and delete MS Win, they are not forcing you to use their OS. You can always install Linux and BSD if you want, they are FREE, unless you mean to imply that they are not valid systems. Apple on the other hand forces me to use their OS on their hard to upgrade system. Thats a company that I would ask to open up.
This is a LAW made up by ppl who know nothing about technology and by IT lobbyist who can't compete..
Abusing how? For that matter, where's the monopoly? As has been pointed out many times on slashdot, Linux is a perfectly viable alternative. No one is forced to use Microsoft software. They offer a product, and if people don't like it, they don't have to use it. If the EU doesn't want to use linux, fine, but does that give them the right to dictate what the software they choose to use must do?
I think the implicitly stiff fee is to slow down OSS developers from discovering the undocumented hooks in windows so they can make better windwos emulations.
But in an effort to stop the cloning of the OS...
The question is, why would anyone want to clone Windows?
Only if Coke buys 95% of all resteraunts and grocery stores and forces them to quit selling Pepsi.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
No one is forced to use Microsoft software. They offer a product, and if people don't like it, they don't have to use it.
But most of the time nobody can use any alternatives because Microsoft uses proprietary file formats, protocols and APIS. Microsoft locks people into Windows via these proprietary methods, the competition cannot freely integrate with many Microsoft solutions.
That's why the E.U. wants Microsoft to provide data on its protocols: so that other companies can get their products to work with Microsoft's.
The question is, why wouldn't Microsoft use open protocols in the first place?
HTTP, POP3, SMTP and FTP are all non-proprietary protocols that Microsoft uses, and that other companies also use. The only reason Microsoft has its own closed protocols is to get them used by the majority of computer users, via its monopoly, thereby unnecessarily locking out or making life extremely difficult for the competition (e.g. Samba).
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
How is this offtopic? Come on mods, is that the best you can do to kill off a dissenting opinion? This is /. You gotta to better than this!
The world according to SComps
comes pre-installed on all hardware
You mean, except for the hardware on which it's not installed. You know, like Macs, or machines pre-sold from large retailers like Wal-Mart, who deliver boxes with Linux installed.
cost-prohibitive terms to the hardware manufacturers against installing a competitor's
How is it prohibitive? Doesn't seem to stop IBM or Dell from gladly selling you Linux-powered machines. It's a couple of mouse clicks to pick and choose your OS when you place an order. Windows? Fine. Prefer Red Hat? Click the other button. Or, I can walk into a retailer a block from my house, and while I have lunch at the place next door, they'll crank out a machine with my choice of motherboards and other pieces running my choice of several distros. For very, very cheap. Or, they'll throw an OEM copy of XP, etc., on there, if that's what I want. At no point does an Enforcer from MS get involved in the transaction.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I think that this is a really good development. I used to *like* windows, until my ship was sunk once i a) connected it to the net (viruses, spyware etc.) and b) saw alternatives in action, and what action it was!
I really hope that this resembelence to Open Source will make a better OS. Maybe a "secure" fork would be nice. It would even be good if it started running across architectures! but, I DO NOT Want it to rule the roost, I'd much prefer a range of OS's... unlike now (unless you count servers).
-- Tinned Tuna
They aren't forced to do anything. If they don't like the laws in Europe, they are free to trade elsewhere.
Not entirely true - by _law_, the CEO, as long as other board members _have_ to do what is most profitable for the shareholders. Failure to do so (eg. not doing business in EU will lead to losses) can put them in jail.
That's similar to Google choosing to censure and do business in China - if they don't, then the CEO can go to jail because it's not in the company's best interest.
With all the warning about how even looking at the code could cause trouble, I can't help but think of it as MS's version of the Tar Baby http://www.otmfan.com/html/brertar.htm
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Shouldn't we hope that it doesn't leak? I don't really know much about it, but I'd imagine that Microsoft has patents and such all over their stuff. If it gets out, and similar looking code appears elsewhere (i.e. in open source code projects), couldn't there be lawsuits and accusations flying everywhere?
wrong...MS was judged at the time to have a monopolistic position in the market (think for a moment beyond the consumer marketspace and consider all the MS software runs - servers, dbases, IE, etc.), and they abused that power...that is what they were charged and convicted of...
it's not illegal to BE a monopoly, even if you don't think they are...it's illegal to abuse that power...which is what court(s) of law found Microsoft to be guilty of...
we're all welcome to our opinions - it doesn't change the fact that MS has been convicted of abusing monopolistic power...the facts may not be fun to look at, but that doesn't change them
the only difference between a rut and a grave, are the dimensions
That's more than likely.
On the other hand, the goal of the original directive was interoperability, so I guess smart hackers could take a peek at the source to understand how something works and create a new (more or less fully interoperable) solution to the same problem without taking too many risk.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
....I wanna make Notepad version 2....
"They aren't forced to do anything. If they don't like the laws in Europe, they are free to trade elsewhere."
Oh how nice if you. Now I don't know where you live, but how about this: You'll bend over and be *ssfucked, if not you're still free to trade on other continents.
It's not forcing you or anything.
EXISTING customers who are ALREADY paying for documentation on the Windows server networking protocols will now be allowed to see the source code to the protocols for no additional charge.
They won't be able to modify, extend, or redistribute the code, even in closed applications.
This is only by the most liberal interpretation "opening" the code, and it's really not licensing the code except as reference material.
Answer: because they were convicted in a court of law (or, in Microsoft's case, courts) of comitting a crime and are now being punished.
Are you a shill for the US Department of Justice?
Let me test:
Marijuana is a 100% safe drug. There are exactly -zero- reported cases of deaths from it... ever. According to the US DOJ, how long should a marijuana user be put in prison for, shill?
I don't respond to AC's.
The EU is requiring documentation of the protocols. Microsoft is offering the source code.
Traditionally people complain that Free Software is poorly documented. Free Software zealots say "Read the source code." People laugh at them. Reading the source code is a poor substitute for proper documentation of a communication protocol.
