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.'
Is this really news, or is this an organization saying "no comment" until there's been due process?
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.
Source code is nothing, look at all obfuscating source code contest out there ! What this code look ! I know more than one programmer that will encrypt his code to keep his job !
And what is the license that will go with it ?
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
With respect to any offers by Microsoft to share their super secret Windows code at an affordable price, I'll believe it when I see it.
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 haven't RTA yet, but isn't the purpose of the EU's request to promote interoperability? If that's the case, the issue is that anyone trying to write code that talks to Windows has only the (possibly cryptic or even obfuscated) source code to go on, and even that is subject to change.
What I want to know is this: how do the EU's requirements differ from Window's APIs that are already out there? What exactly are they asking for?
Er, ... am I the only one to find the categorization of this article (-1, Flamebait) ? It seems MS vs European Union is now a US vs UE debate ?
/. wouldn't either.
Without being too naive, if it's right then I would come to the conclusion that MS = US. WTF ?
I don't think so, and I thought a site like
No, they're trying to stop MS having an unfair advantage. If the US government had any balls when it came to MS, they'd do the same.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Is it too far-fetched to suggest that the E.C. actually wants MS to remain out-of-compliance, so they can continue to levy fines against them? i.e. Why do criminals rob banks? Because that's where the money is.
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
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!
The EU didn't ask Microsoft to open up it's source code. It asked Microsoft to open up it's protocols! Thats not the same!
:-)
Upon Microsofts declaration that it selflessly "overfulfilled" the EUs demands someone of the EU stated explicitly that Microsoft has no say in when the demands are fulfilled. The EU has. Right they are.
Someone trying to implement an interface to Microsoft products after seeing Microsoft's "opened up" source-code could face severe legal problems. Heck, even Microsofties are not allowed to even look at free software (be it GPL, MIT or BSD licence).
So I suggest we move along. Nothing interresting to see here... yet.
Meme of the day: I browse "Disable Sigs: Checked". So should you.
Honestly can someone educate me on the matter?
What does the EU comission really want? Cheap Windows? Crippled Windows?
Can't they just fine them for their monopolistic practices and get over it?
If one is to suggest they move to *X, then EU would complain, well that is too hard, we'd just rather stick with MS.
And you don't need to talk to me about proprietary formats.
I work for a state institution, and let me tell you, proprietary formats are the least of our worries and inefficiencies.
I am also from Europe, so I don't have "Yankee's are the best" attitude either.
You know, I like my OS with a browser, media player and text editor (OS X). If EU has a problem with that, fine them or take your business elsewhere...
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
patch -p0 stuff-to-exclude.patch && tar -zcvf micro-pub-code.tgz
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
For the EU this is an issue of policy, not technology. It is an issue of buiness, local software companies and European economic development.
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.
They just want MS to play by the same rules as all other companies that operate in the EU. Nothing special.
-- Cheers!
Ewww! That subject should have read "Source Code (Not Equals) Interoperability Spec" How do I make symbols like that show in slashdot comments?
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."
Man, and here I was thinking I'd get through the morning without my daily dose of racism. Thanks, man!
btw, most people with PhD's in "computerology" can find jobs. They just want to be paid for having actual skill, versus being paid chicken feed like a code-monkey "proud indian programmer".
Sorry, responding to a troll I know. I'm bored today.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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.
...I'll bet a little "profit sharing" with Brussels would mysteriously throw Microsoft into compliance.
I read
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.
It's pretty clear that the future of software in government will rely significantly on Open Source and/or Open Standards with emphasis on acessibility, availability and interoperability. (I'm beginning to sound like a certain pointy-haired boss I fear.) But that said, to allow Microsoft to stipulate the bar for access to essentially to lock out the very parties that may need access to it. Microsoft says "yeah, you can have the source code... for one trillion dollars!" and calls that a compliance offer. Yeah... that's just not in the spirit of the court order I think.
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."
Remember that Microsoft has "opened" their code before (within the United States, even). The EU court may simply be remembering that what Microsoft says isn't always the same as what Microsoft means.
