Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Source Code Still Not Enough for EU?
wjsteele writes "The BBC is reporting that Microsoft's offer to allow rivals access to its software blueprint may not be enough to prevent European Union action." From the article: "Its offer to open up its software blueprints 'underscored its commitment' to meet the European Commission's demands, Horacio Gutierrez associate general counsel for Microsoft Europe said in a statement. However, Brussels has warned the offer may not go far enough. 'It would be premature to conclude that offering access to source codes would necessarily resolve the problem of compliance," said EU anti-trust spokesman Jonathan Todd.'
but I'm afraid that if MS has to comply, then later on down the road, MS can claim that some OSS has put their code into [insert an OSS project]. Then we'll have SCO all over again.
Code is not a standard. You can not point to code, and say that _this_ is how to do something. Code changes, code can be hard to understand. Code is only one way to do things.
A standard should be clear, it should be possible to implement any number of ways, as long as the results are the same. Things outside the boundary of the standard should be undefined, not 'Well, if you compile it this way...'
Furthermore, anyone looking at the code has become contanimated by MS IP, and may be constrained from using their knowlege in the future. Standards, documentation, should not limit what people can do. This was designed to open up MS software, in order to allow competition. Not to lessen competition for MS and provide them with a revenue stream.
I don't agree with any company having to give out its secrets. I mean, what if Europe demanded to know the secret ingredients to certain food products. That may be a bad comparison, but Microsoft or any other company shouldn't have to give out its top secret source code. That code is what makes them money. True, Microsoft has LOTS of money, but hey, uber powerful and rich or not, they still deserve their privacy to their source code.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
Really I find this to be just downright wrong.
Big picture view, I do believe Microsoft to be a monopoly. I do believe there needs to be some sort of repercussion for it but I think anyone asking them to give up THEIR intellectual property that they have developed is just proving their point... they are the best.
I sit back and watch daily as Microsoft is flamed here on slashdot, I've been around a while, and I don't comment much but there are certain things that push my buttons. Microsoft is not the devil, they do not stifle innovation and the people and organizations who claim they do are either on the loosing end or are just tyring to get a piece of the pie for themselves.
If someone out there was better than Microsoft, we would see that.... look at Firefox... it works WONDERFULLY on Windows XP, and its what I use. I also have a bunch of Linux web servers but in the end I think the people asking Microsoft to "open up Windows" are just admitting defeat.
Rather than worry about "opening up Windows, or decoupling IE from Windows" isn't it time that people start innovating and competing with Microsoft?
Regards, Ryan McAdams
Microsoft was aked to open up it's protocols. Microsoft gave them the source code. I would not be happy with this if I were the EU. Semi-"open" source code is worth nothing.
Meme of the day: I browse "Disable Sigs: Checked". So should you.
I do hope that's sarcasm.
Let's see. Um..Microsoft has been convicted of Anti-Trust practices. I.E standing in the way of fair competition and unfairly abusing their monopoly position. So no. Considering that they already have "an unfair advantage" this ruling is intended to help level the playing field. You can't honestly believe that having any one corporate entity hold the keys to a market as vital as IT is a good thing?
Now if this was a judgement passed on some smaller, peripheral company then I'd agree with you. But it's not. So I don't.
"...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
Code viewed under an agreement that impairs the viewer's right to reimplement the protocols doesn't count.
The behaviour of MS in this matter suggests that they do not have proper documentation. If true then it would explain a lot about the quality of MS products.
If the information on how to interoperate with Microsoft software becomes available to any extent, America's competitors not only in Europe, but also in America benefit from the ability to interoperate. Thus America as a whole benefits from having more choices in software, and benefits from having their options in software be compatible with that software they own which is still locked in to Microsoft products. Having better and more diverse software helps not only the individual consumer in this way, but the overall American economy because it has the potential to lower IT costs and increase worker productivity.
So it's kind of like, imagine oil prices were lowering. Would Americans be upset, because American oil companies were being hurt by the low oil prices? No, Americans would be happy, because they buy gas.