Will the EU laugh at Microsoft? Will they rule that Microsoft can provide source code in lieu of documentation provided that they pay compensation to those who must work out the protocol from the source when they have a legal entitlement to documentation?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, I have been considering how this is different from FOSS, and have come to the conclusion if you're looking over the source code, chances are you're doing it illegally. And therefore, try reporting bugs without being crushed visciously, and why would you want to report them anyway. Of course, people who want exploits don't need to report them to anyone. So yeah, you're probably right, this will unleash a torrent of exploits, which I predict will never stop. It will make Windows slightly more secure, but at a constant cost. And their patching cycle...please.
Any grammatical or spelling errors above are for comic effect, and do not signify imperfection in the writer.
Your comment was hardly offtopic!
This is the reason I hate slashdot - and only read it for the same reason I jab pens into my gums.
It is not a true monopoly by any definition - I don't care what a judge says. Monopoly...let us break it down - mono = ONE. There is more then one OS out there and there is more then one popular OS. Let us look: Mac has an OS (a few of them), Linux (has a slew of them)...and those are the more common ones...now we can get BSD, Unix, and more.
Yea MS did some unfair trading practices, but they are nowhere near a monopoly. They shouldn't be forced to give out their source code - they should be forced to stop abusing their vast market share by pressuring companies to sell their product and their product alone.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
The only way you could build a parallel between MS charges and a BWM prosecution would be:
At this point, both Total/Fina and BMW are de-facto monopolies (as the only persons who can make and use BozoFuel, which became the de facto standard fuel).
Would it seem strange to you that, at this point, that some countries start telling Total/Fina and BMW to open up the engine and bozofuel manufacturation process so that others can actually make them?
Cause that's exactly what happened with MS, but for the fact that there was no BozoFuel and no partner in them gaining de facto monopoly on the desktop computer operating system market.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
In the country in which the company is incorporated, it has been convicted of illegal monopoly conduct, after the *legal* fact of monopoly status was established to the satisfaction of the court. The Webster definition is not relevant. In the context of discussion, it's a strawman.
This creates a huge opportunity for companies to take over supporting legacy operating systems.
License the Windows XP code today, wait a few years for Microsoft to stop supporting it, and then sell support contracts to companies that have chosen not to upgrade and still need security patches and bug fixes.
Failed, a monopoly situation and the abuse of said monopoly by the monopoly holder is a failure of the so-called free market, that's why the govt has to step in (remember Ma Bell?)
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Since when do BSD code and OpenDarwin "stay private"?
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
Yes but being illegal if its leaked doesn't stop you from downloading Microsoft Office or Windows off your favorite P2P network / torrent site / usenet ....
However this does bring up a more legite question: "Will Apple have to do the same?" or since darwin is already open source does it matter?
""
So, this is not about Microsoft's precious source code or trade secrets *AT ALL*. It is all about interface documentation to ensure interoperability in a heterogeneous computer network (i.e. so that a computer not running Microsoft software can still communicate with the computers that do, e.g. using Samba).
It may be the case that Microsoft's statement from today seems to imply that they are doing something relevant, but it is *NOT* a reply to the original *DEMAND*, which was "just tell us how computers can communicate with computers running MS-Windows".
Source code is not the same as documentation! A meaningful reply to the demand would be a document with the full interface protocol, that's all... no source code necessary.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
"Are you a shill for the US Department of Justice?"
If I did, I'd be happy with the slap on the wrist given by the DoJ to Microsoft. Also, the USDoJ has nothing to do with the European Union, where Microsoft was also found guilty of similar crimes.
"According to the US DOJ, how long should a marijuana user be put in prison for, shill?"
I'm unhappy with Gonzales v. Raich as well.
Why should any company be forced to reveal their trade secrets?
This is a common question for people who don't understand why an unregulated monopoly is bad for the economy. Why should the government be allowed to tell a company how much it can charge? Or how they can market their products if the products aren't hurting anyone? Or how they're allowed to bundle them with other things? If a consumer doesn't like a particular company, why don't they just switch to another one?
To see why these things are needed, one need look no further than recent history to find other unregulated monopolies, and what their effects have been. Keep in mind that Microsoft has already been convicted of unfair practices and abusing their monopolist position, so these comparisons are completely fair to make. (I'm making a series of simplifications for the purposes of brief introduction to the subject, but there's plenty of information out there on this if you want to get a more detailed, more authoritative story.)
Rather than describe any particular monopoly (and therefore open the simplifications to too much "it wasn't exactly like that!"-style nitpicking), I'll describe a fictional company that sells milk.
Let's pretend for a moment that the Great American Milk Company (GAMC) starts out as a small business, competing on level ground with all the other milk producers in the country. Over time, through their business acumen, they manage to market their milk effectively enough to start buying out smaller milk producers. This, in and of itself, is perfectly fine and a valid business practice.
However, things start to get a little murkier as GAMC starts to get bigger. In order to increase efficiency, they also begin to purchase distribution channels. Soon, within their own market, GAMC owns not only the milk, but also all of the companies that distribute milk, and several retail grocery stores that stock only GAMC milk.
Once they're firmly wedged in as the (effective) sole local milk provider, GAMC begins to abuse its monopoly power. Retail establishments that carry GAMC milk are told that if they don't keep the prices of GAMC milk at a particular (artificially high) level, they will cut off sales to that company. Furthermore, retailers that aren't owned by GAMC are told that if they stock other company's milk products, GAMC will cease distribution of their products to that store. And if any retail establishment falls out of line, GAMC uses their retail presence to drop the prices on milk at their area just long enough to force the other retailers to give up on selling milk, and then jacks the prices back up to make up the loss GAMC just took.
Of course, those retail establishments are free to give GAMC the finger and buy from other locations, but since GAMC owns the all of the local distribution channels, the cost to purchase non-GAMC products is significantly higher. Retail grocers are left with a choice between expensive and more expensive, and either opt for the former or fail. As a result, the consumer is presented with a single choice - buy GAMC milk, or don't buy milk at all.