All that the EU is asking for is Microsoft's heart, soul, and mind. The same thing Microsoft has been demanding from us for years...
Oh man, mod -1
You know, for about 1% of what the EU is paying lawyers to violate Microsoft's privacy rights, they could pay some good programmers to clone Windows and release it in GPL. That way they'd be doing a public service for the world instead of undermining the principles of free societies. But I guess governments are made up overwhelmingly of lawyers, not programmers, and the idea of helping the people that they represent isn't nearly as important as advancing their careers and their profession, is it?
My guess is Microsoft flat out cannot comply. I believe they DO NOT POSSESS documentation in the form of a full specification. Their only documentation IS THE CODE. The EU said, "Provide documentation of your APIs." Microsoft said, "Here's 15,000 pages of docs." Then the EU said, "That documentation is incomplete and horrible and just plain crappy...and that's putting it nicely. Try again." So Microsoft said, "F*** YOU! That documentation was all put together by reviewing our code. Our code is our only documentation. You want fully documented APIs...fine. Here it is, you figure it out."
Of course, in order to look at Microsoft's source, you'll probably have to sign away your first born and you might as well give up the idea of ever writing any open source implementaton of anything you figure out from looking at that code or you'll be getting a call from Microsoft's lawyers asking you if you'd like to play a nice game of global thermonuclear war.
"Rather than worry about "opening up Windows, or decoupling IE from Windows" isn't it time that people start innovating and competing with Microsoft?"
Oh, they do though. And then Microsoft buys them and buries or screws up the product and ships it. Everyone has their price. Microsoft can afford most of them.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read 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.
Maybe Microsoft should throw in the source code to Microsoft Bob to sweeten the pot a little?
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.
this made me finally get a /. account rather than read it...
Every piece of software out there has its niche and does its thing best, i use MS software, i use linux, i use unix, it all just depends on what works best for the job im doing
but this whole thing i believe stemmed from not having windows media player in windows to stifle competition if im not mistaken(could be wrong)...
But i've seen EU change their stance so many times on this it's like beating a dead horse, no one cares what they say anymore cause they can't take a firm stance!
Why would I back a company that is trying to screw a the European Nations out of compliance with the law, like it did here in the States...
Sorry, but they saw what happened here and are trying to put a leash on MS.
Good for them
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Oh please, that excuse needs to die! It's like saying that you can never write a book if you have read anything previously because whatever you write may be tainted by what you had previously read.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
> That code is what makes them money.
Yes it does, and would make them exactly as much if published, and would make them more published except for the side effect of weakening their illegally abused monopoly.
I firmly believe ALL non-game software should be required if not by law then by custom to include the complete source code. Even if not released under a Free/Open License the source should still be required. I'd go so far as to say Copyright law needs to be amended to only allow a Copyright on the Source code and the binaries to be protected only as a derived work. Software gets abandoned by the vendor far too often for any sane person to trust a binary only product for anything important.
Democrat delenda est
The EU asked Microsoft to release documentation of their protocols. What MS offers is to license their source to people already using MS products.
But that's not what the EU asked for or what the EU wants.
Even worse, if MS licensed their source to a competitor and that competitor produces a product using some of the protocols used in Windows, MS could sue them for copyright violation.
But it's a clever idea of MS nonetheless, IMHO. Luckily the EU didn't fall for it.
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.
The EU are aiming at the wrong goal !
When will patriotic sentiment make way for intelligent remarks ?
I think it's pretty obvious what the EU is after. They want full disclosure of all of Microsoft's file formats and protocols so that 100% compatible cheap (or free) alternatives become available (please STOP pointing at OO.org, SAMBA, etc., they're not 100% compatible alternatives). 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. I'd think it would be better to pull out now and leave the EU holding the bag...
Actually, the U.S. government's balls were TOO big.
0 0.html
... ...
...
o ft_6-28.html
Seriously; the original decision against MS was to break up the company.