I mean, yes, there are Americans who believe that anything that happens to the rich and powerful of America is good for America itself, and believe that anything good that happens to those darn dastardly french is bad for America itself, but this issue is frankly just too convoluted to easily stir up the good 'ol right-wing hatred over.
Is it me or does it seem that Jonathan Todd (or whoever brought the sourcecode problem to light) is actually aware of the priciples invoved in programming? That documentation of the protocols is more important than arbitraty source code? And that to allow the punishemnt to work (break a portion of MS' monopoly, in this case network protocols) there needs to be no hidden strings. 'Cos documentation would be far safer for FOSS projects than the actual source code...
Woo...Scary..I mean, an enlightened beauracrat? What's the world coming to?
I'm gonna go hide under my bed now...
"...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
This is true because we all have the machine code for Microsoft's software. Having the code, whether is C, C++, Java, VB, or Machine code isn't the same as having the specs for how things are supposed to work. I guess in MSs case they may be one and the same, but having the code doesn't help one create compatible software. If you have the specs, then you can design your own code without worrying about copyright infringement. If all you have is the source code, then there's nothing you can do except copyright infringement.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
The EU has asked for MS to provided documentation allowing interoperability with Windows and other Windows software components.
MS offered to license the Windows source code.
MS didn't have offer the source code, and the EU is rightly saying that source code sans documentation may not be enough to make interoperability easy.
It's not that source code "Isn't enough". It's communication protocols that they want, mainly. Not piles of source.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
What any developer needs to interoperate with another system is a complete, published, supported interface, which is what the EU ordered Microsoft to deliver. Having the source code to the system may help you to debug your implementation, but in this case it comes at a very stiff cost: exposure to Microsoft's intellectual property. Once a developer looks at that source code, they are contaminated -- Microsoft can come back afterwards and accuse them of taking Microsoft's IP and using it without license. (This applies to commercial developers as well as FOSS developers, but the risk is higher for FOSS).
PJ has a much longer explanation of this over on Groklaw.
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
I'm glad to see that the Microsoft astroturfers are out in force here.
Let's review the game plan. The EU has (rightly) condemned Microsoft of illegal monopoly practices and is attempting to force Microsoft to behave in a way that creates a more level playing field. This is not about EU vs. US; Microsoft has also been convicted of monopolist behaviour in the US, only it's managed to avoid any penalties for that.
Now, the EU is asking for Microsoft to stop working to create barriers to interoperability. This is a valid approach. Microsoft can make whatever software it likes but it cannot deliberately break interoperability. In case you're wondering why this matters, it's thanks to interoperability that the Internet even exists. Microsoft would like to make products like Samba useless.
It is trying to inject software patents into the picture, by claiming that its standards are "patented". Thus, any open source implementation would infringe.
As an alternative, Microsoft suggests that people can license its source code. Note that this is something MS has been offering to random partners for years, so it's hardly a new step. When asked what the price and conditions for such a license would be, Microsoft said, "we are willing to negotiate".
In other words, Microsoft has not budged an inch and is instead preparing the ground for patenting its interfaces in the EU.
Now we come to the crux of the matter: Microsoft, far from making any concession with respect to the anti-trust accusations, is instead laying the groundwork for an attack on open source competition! This is so blatant and so hostile to the interests of the market that it's quite amazing the Commission is still talking to them, instead of simply levying an appropriate fine.
Open standards are vital to competition, and Microsoft's attempts to quash competition by placing patent bombs into its interfaces, while happily exploiting every other standard on the market, deserve all the abuse they get.
My blog
You ask your electric utility to specify the voltage and frequency of the electricity they deliver. Instead, they try to sell you the blueprints for a power plant.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
1) IBM outsourced OS development for the PC platform to Microsoft, effectively giving them control of the desktop once the PC platform became ubiquitous.
2) Lotus had the dominant position in spreadsheets with 1-2-3, but lost out to Excel by being slow in transitioning to a GUI, slow to add features, etc.
3) Wordperfect had the word processing market locked up, but fell behind for reasons similar to Lotus.
