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.
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.
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.
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.