Why was it reversed?
http://www.wired.com/news/antitrust/0,1551,44902,
I quote:
In stentorian language seldom heard in discussions of a fellow jurist, the appeals court unanimously condemned Jackson's "rampant disregard for the judiciary's ethical obligations," and said he'd no longer be permitted anywhere near this case.
Remaining silent were Jackson's fans in the Washington establishment, who cheered the rotund jurist last year when he was denouncing Microsoft chairman Bill Gates as unethical and compared him to a "drug trafficker" and Napoleon.
Jackson repeatedly cut Microsoft attorneys short during cross-examination, while treating David Boies, who argued the case for the government, with visible deference. He appointed Larry Lessig, a prominent liberal law professor and Microsoft critic, as a special master over objections from defense lawyers.
He ordered a dismemberment of the largest software company in the world without holding one hearing on the topic, a move that seemed to shock the appeals court. Most antitrust trials of any substance take years to prepare: Jackson gave Microsoft six months.
Microsoft's adversaries were left fuming on Thursday, insisting that if Jackson had held his tongue, the breakup order would have remained intact.
"I wish he hadn't spoken out of turn the way he did because I truly believe that if he had exercised better judgment, we wouldn't have seen his remedies vacated," said Norm Hawker, a research fellow at the American Antitrust Institute, which advocates aggressive use of the antitrust laws.
"He essentially pulled the carpet out from under his own findings," Hawker said.
In fact, the district appeals court said the following:
"Although we find no evidence of actual bias, we hold that the actions of the trial judge seriously tainted the proceedings before the District Court and called into question the integrity of the judicial process," the judges wrote.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/june01/micros
Judge Jackson originally tore Microsoft a new asshole. If he had not gotten so caught up in the case, Microsoft would be well on its way to a breakup (or already broken up right now). He was overzealous, and in an effort to restore judicial impartiality, other judges implemented far meeker punishments. The system overcorrected, but make no mistake; the original judge and the prosecutors were out for blood, and they blew it because they went too far.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
" 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.
Then MS could pay itself the fines!
...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!
I think Microsoft is one of the most evil companies around, most devious, most deserving of spit up the nose ... but I wonder, could it simply be that their code is so poorly written (turned into spaghetti by years of quick and dirty fixes, by backward compatibility nightmares, and by forced marriages between unrelated pieces of code so they can claim IE is part of the OS) that they simply can't come up with a valid API, that there is no such beast, and that Microsoft's own programmers have the devil of a time making things work?
Maybe there is no concrete API which they can document. I have worked on many systems which had so much legacy cruft that it was a miracle they worked at all, such as subroutines being called with different parameter lists which worked because they were only called under the right magical conditions.
It might also explain why they have such buggy code and why it takes them so long to develop patches.
Infuriate left and right
I understand what you're saying but, it's not the impression that the article gives. It shows the EC taking a very euro-centric position, and nearly makes a blackmail-type of threat, with the EC as the sole beneficiary of any levy or fine against MSFT, not the EC developers.
I'm no fan of MSFT practices either, but fines are not the answer, especially when it won't amount to a hill of beans, either for the average coder or to MSFT's bottom line. Boycotting is a better idea, but one that will be especially hard to enforce.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
is all I can say. Seriously, what are they thinking? Microsoft should pay for debugging their sources themselves.
It's not a blank slate. If you want this government protection of your (metaphorical, not natural) property, you will have to obey whatever funky laws they come up with.
If you get a $1 million govt. grant, contingent on your drinking pee, the government is not forcing you to drink pee.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
When will patriotic sentiment make way for intelligent remarks ?
I should have prefaced my earlier post with this:
I am a Canadian, and not an American. I believe in free market economics, provided that monopolies and unfair business practices are controlled. And, most importantly, I believe that most patriotism is PFS (pretty fucking stupid). Why should people feel proud of things they had no control over?
That said, there is no reason to only post arguments on slashdot that you agree with 100%. Both sides should be represented to try and get rid of the groupthink mentality.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
Im not really a M$ fan, but this is just stupid. I say M$ should just not license any of their software for use in the EU any more. Then let the people deal with their government.