GAMC can make a LOT of money this way. Once they don't have to fear competition in a local market any more, they can charge whatever they like for the milk, and they don't even have to worry about quality any more! People will still buy GAMC milk, even if it's really crappy milk, because it's the only milk available in their area. GAMC can cut the wages of the truck drivers and lay off large portions of the workforce, because hey - if the milk gets there late, what are they going to do? Buy milk somewhere else?
As time goes by, GAMC can use all these funds to expand into other markets and treat them similarly. Once GAMC has acquired a large portion of the milk producers, distributors, and retailers across the country (as well as locking other retailers into their milk through the tactics outlined above), they can just sit back and do whatever they want. Any competing milk outfit
That green slime had it coming.
Well, the fact that they're forcing third parties to sell their software with machines preinstalled, (well, maybe not forcing, but still, there's strong-arming going on) And the shitty interoperability is elements of a monopoly.
I don't know about you, but if it walks like a duck..
space is pretty cool.
Nice try, but officers of a company are protected by something called the Business Judgement Rule. If an officer decides some action (not trading in EU) is warranted (releasing source code might, in his eyes, jeapordize their product), they cannot be punished just because the shareholders disagree with that action. As long as they acted in Good Faith, they are protected - even if the choice was wrong.
They could be ousted by the shareholds and replaced, but they would not be criminally liable.
They weren't forced to this. The court told them to release documentation and, specifically, not source code. MS instead decide to release the source code and charge for copies then, no doubt, sue anyone who uses it.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
No one is forced to use Microsoft software.
Wrong, Microsoft strong-armed OEMs into bundling only Windows throughout the 90s, levying special little fines if they dared offer competing products. So technically superior alternatives like OS/2 and BeOS weren't given a fair chance, and consumers never got to try them out.
"Sufferin' succotash."
If thats a question, you obviously have no idea exactly just how crooked these figures are. We do all kinds of idiotic things to get the results that get the baby-kissers re-elected:
And all these measures generally remove quite alot of people who are generally included in the fiigures quoted for other countries. Also, if references another countries figures in relation to ours, they will normally pick the worst figures they can find. Generally, they can normally get away with picking figures that are up to 5 years old (the obviously pick the highest) and the ones that include all kinds of weird crap (ie, if there are a set of figures that will factor in an estimate for people that have probably been missed, they will use those).
UK unemployment figures are wildly inaccurate, and i don't think other countries fudge the figures to the extent we do.
Why should any company be forced to reveal their trade secrets?
Simple, because they levied their monopoly position to prevent competitors from being able to offer interoperable alternative products.
Is Blizzard an abusive monopoly that controls 95+% of computers and is levying that monopoly position to prevent competition? If the answer is yes, then yes, make source code available and document the secret APIs.
Next.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Well, the fact that they're forcing third parties to sell their software with machines preinstalled, (well, maybe not forcing, but still, there's strong-arming going on) And the shitty interoperability is elements of a monopoly. I don't know about you, but if it walks like a duck..
And the third parties are obligated why? Is there a gun put to their head? They can sell whatever they want - the third parties just realize it is a boon to their bottom line to sell MS products. The third parties chose to do it...nothing is stopping them from putting free Linux on their machines...except there isn't that big a market share for Linux as their is Windows.
Again, it is not a monopoly - a monopoly by definition is ONE and there is more then one OS company out there.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
"developers will still have to pay an unspecified amount"
now will the person that moded me offtopic please let me know exactly how i was off topic???
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
If I had the money and the knowledge to set up one of those internet money pools, I would try to pool together some money so that Codeweavers, or maybe even Cedega can get a copy of the code. I'm sure a this could go a long way to help linux acceptance.
"Marijuana is a 100% safe drug. There are exactly -zero- reported cases of deaths from it... ever. According to the US DOJ, how long should a marijuana user be put in prison for, shill?"
They should be put in jail for as long as the law says they should be put in jail.
It doesn't matter that marijuana is harmless. It is currently illegal. You shouldn't get upset with the DOJ for enforcing the law. You should get upset with the legislature for making that crappy law, and failing to correct it.
It's not the DOJ's job to do what's right. It's their job to follow the law. It's the legislatures job to make sure that the law is just, and if they fail, it's your job to hold them to account. This complaining about the DOJ is blowing smoke. Get off your lazy ass and do something.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
"Britain (the UK) is actually a part of europe. There are in the EU also."
When did this happen?!
My understanding is that previous disclosures of Windows Source typically had "no develop" and "no commercial spinoff" clauses. I.e. you couldn't necessarily use the Windows source to try and make your pay-ware version of $whatever work better.
I think this changes that. Now software companies working on plugsin/whatever for windows will be able to continue working on those things, even after looking at the windows code.
That is a pretty significant change, I think. Previous source offerings were primarily for academic institutions, govt code/assurance audits.
I suppose there have been a few previous Windows source licenses that allowed for product development. Sysinternals, Mainwin, and OpenNT come to mind.. but perhaps these were all US based entities?
Note - i have no specific knowledge of these issues, i am just stating my impression.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
That depends on the licence, which will be as onerous as MS can get away with. MS's position has always been that even if they are forced to comply with opening up their protocols (which they're still fighting tooth and nail) the protocols are strictly for paying corporate licencees, not dirty FOSS hippies.
There's a good Reuters article which just came out which goes into more depth about how MS is wriggling on the hook and how little they have actually given up the fight.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
In addition the basis on which the unemployment figures are calculated changes - almost monthly - and always in a manner that would reduce the figures.
The whole point of the EU's interoperability requirement was so that people could build compatible systems. Nobody want's to clone Windows (or at least that isn't an EU requirement). And just because somebody wants to be able to serve files to Windows desktops doesn't mean that they want to steal Microsoft's intellectual property. They just want to be able to support 90+ % of the systems out there. And maybe if MS hadn't broken the law, they wouldn't be forced to allow that. But they did.