4) Novell dominated the PC networking scene but was based on proprietary protocols, was too obscure and command-line oriented, etc.
5) Netscape had the superior browser and majority share but became a slow, buggy piece of bloatware.
6) Apple had the superior UI (and still does in many ways) but allowed the gap to close considerably prior to OS X.
7) Symantec had a lock on tools with superior Norton products which have devolved into buggy bloatware (not that Microsoft yet competes against this, but it gives them a reason to develop their own equivalents).
There are other examples. If you look though at products, whether proprietary or open-source, where the competition has focused on their product over the long-haul, without letting it rot from lack of attention or bloat/wander from poor planning, Microsoft is clearly beatable:
1) Google has beaten them in search and taken the lead in web-based e-mail, too. (The latter at least in mindshare if not marketshare.)
2) Apache continues to dominate web servers.
3) Oracle and others continue to have the lead in database servers.
4) Specialty applications like Photoshop continue to trounce Microsoft's half-hearted offerings.
In short, Microsoft is no Standard Oil. They enjoy nothing approaching the same scale and are not in absolute control of a scarce resource. Simply put, there are alternatives. If you hate Microsoft, buy a Mac or run Linux, but quit moaning and groaning. And don't be so credulous about the EU "doing the right thing". Europe is just looking out for itself. If you think they would be pursuing this if Microsoft were a European company, you're very naive.
Ok, from what I understand the opening of the code was not even requested by the E.U.
The whole issue was about an unfair advantage by using their desktop monopoly to push certain software with Windows (such as IE, MediaPlayer so on...)
So I think it's perfectly fine that the E.U. doesn't accept this, as it wasn't part of their requests in the first place. The purpose is to split Windows in parts again so everyone has the same chance of distributing third party software. The opening of the code has nothing to do with it and is just smoke and mirrors tactics by MS.
" When will anti-Microsoft sentiment make way for patriotism? "
I think you are seriously confusing the issue. None of this is "anti" Microsoft sentiment. M$ broke the law and did very serious harm to the computing industry by doing so. This has already been decided in a court of law so don't quibble about that fact.
If the EU is going too far so what? Any company must obey the laws in the nation that they do business in or they need to leave. It's that simple. Would you have it that Toyota should be able to ignore US law and still do business here because a few people say the laws are designed to harm Toyota and really aren't about what is just?
A lot of the replies in this thread scares me a bit. Are a lot of you guys taking this as an American VS Europe thing? If so - then this is REALLY bad. That is usually how simple misunderstandings lead to big problems.
..that they
wish that it had extra functionality. Being the smart savy
business people that we are - we naturally give in to the
peoples wishes and even throw in some of our own innovations
to make it that much better.
;)
Please keep in mind that Europe is a close FRIEND of America and an ally as well.
The ongoing Microsoft issues are related to our individual freedom and compatibility issues with other similar system. No company in the world has any rights to control our freedom, Americans of all people should both understand and appreciate this more than anyone if you look at their history and belief that every individual has rights and that forms our democracy.
While it is perfectly natural for any company to protect their intellectual property - this isnt entirely as easy and straightforward as it might seem in Microsofts case.
I will explain. Imagine that you develop a gadget that
catches on everywhere, people really like your gadget for what it does. As a matter of fact - so much so
Now...Imagine that this gadget not only is super popular amongst everyone, but it can be used for nearly everything as well. It now gets used in critical environments like hospitals, police stations, research and much more. Lets say for arguments sake something goes terribly wrong somewhere...we try to help these poor unfortunates of course being the professional company we are... but for some reason failed to do so. Why that is could be argued to death amongst the victims of this flaw and our company.
Now - again imagine, there is no real competitor to our products and our customers are literally forced to use our products, a dream for any company or an individuals loss of freedom - you decide! Well - nothing is stopping you from developing a similar product, is there? And here is what happens when greed becomes a factor. How safe are you and I really? What if our only competitor turns out a real neath product? Ok - we buy it, but they wont sell - so we make it real hard for them to compete. After all - we OWN the standards for most of our innovations...or those that we have bought from others. But it is fortunately not as straightforward as that - heres where your freedom comes into the picture. If you have been sold a product that enslaves you so much so - that you can no longer control it yourself, you are being deprived of your freedom.