Gee what a brilliant move. They should abandon billions in profit, maybe 30% of the companies bottom line, and make a move that not only guarantees a huge market for a competitor but opens them up to further antitrust actions while still not complying with the order and being fined millions. Yeah, that would work, for about ten minutes before the MS shareholders fired you and hired mobsters to burn off your testicles with a blowtorch for the billions of dollars you just cost them.
If MS was supposed to supply only that which is required for interoperability, they would buy a copy of some SAMS book entitled "learning the Windows API in 24 hours" or something like that.
The problem is that there's tons of hidden things in there and a lot of crap that seems to make interoperability a moving target.
With the source code, there will be no such problems and no grey area. Microsoft has this problem with making the most of wriggle room. And it's probably not entirely for interoperability anyway -- they don't TRUST Microsoft and I don't blame them.
Some of you seem not to have understand what this is all about. The questions is NOT whether Microsoft has a monopoly or not. This has been shown in US and EU courts that on the desktop market they DO have a monopoly (which legally does not necessarily mean that you have 100% of the market). Thus Microsoft have to follow rules that apply to companies in monopoly situations.
One such rule (in EU and US) is that you aren't allowed to exploit your dominating position so as to extend your monopoly into other areas. Thus Microsoft cannot suddenly change Windows so that Firefox stops working, without giving Firefox a fair chance to adapt to the changes. In a number of cases during the years, Microsoft has failed to live up to this rule and sometimes driven companies our of business.
Next... The question is NOT whether Microsoft has illegitimately exploited its current monopoly. This has been shown in both US and EU courts. In the case we are talking about today, Microsoft has exploited its monopoly on desktops to leverage their server solutions, by keeping the protocols for interaction secret. Note, this is something that only applies to companies in monopoly situations. If you were a small player you may keep everything secret, but if you have a monopoly you have to act with care.
The questions is rather, what do we do about it? By the EU court Microsoft has been given two alternatives, 1) pay a 2M Euro fine a day, or 2) publish documents regarding the protocols so that competitors are given a chance to compete. Note the EU court has NOT asked for the source code, it has asked for documentation.
Is the source code enough documentation in itself? Well... why do programmers need documentation? Because... browsing through millions of lines of code takes an enormous amount of time, especially as it is in constant change. Competitors need to know WHAT something does, not HOW it is done.
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
Whether the competition made mistakes or not is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is that MS has been convicted of illegally using its monopoly position.
here you go, it's long but pretty clear Decision
Some highlights, in case you actually want the information:
"Microsoft Corporation shall, within 120 days of the date of notification of this Decision, make the Interoperability Information available to any undertaking having an interest in developing and distributing work group server operating system products and shall, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, allow the use of the Interoperability Information by such undertakings for the purpose of developing and distributing work group server operating system products"
"the Interoperability Information" means "the complete and accurate specifications for all the Protocols implemented in Windows Work Group Server Operating Systems and that are used by Windows Work Group Servers to deliver file and print services and group and user administration services, including the Windows Domain Controller services, Active Directory services and Group Policy services, to Windows Work Group Networks"
Man, that was EASY! It's almost like the Comission wanted me and everyone else to know what their requirements were!
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
The issue is not that they grew their company... it is that they did it *illegally*. Please get that through your heads. All the EU is trying to do at this point is re-level the playing field.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Judge Jackson was absolutely hated by those judges. It was out in the open at the time that they were gunnin' for him, and it had little to do with his "overzealousness" and everything to do with their hate for his "liberal" decisions. They and Jackson had a war on, and Jackson knew, as soon as he heard they had "randomly" been chosen to review, that Microsoft was safe from breakup.
Microsoft had, with full executive collusion, lied at the trial. They faked video evidence. If they'd been treated as individuals before the bench and not an incorporeal corporation, they'd have been jailed for contempt. They lost on the facts, they lost on their deceptions, they lost period.
The only bright side of the "review" of Jackson's decision was that the Federalist Society boys couldn't overturn the finding of fact which determined that Microsoft was a monopoly.