Offering the source code with draconian licensing terms doesn't do it. They just need to release detailed specs for the bits of Windows that are required to interoperate with the system. That means the filesystem layout, networking protocols, and I'd argue, codecs that are 'built in' to windows enough that website dev's use them as 'always available' facilities.
And the specs should be made available for free. No restrictions on use. That's the whole point. If MS has the ability through its monopoly position to set de-facto standards, they should not be able to use those standards to further entrench their monopoly. A requirement to publish the specs would remove that incentive.
This offering is a big old red herring, and the EU should reject it.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Why should any company be forced to reveal their trade secrets?
Because Steve Ballmer kicks puppies, and Bill Gates makes the baby Jesus cry.
Or maybe it's the other way around, I get mixed up. But they'e eeeevil. Or at least lots of their software is, which is even worse as far as most Slashdotters are concerned.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
I couldn't agree more. Another thing I don't like about OEMs when it comes to Microsoft products is the way they create their recovery partitions and/or CDs. I made the mistake of buying a Compaq a while back. The system did not come with any install CDs but did have a recovery partition that I was able to burn to a bootable DVD. If my system ever crashes, just pop the DVD in and everything will be back to factory, including repartitioning the hard drive to restore the recovery partition.
This makes it quite difficult to use my legally licensed version of XP Home along with another operating system in a dual-boot environment. I dual boot now, but if XP ever went down, I would have to run the recovery DVD and then repartion the hard drive with Partition magic or similar and reinstall Gentoo Linux along with all my other software that I have. Why do the OEMs make it so difficult to run Windows along with another OS? If you burn the recovery DVD, the partition shouldn't need to be restored. Just reinstall XP and bundled software on the chosen partition. Leave the rest of the drive alone. It's just another way Microsoft has a stronghold on the market.
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
Thank you for writing the only semi-intelligent reply to this story so far. Comments like yours are what slashdot should be full of.
What you wrote is nice in theory, but it's the opposite of what really happens. Typically, antitrust laws create MORE large conglomerates and monopolies than would exist without them. The reason for this is barriers to entry. Antitrust laws as well as other regulations create a hostile environment to start a new business. This is by design, and it's the reason that several very large companies actually welcome heavy regulations.
For example, if you were a skilled mechanic and metalsmith, and wanted to start a new car company, how would you deal with the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations that must be adhered to before you could put your car designs into mass production? An already established company such as Ford, GM, etc. would have the procedures to deal with it already in place, and the cost associated with it already prepared. Can you come up with billions of dollars to comply with regulation on your newly formed company? I didn't think so. The only entities that can are already established, large companies There's a reason we haven't had a new startup American car company in decades, even though the concept is very simple, and clearly the economy would benefit from having more American car manufacturers.
The reason this happens is obvious. Who has more incentive, more resources, more determination to keep the antitrust laws honest than a car company would have to get government to pass legislation that makes starting a new car company, and hence more competition too dificult and expensive? Politicians are too easy for corporations to buy, and a government solution will never work.
On the other hand, taking your example, who's to say what people will do. Some people may resent it and go out of their way to get milk elsewhere, such as buying raw milk products from a farm (tastes a lot better and healthier too). Or if the milk company is charging too much money for their milk, they may just buy apple juice or soda instead. Retailers may get fed up with the distribution and manufacturing chain of that company and opt to purchase milk from local farms, etc. But under today's system, all the monopolistic company would have to do is buy a few senators to get legislation passed to ban raw milk products, putting local farmers out of business because they won't be able to pasturize their milk. Oh wait, that already happened...
i have no idea if it's true but i heard some places only really get access to pieces on the code.... unless there is somebody in house that divides up code to the specific people that need parts of it. i know somebody that tests the software after the engineers molest it and that is how he described it. that may be an in-house decision, but the individuals don't ever have the whole source code available. it seemed inefficient for debugging, but i guess they don't want to mess around.
kind of like the recipe for coca cola or something?
If they will truly open theri ssource code on the streets, we might soon see some 'WindowFixer' websites, sellin windows security patches. That's not the worst of ideas. Actually would somewhat help us, and more people would not-stop using windows, or probably many would use the 'FixedWindows' version... or something.
http://naerey.switch-case.org
What if the Windows clone has fewer bugs, fewer security flaws, runs faster, and is a better quality than Microsoft Windows and sells for a lower price? Can they sell it outside of Europe then?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Bloody Hell...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But they don't have a monopoly. There's plenty of Linux distros to use, free of charge. And you can use Mac last I heard, too, though you still have to pay for that. Oh yeah, what about Novell? They're still around, aren't they?
Sorry, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. You have ample choices. If you want to claim that you don't have choices, then it's only because Microsoft OSes are capable of doing things that you need done while the others are not, and creating additional capabilities is not monopolistic. It's innovative. I'm hearing now that if Ford Motor Co. had been more innovative, they wouldn't be closing plants and laying off workers right now.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Breakfast served all day!
I have the feeling that this product is more and more moving away from the realm of products and into the realm of neccesities. Sooner or later people will want to create products that have the same API as windows (essentialy windows clones). So far they ae not able because M$ is potentialy able to stop them, but when we are talking about an OS that has >90% share, will they be able to keep it up? AT&T had monopoly and lost it also.
This complaining about the DOJ is blowing smoke
As referenced in the grandparent, blowing smoke at the DOJ can get you in trouble. Especially if the smoke comes from marijuana leaves.
warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
This could really backfire on ethical programmers that need trade secret protection.
Just so you know, I'm a Linux fan, and I find Windows to be a substandard, overpriced POS (that ain't code for Pretty Operating System).
The EU has many different operating systems, that probably aren't running windows for gaming purposes. This source code release wouldn't be happening if Microsoft hadn't been spending countless developer hours for years trying to make their product not interoperate with other popular OS's. Comparing these important applications that the EU needs to run a country to writing code for windows games shows you have very little understanding for the nature of this debate.
[nt]
Wikileaks, no DNS
Users are free to choose a plethora of other operating systems. Indeed, many are happy without using Windows. How is this a monopoly?