No company in this world should have so much power that it can control nearly everything you do, what you sell and whom you sell it to. Imagine that you owned all telephone cables in the world....and imagine that a million companies where dependent on your cables...and further imagine if they changed the copper to light (fiberglass cables) without asking you because they could. All of a sudden - these million companies would have to RE-invest all of their equipment into newer and different equipment rendering their old stuff useless just because the cable company wanted it. It would KILL small companies and they would not have a living breathing chance of survival because....there is no other cablenet.
Belive me - Europe is NOT evil, we are as hearty and friendly as our American allies, but we dont have to agree about EVERYTHING
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
...to "license" their source code does nothing for open source projects and they know it. The EU should stand firm and tell Microsoft "Thanks for the offer. Now complie with the requirement of clear documentation to your interfaces that will allow interoperability in a way that EVERYONE has access."
This "offer" is just Microsoft continuing to play it "I'm complying but not really" game.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
If I were capable of making decisions at Microsoft, I would just pull out of Europe completely. Yeah, that's a big hit to the bottom line, but the way things are going now, complying with the EU will mean that eventually Microsoft products will be done away with over there anyway.
And you'd be fired and someone would reverse your decision as quickly as the board of directors could throw together an emergency meeting. Complying with the requirements will make them compete fairly, and they may well slowly lose market share if they don't make a better product. Not complying will cost them millions in fines, but still only a fraction of the profits they pull out of Europe. Pulling all business from Europe would throw away all profit and guarantee a strong competitor in short order. Worse it would not only fail to comply with the order, but violate business contracts with literally thousands of international organizations and companies and be a slam dunk for further EU antitrust sanctions. They're probably seize MS's assets in the country, including IP rights and hand them over to either newly formed companies or existing competitors. In any case "pulling out" is about the stupidest move MS could make.
them to give up THEIR intellectual property that they have developed is just proving their point
Your totally misinformed.
1. Microsoft is a monopoly.
2. Monopolies exert significant market pressure that distorts competitive landscapes. This means that unless a product is vastly superior to a Microsoft product, Microsoft will win. It makes competing on merit far more difficult.
3. In order to remedy this, the EU has insisted MS supplies interoperability documentation, as interoprability concerns are the PRIMARY market barrier that MS maintains. Why does everyone use MS software? Primary reason: Not because its the best, but because its the most interoperable.
End result of interopability? More (and better) software from competing software manufactures, and more (and better) software from Microsoft. Look at Firefox; Firefox is more or less interoperable with IE. And look at the Firefox rate of improvement? It seems to have knocked MS out of its IE stagnation. Everyone wins!
4. In order to comply with the EU order, MS offered to license its source code to anyone willing to pay a reasonable fee. This is nice and all, but doesn't satisfy the interoperability requirement! The EU has NOT said MS isn't in compliance, but at the same time they haven't decided that MS IS in compliance. At the moment (and the subject of the article) the EU council is deciding whether or not supplying source code is "sufficent" documentation for a competing company to develop and interoperable implementation. If it is found to be so, end of story.
5. The CORRECT solution for MS would have been to supply documentation for the interfaces and protocols of its various Windows platform related applications. Not the entire source code, just interface documentation.
I don't understand how thats an unreasonable request for a twice convicted monopolist whose primary market barrier is interoperability concerns. Seems like a very fair and reasonable judgement, certainly much more fair (to MS) than a company breakup or vast restrictions on their business plan.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
My reading is that the EU is miffed at the way Microsoft has handled this over the past few days. Microsoft seem to have sent the EU compliance folks the minimum of details while spinning a big press release and publicity bandwagon about what a massive, epoch-making offer they now have on the table. Presumably Microsoft are hoping either to overwhelm the EU via the publicity effect or push the EU into a corner whereby if the EU turn down this "offer" (which is not what Micrsoft were asked to provide) they will look churlish and against the opening up of closed code.