What is important to know about the judicial system right now is that there are two main schools: one evaluates based on the primacy of the individual, the consumer, and the other believes deeply in the primacy of business interests. There was a complicated article which I wish I could recall which outlined the historical basis for this split; something to do with interpretations of two constitutional amendments. One is for people, one is for business. The pro-business side does NOT believe in the anti-trust legislation of the last century,and will chip away at it.
Jackson actually is a rock-ribbed conservative, but he doesn't have the pro-business blinders on that his opponents at the Appellate level have. Microsoft was an abusive monopoly that lied to his face and showed his court doctored evidence. The obvious solution under antitrust was to break them up so that the abuses would stop, given that their history in the field and in his court showed that they had no plans to knock it off.
But his nemises nailed him, and whatever good came of the trial was firmly stamped out by the newly emplanted Bush Justice Department, which promptly snatched defeat from the hands of victory. Then the budget for anti-trust was cut, lawyers at Justice were shown the door, and the fat lady sang for antitrust in our lifetimes.
The code isn't meant to be "compilable". It's to be used as reference material to supplement the already 1200 pages of documentation and 500 hours of free technical support that Microsoft is already offering for the network protocols in question. The EU keeps moving the goal posts, and it's really obvious that they're just trying to shake down a non-European company.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
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.
IMHO if you put it that way most people would agree, however
You can't honestly believe that having any one American corporate entity hold the keys to a market in Europe is a good thing?
that way many people won't. Just because a lot of locals on /. would have approved if the DoJ had made a lot of Babysofts doesn't mean they like it when the EU does something long overdue and very sensible for a change.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
>> If someone out there was better than Microsoft.
who is microsoft better than?
>> I think anyone asking them to give up THEIR intellectual property
Just specs.
>> look at Firefox... it works WONDERFULLY on Windows XP
sounds like you think it's better than ie, yet it's usuage is not even close.
>> isn't it time that people start innovating and competing with Microsoft?
damn straight, that's what these repricussions are supposed to do.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
It's been quite some time and I really don't see microsoft wielding anywhere near as much power as before. 8 years ago windows was dominant and almost necessary for most computers. This is not true anymore, sure ms is on more desktops then not BUT the competition isn't hindered much by that fact anymore.
What's stopping them from taking advantage of a free and powerful OS like linux. Many business and goverment offices can easily run on linux free of charge. With such an alternative I don't see how MS is monopolizing anything over there. It's their choice if they want to go ms. I know the general dislike and disgust of microsoft is great here but it almost seems like the EU might just be badgering a non EU company.
Hmmm... Pie...
these things that are supposed to fix the market are retarded. Software needs to be treated like any other business.
What needs to happen is that companies like dell need to be allowed to sell another os, without repricussions from microsoft.
Just like the government had to step if and force Boeing to offer other engines on their jets than just prat+whitney.
It's lame to think that just because it's software special rules apply.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
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
Microsoft already provided 1200 (or 12000, I forget which) pages of documentation plus 500 hours of free tech support for any dev that's trying to implement the protocols in question. The EU is full of crap. They are going to declare Microsoft to be "out of compliance" no matter what Microsoft does, just so that they can levy fines to fill the coffers in Brussels. This is an old fashioned shake down, nothing more, nothing less.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
>> The code isn't meant to be "compilable".
Then it's useless, how do you even know that you are getting real code.
>> It's to be used as reference material to supplement the already 1200 pages of documentation and 500 hours of free technical support that Microsoft is already offering for the network protocols in question.
They aren't giving it away. They are charging up the ass for it. It's like opening up a new market to "punish" a company that broke the law.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Dictatorships "nationalized" companies (factories and the like) against their will in the past, to the detriment of those country's economies. This doesn't happen much today. Today, if a country wanted to "nationalize" a company's assets, they'd have to pay for the assets at a reasonable market value, or risk running afoul of international trade agreements.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
In a word: yes.