Why does the Linux-fanboy, anti-Microsoft crowd always crow about Linux's superiority, then whine about how it's not possible to compete against Microsoft without government intervention?
If you are trying to sell workgroup servers you have to take into account the fact that a large number of your potential clients will use Windows desktop computers. If your servers cannot offer the same functionality as Microsoft servers (without modifying all clients) you have a competitive disadvantage, no matter how good your servers are.
Then you develop a Windows based client interface, or build a workstation operating system that works best with your server. Novell did it for Netware; others have as well. I agree, that it's difficult to build interoperability into a competing product, but honestly there's no business reason why Microsoft should have made it easy anyhow. Company's do it all the time. Try using non-Nortel equipment on a Meridian phone system. That's just one example.
The world according to SComps
There's a difference between what you're describing and what constitutes actions taken against a monopolistic company. The "hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations" you refer to aren't in place to prevent a monopoly from forming - they're there for other consumer safety reasons. It's easy to assert this because we don't currently have, nor have we had in the past, an automobile manufacturing monopoly.
I would hazard a guess, though, that a mechanic/metalsmithing company wouldn't enter into the automobile manufacturing business because of the immense capital startup costs. The costs of complying with the regulations pales in comparison to the costs of opening a new plant, securing the material resources, developing relationships with dealers, marketing the new vehicles, and the fantastic labor costs involved with the mass production of automobiles. Feel free to pull up sourced numbers to counter this assertion, if you think it unreasonable.
Larger companies certainly have reason to erect barriers to entry to restrict competition, but this is an effect of the LACK of proper control of these entities - not the result of antitrust actions against these entities. The fact that they use tactics such as political manipulation doesn't change anything I've discussed; it's just another way for a company to abuse their monopolistic power once they get there.
As to whether or not politicians get purchased by companies, that's an entirely different beast. I'm on the same page as you there, in that I agree that large corporations tend to leverage their influence within the political sphere to try to avoid any sort of interference from competition. However, the fact that monopolies do this only strengthens my point that governments should take a keen interest in trying to prevent monopolies from getting to that point.
That green slime had it coming.
so whats it going to be 3.1 95 98 98se Me or something relevent today...
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I'm all about the freedom these days.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Long ago Digital used to provide the source for VMS on Microfiche so that they could comply with government and business security requirements without really giving up control over their OS crown jewels. Looks like this is a similar move by MS. It's similar to a the legal strategy of information overload - dumping tens of thousands of irrelevant documents into the hands of the opposition to force them to waste time and resources looking for that needle hidden in the proverbial haystack.
Ummm, I think Microsoft hit this one too late. The Windows source code has already been reverse-engineered, and has been floating around for quite a while. I will reproduce it here for convenience' sake: /* Source Code Windows 2000 */
//if
// if //while
//if /* printf("Welcome to Windows 3.1"); */ /* printf("Welcome to Windows 3.11"); */ /* printf("Welcome to Windows 95"); */ /* printf("Welcome to Windows NT 3.0"); */ /* printf("Welcome to Windows 98"); */ /* printf("Welcome to Windows NT 4.0"); */
// while
// main
#include "win31.h"
#include "win95.h"
#include "win98.h"
#include "workst~1.h"
#include "evenmore.h"
#include "oldstuff.h"
#include "billrulz.h"
#include "monopoly.h"
#include "backdoor.h"
#define INSTALL = HARD
char make_prog_look_big(16000000);
void main()
{
while(!CRASHED)
{
display_copyright_message();
display_bill_rules_message();
do_nothing_loop();
if (first_time_installation)
{
make_100_megabyte_swapfile();
do_nothing_loop();
totally_screw_up_HPFS_file_system();
search_and_destroy_the_rest_of-OS2();
make_futile_attempt_to_damage_Linux();
disable_Netscape();
disable_RealPlayer();
disable_Lotus_Products();
hang_system();
}
write_something(anything);
display_copyright_message();
do_nothing_loop();
do_some_stuff();
if (still_not_crashed)
{
display_copyright_message();
do_nothing_loop();
basically_run_windows_31();
do_nothing_loop();
}
}
if (detect_cache())
disable_cache();
if (fast_cpu())
{
set_wait_states(lots);
set_mouse(speed,very_slow);
set_mouse(action,jumpy);
set_mouse(reaction,sometimes);
}
printf("Welcome to Windows 2000");
if (system_ok())
crash(to_dos_prompt)
else
system_memory = open("a:\swp0001.swp",O_CREATE);
while(something)
{
sleep(5);
get_user_input();
sleep(5);
act_on_user_input();
sleep(5);
}
create_general_protection_fault();
}
That brings a whole new meaning to 'RTFM'
There are many programs designed to be run on Windows. Developers usually only design for this operating system because it is on such a huge percentage of desktops. These programs cannot run on linux, so people have been working on emulators and/or compatability layors to get them to run on linux. Wine is a program that is used by people to run programs on linux, but is not perfect. With the Windows source code, they should be able to get programs to run much better.
There is also a problem with getting peripherals running under linux. You need drivers to get them working on your OS, but usually the company that made the device will only release drivers for it on windows. There are programs like NdisWrapper for getting certain devices to run on linux, that could also profit from having the windows source code.
These have been the main stinky points for Linux.
ReactOS is an operating designed to be fully compatable with windows drivers and programs. They are currently at version 0.2.9.
On the down side, the lack of crackers having the source code to windows means that it is difficult for them to find vulnerabilities. Even with the code secret, Windows has had a lot of problems with security. It has also developed in an enviroment were the only real security vulnerabilities would be ones that can be found without the source code. The type of people who would be interested in getting through windows's security won't mind downloading the source from some warez site. I hope that it isn't leaked to these kinds of people. Fortunatly, they probably won't release the source code of IE(wich is supposedly part of windows)
Another bad thing is you will most likely be hearing a lot of people making comments about how poorly windows is written.