It's all a game. Microsoft don't want to comply if they can avoid it, because they see interoperability as bad for their business. We know that; they know that; and they know we know that. Hence this little charade with thousands of documents and byzantine and no doubt extremely expensive "peak at our code" procedures. Just my 2 cents, but I hope the EU take a tough stance against this attempt to intimidate and manipulate them.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
Big picture view, I do believe Microsoft to be a monopoly. I do believe there needs to be some sort of repercussion for it but I think anyone asking them to give up THEIR intellectual property that they have developed is just proving their point... they are the best.
Do you have any idea what the point of anti-trust legislation is? It is to remove an unfair business advantage that allows an inferior product to dominate a market, because there is no ability for the customer to choose the competition. They were never asked to give up their intellectual property. They were asked to document their protocols so developers can compete on even ground for making software that works with Windows (since it is wholly unreasonable to expect everyone to switch away from Windows at the same time). They are offering to license their source code as an alternative, and a poor one at that.
Microsoft is not the devil, they do not stifle innovation and the people and organizations who claim they do are either on the loosing end or are just tyring to get a piece of the pie for themselves.
Internet Explorer holds 90% of the browser market. It is a piece of crap. It is insecure, ancient technology that cannot even properly render the six year old specifications it was originally implemented with. The mere fact that it dominate the market has held back internet standards, tabbed browsing, ad blocking and the Web in general for more than half a decade, despite numerous better alternatives is proof enough. As someone who has done fair bit of Web development I assert that anyone who claims MS is not stifling innovation does not know what they are talking about. That does not even count the dozens of other standards they have intentionally corrupted, or the dozens of companies they have bought out or driven out of business using their monopoly. It is awfully hard to sell a product when everyone is already forced to buy your competitor's. You have to be so much better that people will both go out of their way and find another product and pay for it again. This is called "bundling."
If someone out there was better than Microsoft, we would see that.... look at Firefox... it works WONDERFULLY on Windows XP, and its what I use.
Yep, it sure does. Now, ask yourself why is 90% of the market dominated by its inferior competitor? You do realize what MS is doing is illegal, right? And you don't think they should be punished in some way that might discourage them from doing the same thing in the future? Like with media players and antivirus software and every other market they decide to swallow.
I think the people asking Microsoft to "open up Windows" are just admitting defeat.
Here are a couple of facts for you: Most people will never by a stand alone OS. They will just use what is on their computer. There is basically zero possibility of convincing every business and individual to switch to another OS all at once. As a result of this, there is a need for any product to interoperate with Windows in order to gain market share. Unless their are published, implementable specifications for interoperability, this cannot happen and hence MS will always remain in its monopoly position. No one wants the source code. Everyone needs open API's, protocols, and formats. MS was ordered to provide some of the APIs. They have thus far refused and instead are trying to offer to sell, the right to view the source, with restrictions, for an undisclosed price. This is wholly unacceptable.
Rather than worry about "opening up Windows, or decoupling IE from Windows" isn't it time that people start innovating and competing with Microsoft?
That is the problem. You can't compete against a monopoly that bundles what you make. It is not economically feasible and even superior software you create will not win in the market, like Firefox. That is the whole point of the EU rulings, to try to make it possible to compete on even ground.
I'm an American... but...
/WhiteWolf666 wakes up
God I hope Microsoft does that. Nothing would kickstart OS X and Linux adoption like a full-fledged Microsoft pull out of Europe.
Talk about a wet dream.....
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
How exactly is Microsoft supposed to make a better product if they aren't allowed to have trade secrets in the form of protocols or proprietary file formats?
Gee I don't know. They could write better, more efficient code that runs faster, is more secure, and is more reliable. But that is not really the MS way is it?
Someone can just come along and reimplement whatever Microsoft wrote and sell it for less.
MS, as the first implementor of a standard and as the maker of most of the interoperating software can implement new features and has a time to market advantage on them, just like everyone else in the industry. You do know there are plenty of companies that actually do make products to open specs and do just fine right? And why should someone else be able to write code to do the same thing better and cheaper than the people who invented the standard? In addition to being slower to market, competitors have to take time to understand the spec.