The EC didn't *want* the source code, they were even smart enough to explicitly mention they only demanded documentation, not source code (look it up if you don't believe me). Apparently Neelie Kroes, the commisioner for competition, is as surprised as you and me about why Microsoft suddenly offer *this* as an anti-competition remedy. I just hope she's adamant to stick to the ruling of march 2004 because that actually made sense. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer nor an economist. Can anyone think of a reason why opening up the source code can be regarded as a remedy, instead of just publishing the interface documentation??
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Except that if you have to sign an NDA to view the source code, then you can't implement the same protocols in your software because of the NDA. The EU didn't ask for the source code, what they want is them to open the protocols !
Actually people who want to implement theses protocols have to stay away from the source code as much as possible, or they could be accused of copyright infrigment. With this, MS try to prevent people from writing software using the same protocols, which is actually the opposite of what the EU wants.
wtf.n0x.org
The damage done to the E.U. economy would convince the world (including the U.S. government) that reliance upon one single monopolist OS vendor is disasterous.
God I hope this happens. I really really do.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Has to comply??? Source code is not documentation of the specification! They have to comply with any government's demand if they want to do business in that country. The EU didn't demand source code, they required adequate documentation.
I don't buy it. Having access to the source will make it easier for the public to determine if someone has put MS code into a project (or vice versa) and it will come to light quickly.
Given that open source is already open and Microsoft is just now going to start providing it to specific groups, I'd say the open source author has a lot more ground to stand on, which may somewhat compensate for the unbalance of money.
No MS software in EU? That would be cool...we'd save a lot of money on Windows & Office licenses that our government's officers "really need so much".
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
And people have been sued for having a plot similar to someone else's. It's not an excuse, it's reality.
And, re-read what I said. I'm not excusing anything. I'm saying that unless people are doing it for free, as soon as it starts gaining attention Microsoft will buy your product (or one like that) and run other people out of the market, or at least try to leverage their monopoly so that happens. Witness: Anti-Spyware, Internet Explorer, IIS, Media Player, DirectX.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Is MS saying their protocols aren't specified anywhere, and the only way to interoperate is to reverse-engineer directly from source?
A lot of the F/OSS folks won't want to touch that for fear of later legal claims of plagiarizing, even if they had the 50K license fees available.
What they were *asked* for, and owe the EU antitrust folks, is a complete protocol spec for others to work from. They don't *want* the source, they don't care; they're quite capable of writing their own code, thanks, if they know what to work to.
Calling Microsoft a monolopy on an OS is like calling apple an monolopy on portable music players. MS owns 90% of the OS department, ipods own 90% aswell.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
The problems are (a) anyone looking at the source and then working on a counterpart product can expect an IP lawsuit from MS and (b) if interoperability is a moving target then looking at source in 2006 may not help you in 2007 when it gets changed again.
The answer is (a) provide a SPEC of the protocol that you can actually implement against and (b) have MS stop tweaking said spec every other year in order to break interoperability with competitors.
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?
While I'm going to be labeled as 'on the bandwagon to hang Microsoft', when you've been convicted of being an abusive monopoly in *2* countries/unions, frankly, I want to see them suffer like those they've made suffer. They forgot ethics when they decided to do business, perhaps it's time to remind them why ethics is a good thing by making them be on the receiving end of it for a change.
Well, I don't know about the idea/logic/politics behind this - has everything been told. But I know for sure, I've always wondered why Microsoft products are not being developed here in Europe - at least that I knew about it. I've also asked Microsoft representatives here in Finland to try to get source code for us too, like American schools do. Simply to learn coding. This news goes far beyond my understanding. Visual Studio is great IDE at least, imho. I have to admit, I used to be quite pro-MS, but since they started blogs my mind has changed dramatically.
"And what is the license that will go with it ?"
I believe it will prohibit any actual viewing of the code.
SCISNE? ANUS SIMIAE!