There's a difference between what you're describing and what constitutes actions taken against a monopolistic company. The "hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations" you refer to aren't in place to prevent a monopoly from forming - they're there for other consumer safety reasons. It's easy to assert this because we don't currently have, nor have we had in the past, an automobile manufacturing monopoly.
Yup, not a monopoly, a bit closer to an oligopoly. You've got the big 3 (chrysler, ford, gm) and then you have imports and that's about it. You'll also notice that very few, if any new car companies have been started in the U.S. for decades.
As to whether or not politicians get purchased by companies, that's an entirely different beast. I'm on the same page as you there, in that I agree that large corporations tend to leverage their influence within the political sphere to try to avoid any sort of interference from competition. However, the fact that monopolies do this only strengthens my point that governments should take a keen interest in trying to prevent monopolies from getting to that point.
That's a very difficult point to defend. You're trying to argue that because politicians are so easy to corrupt, government should expand it's regulatory power to protect itself from corporate lobbyists? This seems to be the opposite of common sense. After all, when politicians don't have anything to sell, be it "protections" from antitrust prosecutions, handouts (taken from the populace at gunpoint), or competition stiffling regulations, lobbyists stop buying. Since keeping government completely out of a specific area is far easier than trying to "maintain a balance" once it's involved, it's very unwise to allow government into a new area without carefully considering the unintended consequences.
How exactly do you propose the government break up these companies before they become monopolies? Hard limit on how many employees they're allowed to hire? How much profit they're allowed to make? Take a step back for a moment and remember that government operates by force, and delegating a substantial amount of power to it leaves it's use to those with the most political influence. This leads me right back to my original point. Anti-trust regulations have led to the opposite of what the founders of those programs intended. You're trying to make corporations less powerful, yes? Well, trying to get the government to stamp them out isn't going to do any good. All it'll achieve is giving the corrupt politicians more power to sell.
It really shouldn't surprise you to see a government program do the opposite of what the original founders of it wanted. The war on alcohol (prohibition) was supposed to reduce violence, and instead esculated it. The war on poverty created a government dependent underclass that stopped taking responsibility for itself. The war on drugs created the same problems as prohibition.
Government interferences in the medical profession was intended to make it affordable for the poor. The exact opposite happened. Now doctors no longer make house calls, charity hospitols have disappeared, routine operations cost over 10 times more than they did before the government got involved. Even allowing for the medicare contribution, adjusted for inflation, seniors pay more than double what they did before the program began.
Considering that congress usually doesn't even read the bills it passes, why anyone would want to rely on government is puzzling.
Who's choosing to violate state laws to prosecute medical marijuana users, then?
Not Congress.
The DOJ has CONSIDERABLE leeway in choosing who and when they prosecute, and how vigorously. I certainly don't see the DOJ prosecuting the President, or any of the administration for the laws that they're breaking. I do read about them arresting little old ladies for smoking a bit of grass, though.
I don't respond to AC's.
Is MS *really* going to comply with this remedy, and its spirit? Or are they just retreating to the next defensible high-ground: The license terms and costs?
Given their past history, they seem more likely to poison the well (with anti-FOSS licensing terms or high license costs) than to comply with the spirit and intent of the ruling. Some are surprised the EU is so patient with a convicted monopolist.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
Oh, but they DO get it. They just don't wanna give it, so they play dumb. They know exactly what is wanted from them, but are refusing to acknowledge it.
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?
[spacemky@linuxbox ~]$ diff bsd_tcpip.h ms_tcpip.h
135825a135826
> (C) Microsoft Corporation
hmm...
640YB ought to be enough for anybody.
I guess your right, fuck the stakeholders, lets petition for a free windows source for everyone.
So technically superior alternatives like OS/2 and BeOS weren't given a fair chance, and consumers never got to try them out.
Subjective at best. True, both OS's had technical advantages to Windows at the time. But both, especially BeOS (yes, I dual booted BeOS) were not ready for prime time on a Joesumer PC. Customers didn't care about choice here any more than they cared about the brand of memory used in the machine. The only customers who cared either bought an Apple or built their own machine. Stop putting yourself into the demographic of the masses. People just don't care about these alternatives. They wanted something cheap, easy, and ubiquitous, and crap hardware + Windows was the only option at the time.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Dan Appleman's books document most if not all of the so-called "undocumented-yet-supported APIs". So, in fact, most are undocumented only by Microsoft.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
1. Release sourcecode of obselete Windows version to masses.
2. ???
3. PROFIT!!!
I'd like to see what, if any, effect this will have on the WINE development. Last time I checked the application compatibility list, there were several programs that I use that weren't listed. I'd love to see that list continue to grow, then maybe someday I can lose Windoze altogether and go strictly 100% Linux. Oh, to dream...
And they said zombies weren't real!
A lot of missed points here by the "what monopoly" crowd. That Micro$oft has 95% of the desktop market isnt the issue (that is a monopoly, but that in itself is not the problem), it is what they did with that monopoly to force things like Internet Exploder and Windows Media Player onto the market and on everyones desktops and burying Netscape, Real, etc... in the process. It is how they used their monopoly that got them in trouble... not that they had it in the first place.
actually they give the code to the BS majors so that the CS magors don't get "contaminated" (and its a good way to...)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Oh, I never said that the government would be particularly effective in what it does or doesn't do. Simply that it should take an interest, and that the situation I've painted is what leads to a government taking antitrust steps.
;)
The original question was "why should any government take the power to interfere with a company?" (with the implication of the original post being that no interference should be allowed, even if the company is very powerful and a convicted monopolist). If my theoretical example isn't convincing as to why a government might be justified in taking antitrust actions, the history of Standard Oil should be.
The question you are asking is different. You want to know why government should be allowed to create regulations at all, given that officers of the government are easily corrupted. If it seems that my answer does not address this concern, it is because that is a different scenario than was being addressed.
It is because of this exact problem that I feel the only rational solution is to install me as absolute potentate. I know myself to be uncorruptable, so therefore I am the only person I can trust to have in charge.
That green slime had it coming.