Why aren't ALL companies doing business in the EU bound by the same rules? After all, I'm sure there are plenty of products that dominate their particular markets, and that just isn't fair!
What?!? Everyone is bound by the same standards. They are called laws. MS intentionally broke them as part of their business model. They fully expected that they would have to deal with the consequences, they are just betting it is more profitable to break the law and pay fines than it is to obey the law. Any company that creates a monopoly and then breaks the law and abuses that monopoly will face the same thing, and a number have done so in the past.
Your post basically comes down to, "It's not fair MS is punished for breaking laws while companies that did not break the law aren't. How can you expect MS to compete without being allowed to squash competition by further breaking the law?" Well here's an answer for you. I expect them to make a better product or lose money to those that do so. You know the way competition normally works in a free market.
Holy shit you're naive.
How exactly is Microsoft supposed to make a better product if they aren't allowed to have trade secrets in the form of protocols or proprietary file formats? A better UI? Anyone can copy a program's UI, and you don't even need spec documents to do that. Lower cost? How do you figure? Someone can just come along and reimplement whatever Microsoft wrote and sell it for less. Why aren't ALL companies doing business in the EU bound by the same rules? After all, I'm sure there are plenty of products that dominate their particular markets, and that just isn't fair!
How about a better implementation?
Do you think Microsoft should go back to making proprietary MSHTML that only renders properly on IE?
Do you think that Microsoft should make a big push for Exchange to be the primary mail system for the internet (as direct competition for SMTP)?
Do you think Microsoft should produce an SMB v5 that is incompatible with everything else, and then push it as a replacement for FTP and HTTP file transfers?
Proprietary file formats and protocols are not the way of the future, my friend. Look to the state of Massachusetts. Proprietary file formats and protocols are a DISASTER for future generations, as well as unfairly hindering superior products in a competitive environment (monopolist barriers to market entry).
Just because a program can read and write an established format doesn't mean that it is equivalent to all programs that can do so. Take HTML editors; HTML is an established, published, public format.
Do you honestly claim that Front Page, GoLive!, Dreamweaver, and MS Word 97 all produce HTML of similar quality, or end user output of similar quality?
What the fuck happened to competing on features and design? Or even gasp security?
Microsoft products routinely beat out superior implementations because of competitive barriers to entry, primarily in the realm of interoperability. Your right; the MS empire is founded on keeping out competing products.
"Windows ain't done till Wordperfect won't run!" Remember that?
It's all well and good to compete like this; build proprietary sets of software all you like, until you have a monopoly. Monopolists have to play under different rules; both EU and US legal structure enshroud this principle. Once your a monopolist, you can't use the same dirty tricks you used to get there. We do this because monopolist profits are an example of a market that is working inefficently; that's basic economics.
Interoperable products do NOT mean that all products are exactly the same. Is Apache =IIS? Is Firefox=IE? Is MS Word 97=Dreamweaver? Is IBM's Workplaces product the same as OpenOffice.org Writer?
No. Not in the least bit. The fact that you think this is the only way in which Microsoft can differentiate itself suggests to me that the existing "ecology" of Windows software is so badly crippled that you can't even understand what a superior implementation might be.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Wrong.
/. Is it not enough for first poster to be trolls in 99.999% ? Now even article posters are competing for "first post" troll?
EU wants open SPECS, not source code for fee. MS completely missed the request.
Can somebody please mod article as TROLL? Poster of this article is obviously using wrong organ to think.
As it was posted sounds like:
Even source code is not enough for EU, they just want to go on all-out-MS-war, while in reality EU only demands freely accessible readable SPECS.
There was request for readable and freely accesible SPECS, not for source code.
1. Specs MS provided at first were not readable.
2. MS decided to provide code for fee under licence which completely obstructs any way to cooperate with most OSS licenses. Original intention EU was demanded for this one sole purpose which levels the playing field between OSS and MS.
p.s. C'mon
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
I mean, what if Europe demanded to know the secret ingredients to certain food products.