Total Revenue: 39,788,000,000
Cost of Revenue: 6,200,000,000
Gross Profit: 33,588,000,000
minus $1.095 billion (365 days @ $3million/day -- my approximation of 2 million EUR ) --->
32,493,000,000
So that would cut their gross profit by a little over 3%.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
The EU wants Microsoft to comply with the relevant court judgement. What's so hard to understand?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Jackson actually is a rock-ribbed conservative, but he doesn't have the pro-business blinders on that his opponents at the Appellate level have. Microsoft was an abusive monopoly that lied to his face and showed his court doctored evidence. The obvious solution under antitrust was to break them up so that the abuses would stop, given that their history in the field and in his court showed that they had no plans to knock it off.
I agree, however, Jackson should NOT have made the comments he did. He was justified in saying them, and given that they were flaunting his rules, I can understand his anger.
However, his mouth got him in trouble, even if the reason he got in trouble was opponents taking advantage of him. He should have kept quite, and gone ahead with the trial, and then have quietly thrown the book at MS.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
The EU can't find it in their hearts to switch to Linux, but feel that OSS is the right way to go. The solution, force MS to publish their source.
Are you a complete idiot, intentional obtuse, an MSFT employee, or all of the above?
The EU never, ever asked MS to publish sources. The EU asked MS to provide documentation for interfaces, protocols, and file formats.
MSFT responded by publishing source.
The EU replied that publishing source doesn't necessarily mean that they've complied with the documentation requirement. This is true. The EU may find that they have complied, but are currently trying to determine if the supplied source is enough for competing companies to use it to build interoperable inferfaces, protocols, and file formats.
At no point did the EU request the source, they actually requested something entirely different, and something much more limited. They are trying to give MS the benefit of the doubt, and say that publishing the source is equivalent to providing documentation. Frankly, in terms of interoperability, source is much less useful than proper documentation.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Nationalizing is not necessary.
Government grants can solve this problem. What are alternative energy grants these days? Even though the oil industry dwarfs renewables, they still can a hefty 100 million or so in the U.S.
Imagine if the EU decided to throw 100 million euros at the Wine project, for the purpose of providing 100% binary compatibility with Windows.
With a 100 million euros, exactly how long do you think it would take? 6 months?
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
They are only asking for what any competent software developer would be able to easily and quickly provide.
Demanding documentation on interop protocols is NOT unreasonable. HELL, the rest of us should get these too whenever we buy ANYONES software.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
They want to continue to develop the spaghetti mess they have been working so hard on :-)
Infuriate left and right
Are you a complete idiot, intentional obtuse, an MSFT employee, or all of the above?
A complete idiot I suppose. I thougth that the EU had solicited the publication of MSFT source code. I'll go back into my hole now. Thanks for making it personal. Your level of professionalism indicates that you must certainly be the dean of admissions at Stanford. I bow in your presence.
By the way, I didn't mean that as an insult against the dean of admission at Stanford. It was really meant in a more ironic tone. Goodness, I'll just have to stop posting to Slashdot.
Also, I should state that I have the utmost respect for Stanford University, it's faculty, and it's students.
Ok, enough backpeddling. WhiteWolf666, lose the attitude man. I have an opinion. As to my intellect, I don't really need you to judge it. I have plenty of feedback from people that I have a very deep level of respect for. I tire of Slashdot posters going lowest common denominator on me whenever they disagree with something that I have to say.
Listen, the end result was that MS published their source and that nothing has happened. Either way, if the EU really felt all that passionate about this, they'd go with a different vendor. Nobody is forcing them to use MS. They could go out and purchase a pile of Macs or Sun machines tomorrow. This solution yields nothing for anyone.
In other words, I think that, despite the fact that I've been focussing more on getting a PhD than reading Slashdot for the past several years of my life, that I still have a pretty good grip on the world. I don't need to insult you for pretending to be a vampire in your freetime to make my point.
This is like a convention. Are you folks Camarilla members?
Funny... I wonder what you would say if the US government would demand MS to hand out their source. Check this out though, http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/c0rnn/moron .jpg
Yeah, go USA!
For some reason the article doesn't mention that Microsoft's proposal is to provide the server source code and 500 hours of "free" support under an NDA and at a cost of US$10,000. That pretty much excludes both OSS and companies without much funding. A proper standard would of course be free or nearly so (as I recall ISO docs are around US$100.)