I doubt the source to xp is going to mean much once they move on to the next version of windows.
Microsoft has either willfully refused to comply with the Commission's order or implicitly admitted that it is incapable of producing proper documentation. Either way, the ball is no longer in their court - it is up to the Commission to remedy the situation. What the Commission should do is license one copy of the code, hire some programmers and technical writers, and produce the documentation itself. They can pay for this out of the fines that Microsoft will be paying for its failure to comply. That way the world gets the documentation, only a small group of people are exposed to Microsoft's code, and Microsoft bears the cost. There's even a benefit to Microsoft in it: they'll find out what their software is supposed to do and be in a better position to test it and debug it.
Get your Unix fortune now!
If my theoretical example isn't convincing as to why a government might be justified in taking antitrust actions, the history of Standard Oil should be.
;)
Well, it certainly is interesting to note that the Standard Oil case is hailed as the most important reason to have anti-trust laws. And going by the way the media portrays it, it doesn't look unreasonable. But if you pay a bit more attention to the facts, some things become evident.
For one, over the timespan of Standard Oil, quality increased dramatically. At the time, kerosine was the primary product, used to replace whale oil in lamps, and a host of other applications. New refining techniques gave a more pure fuel to burn, that reduced bad smells and burned for a longer period of time. Even when Standard Oil controlled 90% of the U.S. oil market, quality continued to improve.
Efficiency in refining the fuel greatly increased. Less waste product was produced, and products were discovered that could be made of from the byproducts of oil refinement. Transportation costs, refinement costs, drilling costs, all decreased, and with it, the price per unit of fuel decreased steadily as well.
So far the evils of the company has produced ever higher qualities, at lower prices. Pretty standard for an unmolested free market. This is supposed to be bad? Sure, Standard Oil bought up small refining companies, distributors, pushed railway companies around for better terms and volume discounts, but the bottom line of better quality and lower prices resulted.
And to show the free market was more effective at disrupting Standard Oil in it's later years after it started being anti-competitive, the market share of Standard Oil began to fall off dramatically as every time they would create problems by jacking up the price to bring in more short term profit, it opened an opportunity for another company to undercut them. By the time of their famous anti-trust trial in 1911, their market share had fallen to 64 percent, down from 90 percent.
I fail to see how government anti-trust legislation is necessary here, and if this is the best that big government advocates can come up with, they lack a leg to stand on. Especially since all the "benefit" we've gotten from anti-trust legislation, has been dwarfed by the number of companies that have used those laws to buy politicians and keep competition out.
It is because of this exact problem that I feel the only rational solution is to install me as absolute potentate. I know myself to be uncorruptable, so therefore I am the only person I can trust to have in charge.
That's nice in theory, unfortunately it doesn't work out that way in the real world. Even if you were running everything the way you want it to be run now, you'd be setting dangerous precedents that would be abused by your successors. That's not a legacy I'd want to leave behind.
I'll bet a large percentage of the companies buying licenses are company looking to check for pirated code so they can sue Microsoft. A lot of companies have been waiting a lot of years to get their hands on that code. Unless everyone is wrong and the code is all in house developed it could be opening them up to a lot of lawsuits. It's annoying though that as part of the deal they aren't opening it up to software developers that could benefit from writing software that was more Windows friendly.
Out of curiosity, I cannot help but wonder what your solution to the problem is, if you do not consider 'specific actions taken by a government when an egregious offender makes itself apparent, based on the situation' to be an acceptable solution.
;)
If we are both agreed that companies have a tendency to abuse their positions of power (just as government will), and that - when a company achieves significant monopolistic power and abuses that power - it is fantastic for that company but poor for anyone else who wishes to compete (and, as a result, the consumers [unless you care to assert that less competition is generally better for consumers?] ), what is your solution for minimizing the overall damage?
I mean, it's all fine and well to say that the "invisible hand of the market" corrected for Standard Oil eventually, but it took from before 1878 (when SO gained 90% market share and, ostensibly, monopoly status) to 1911 (when the breakup was finalized) in order to do this. During that 33 year period, oil producers were forced to take the price that SO dictated, regardless of whether that price was fair or not.
A "free market" should have provided a wealth of options for oil producers, such that they could have bartered for a price that matched the quality of their oil (and whatever other factors might normally influence price, such as speed of delivery, quality of service, etc.), but SO's monopolistic practices prohibited that free barter over a span of 33 years. (If we wish to nitpick, I'll be willing to concede the marketshare decline over the last 11 years of that reduces the impact of their practices somewhat, and we can talk about a complete lack of a free market for those first 22 years instead if you like.)
Oh, and on the last point, there won't be any successors. As long as we're using magic to install me as absolute potentate, we're also using magic to make me invincible, omniscient, omnipotent and immortal. See? There are easy solutions to everything!
That green slime had it coming.
Apple sued MS when Windows 1.0 was released. Apple made the mistake of signing a settlement agreement against Windows *version 1.0*, but freed MS from future litigation in succeeding versions.
MS could release the source code to XP - but are there any obligations to FUTURE Windows release? By the time they decide to comply with EU demands, Windows 2006 could be released and that XP source code means nothing.
Gate's father was a lawyer - he learned a lot from him and he's one crafty SOB.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
If we are both agreed that companies have a tendency to abuse their positions of power (just as government will), and that - when a company achieves significant monopolistic power and abuses that power - it is fantastic for that company but poor for anyone else who wishes to compete (and, as a result, the consumers [unless you care to assert that less competition is generally better for consumers?] ), what is your solution for minimizing the overall damage?
;)
:P
For starters it's important to not fall into the trap of allowing a solution that does more harm than the original problem. Aka, the common phrase "something must be done about " and then pointing at government with the demand that they fix it. Any issue of any kind that is put under government control is transfered from a scientific, economic, educational, medical, religious, etc. issue into a political issue to be decided by politicians and those who have managed to buy political influence.