Yeah. Or worse, imagine if every single food product on the market were required to list all its ingredients, as well as the exact quantities of things like sugar and sodium, in a standardized format that food companies were forced to print right on the side of the food product's box. What a bizarre and terrible world that would be. It would be a simple violation of basic human rights if consumers were to demand to know this information.
Why do these wacko left-wing european statists have no respect for corporate privacy?
Even if they did, I doubt anyone would ever believe it's possible that Microsoft could write software that is faster and more secure than other competing software.
Yup, MS has developed a very poor reputation. That is one of the things you have to account for if you work in a free market. That is entirely a problem of their own making.
You just said it yourself. And the bottom line is always about money. People are willing to forgive a slower, less-compatible implementation if it's cheaper, or free. Look at OO.org for instance.
Yes, do look at OO.org. It has a lower adoption rate than Apple's Pages.app. People and companies are perfectly willing to pay for a more reliable, faster implementation and support and customization. If MS can't compete, then they should lose out in that market. It's call a free trade market.
Specs are traditionally released before an implementation exists.
This is true for traditional specs, where many companies agree on a spec and then implement it, but is not true in a number of cases, where one company maintains the spec. Just look at Java.
If Microsoft were to do the reverse, i.e., create a new version of their software and THEN release the spec, they'd get slammed. Why? Because they'd have a lead on their competitors, during which early adopters would get locked into multi-year contracts with Microsoft.
You're right it isn't fair, but I don't think that matters. MS has been asked to release the specs for software that has already been on the market for years. They may be forced to release and new specs as they release the software and I don't think anyone would find that unreasonable. The long term goal is to be able to compete fairly without intervention.
OK then, riddle me this. Let's assume that everything about Microsoft was the same, except for being ruled a monopoly. I assume you would be in complete opposition to the EU's rulings, since Microsoft isn't a monopoly, despite having a large portion of its respective markets?
If MS did not have a monopoly none of this would be an issue, because their bundling would not be causing any problems. You have your cart and horse all turned around. If MS were not a monopoly, they could publish or not publish their specs all they wanted.
Let's say I come up with some product that, out of sheer inertia, claims 95% of the market. I also use proprietary formats. The natural barriers to entry just flat out prevent other companies from competing with my product, but I am not engaging in any anti-competitive practices. Should I have to open up my specs to other competitors so they can compete? Why?
It is fine for you to do, right up until you become a monopoly and then move into a second market by leveraging the first monopoly in an unfair way. The minute you do that you go from being a legal monopoly to a predatory monopoly. Lets put it this way, you're just fine with your scenario, until you release another product in a separate market that functions in conjunction with your first product, and make the specifications for that interaction a secret. Because then people in the second market have to compete unfairly (you used your first monopoly to disadvantage them). This is exactly what MS did. They gained a monopoly on desktop OS's and then moved into the server market and made the way it interoperates with their desktop secret. That is what was illegal and this ruling is part of the punishment for that. The courts said they have to document that secret interaction so other server manufacturers can compete despite MS's monopoly on the desktop.
And with the unstated corollary, that having documented the protocols, Microsoft sticks to them. Probably mandated under at least the government purchase terms, and likely as a condition of sale in the EU.
Showing a snapshot of Microsoft code, under an exorbitent licence fee, with a restrictive implementation go's nowhere near meeting the requirement.
Harry
First of all, they are charging $10,00 for that. OSS need not apply.
Second of all, even though there is boat loads of it, I doubt the documentation is comprehensive. Note that the DoJ is upset that Microsoft has not released documentation it agreed to do so in the 2001 settlement
Furthermore, all avaliable evidence suggests that the Documentation currently offered to the EU is effectively broken
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
With regards to the article... let me guess - Microsoft gave them the assembly source files after running their C++ through a pre-processor? :D
Asking for the source code was always going to be a bit dubious... :)
If I were the EU, I'd be pressing for open, *DOCUMENTED* file formats and APIs instead :)
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.