Monopolies that occur in a free market are usually temporary, and only exist while said monopoly provides a far superior service to anything anyone else has to offer. As long as the monopoly continues to provide excellent products and/or services at low prices, it's possible for it to maintain it's monopoly, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not going to complain about superior products and services. It's precisely when the monopoly starts to abuse power that things decline for them. If they ignore what their customers want, provide bad service, and raise their prices, it provides an opportunity for another company or individual to provide better service at a better price and win over some market share.
The mechanisms in a free market to deal with the symptoms of a monopoly gone bad are already in place. On the other hand, once government begins (long, long, time ago) abusing it's power there's very little that can stop it. The federal government has removed the state legislatures from having a say in how things are run, given itself authority to directly tax the citizens, packed the supreme court with justices that make decisions that demonstrate that they either can't read simple words or have direct contempt for the constitution, assumed authority on just about every aspect of your life, and contributed to the dumbing down of the American populace through it's costly and inefficient government schools. But worst of all, indoctrining our children to be good little citizens who don't question their government.
You'll find far more corruption, scandals, and greed in government than you'll ever find in a real free market. And even if you didn't, if you don't like a company you can refuse to do business with them. Just as I do with DRM filled music, movies and software. Contrast that with government, where if I tell the IRS to go to hell and refuse to pay taxes, I'd get federal agents showing up at my front door pointing a gun at my face and bringing me to prison. Government doesn't have to satisfy the needs of the customer to survive, because it can just use force to get what the politicians want.
Oh, and on the last point, there won't be any successors. As long as we're using magic to install me as absolute potentate, we're also using magic to make me invincible, omniscient, omnipotent and immortal. See? There are easy solutions to everything!
Obviously tounge in cheek, but well, there's a very distinguished line between easy and practical.
I want to make sure that I understand you properly here. Are you suggesting that the proper solution to a monopoly abusing its power is to do nothing and simply wait it out?
That, during that time period in which the monopolistic company is running amuck (22 to 33 years in our example of Standard Oil), if one is being unfairly hurt by monopolistic anticompetitive measures (such as oil producers were during this period, specifically in that they were denied even the possibility of selling their oil to another vendor at a higher price [see also the incident wherein SO blocked their competitor's ability to move oil by physically blocking its transport]), the proper course of action is to just suck it up?
I want to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding your post, so please clarify, if you would. Also, thank you for taking the time to put thought into a series of considerate posts defending your position. Intelligent political debate on the internet is terribly difficult to find, and our discussion has been a delight to me.
That green slime had it coming.
I want to make sure that I understand you properly here. Are you suggesting that the proper solution to a monopoly abusing its power is to do nothing and simply wait it out?
It depends on what you mean by "do nothing." As far as government action is concerned, yes, I do advocate the government doing nothing. That's not what government is there for, and there are better alternatives. What I do advocate if customers are not being properly satisfied is consumer action. For example, if you didn't like what Standard Oil did, and wanted to break their monopoly, you might decide to purchase oil from a very small competitor, even if it meant paying a substantial premium. No company achieves 100 percent market share, there always ends up being someone willing to provide the product or service for a high price. Or, simply do without their products or services entirely.
If enough people do that, it provides incentive for the monopoly to provide the quality and service their customers want. Generally, people won't do this unless the monopoly is abusing it's power substantially to the point that it's no longer satisfying their needs. So no, I don't think you have to just "suck it up" as there are things you can do to mitigate it. I also don't consider a monopoly that naturally formed in a free market (very rare, it's usually with government help as with SO) that's still satisfying it's customers to be a bad thing.
As far as SO blocking their competitors from transporting oil across it's railways, there isn't anything inherently illegal or wrong about that. (Ignoring for the moment that those rails were paid for by government funds and leases, actions that greatly pushed SO towards monopolistic control) It was legally their private property and at their disposal. If someone wanted to transport goods through your property, they would have to get your permission. It would be a gross violation of your rights if the government forced you to allow them to pass, as you're supposed to have sovereign rights over your own property.
No, it's not.
You've seen the Osbournes? You've been shocked at their unusally high level of swearing?
Don't be - your average Brit swears like a sailor practically every other word.
If the EU require Microsoft to disclose the documentation of the protocols required for interoperability then Microsoft need only disclose the documentation it actually has. If its own programmers fill gaps in the formal documention by consulting the source then the actual documentation is the inadequate formal documentional together with the source.
If the EU require Microsoft to provide documentation Microsoft might need to hire some technical authors and pay fines while those authors write.
In terms of fostering competition, it makes most sense for the EU to require Microsoft to provide documentation. The aim of competition policy is to enable competitors to write competing implementations of the protocols. That is technically easier if there is a specification to work from that is good enough to use directly without having to reverse engineer the original code.
This EU press release gives the impression that if the documentation is inaccurate Microsoft must correct it, and if it is incomplete Microsoft must write some more.
I don't know about you bozos, but what the hell do we really know about the legaleze and liabilities/limitations of this announcement? Are you guys kiddings yourselves? The issue is not whether Microsoft will comply or not or how the information will be licensed or what it will charge. The issue is that a thrice-convicted company's overall strategy is to drag its heels in a balance between being fined at a rate that Microsoft can afford and at a rate that it can not. So, if the fines go up, it 'releases' information. If they go down, it will stop. It's that simple. Now, the other side of the equation is this: who's to say that the documention released will be accurate? There is no compelling reason for Microsoft to publish accurate information. It can simply say that it made a mistake and that, to correct 12,000 pages of information will take ages... and so, drag it out again... If you want to fingure out what's really going on, check out Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200601251 03545406
*** Don't be dull.***
The EU didn't ask for the main Windows APIs to be opened up, they just asked for some of the networking protocols to be documented for interoperability with other operating systems; even if MS had/have done this properly it wouldn't help duplicate the Windows OS itself much.
MS just won't license enough of the source liberally enough to a company or group that wants to duplicate it independently. The only way this might happen is if in many years from now MS are forced to use an open source business model.
OT: Linux acceptance is already good. The desktop market has and will continue to gradually move away from MS.