It is hard to take seriously anyone who stipulates that national interests should and do trump the rule of law and justice. I suggest your take on history is as skewed as your ethics. I happen to remember those days.
From Europa Rapid Press release ...........
Document IP/04/382 24 March 2004
"The European Commission has concluded, after a five-year investigation, that Microsoft Corporation broke European Union competition law by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems (OS) onto the markets for work group server operating systems(1) and for media players(2). Because the illegal behaviour is still ongoing, the Commission has ordered Microsoft to disclose to competitors, within 120 days, the interfaces(3) required for their products to be able to 'talk' with the ubiquitous Windows OS. Microsoft is also required, within 90 days, to offer a version of its Windows OS without Windows Media Player to PC manufacturers (or when selling directly to end users). In addition, Microsoft is fined 497 million for abusing its market power in the EU."
IP/05/1215 5th October 2005
"The European Commission has appointed Professor Neil Barrett, a computer scientist, as the Trustee who will provide technical advice to the Commission on issues relating to Microsoft's compliance with the Commission's 2004 Decision "
IP/05/1695 22nd December 2005
"The European Commission has issued a Statement of Objections against Microsoft for its failure to comply with certain of its obligations under the March 2004 Commission decision (the "March 2004 Decision", see IP/04/382). That decision found Microsoft to have infringed the EC Treaty rules on abuse of a dominant position (Article 82) by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems onto the markets for work group server operating systems and for media players. One of the remedies imposed by the decision was for Microsoft to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. The Statement of Objections indicates that the Commission's preliminary view, supported by two reports from the Monitoring Trustee (see IP/05/1215), is that Microsoft has not yet provided complete and accurate specifications for this interoperability information. After giving Microsoft an opportunity to reply to the Statement of Objections, the Commission may impose a daily penalty."
"Since the 24(1) Decision, Microsoft has revised the interoperability information that it is obliged to disclose. However, the Commission takes the preliminary view that this information is incomplete and inaccurate. This view is supported by the report of the Monitoring Trustee, which concludes that, "any programmer or programming team seeking to use the Technical Documentation for a real development exercise would be wholly and completely unable to proceed on the basis of the documentation. The Technical Documentation is therefore totally unfit at this stage for its intended purpose." The report also states that, "the documentation appears to be fundamentally flawed in its conception, and in its level of explanation and detail... Overall, the process of using the documentation is an absolutely frustrating, time-consuming and ultimately fruitless task. The documentation needs quite drastic overhaul before it could be considered workable."
Professor Neil Barrett, the Monitoring Trustee, is a computer science expert appointed by the Commission (see IP/05/1215) on the basis of a shortlist of candidates submitted by Microsoft. He provides impartial technical advice to the Commission on issues relating to Microsoft's compliance with the Commission's March 2004 Decision."
MEMO/06/49 25th January 2006
"The European Commission will study carefully the announcement made by Microsoft on 25th January once it has received the full details.
The Commission is looking forward to receiving, no later than 15th February 2006, Microsoft's reply to the Statement of Objections sent by the Commission on 21st December 2005 (see IP/05/1695). The Commission sent the Statement of Objections because of Microsoft's failure to disclose complete and accurate interface docu
>> They are charging up the ass for it. It's like opening up a new market to "punish" a company that broke the law. Good for them :-). EU is all about socialism, and if there is any capitalistic company daring to make money there then they must be bad. Maybe [you freeloading piss monkey who live's in your parents home] should examine how much it costs to support software code (and remember that even RedHat charges for support and so many other Linux Distros).
Microsoft's proposal is to provide source code and 12,000 pages of incomprehensible "documentation", and in any case, this isn't what they're being asked to do. On the one hand, nobody is asking that Microsoft reveal the details of their implementation. Indeed, nobody wants to know that because it would just make it problematic for other people to create interfaces to Microsoft's products since there would be the risk of being accused of using Microsoft trade secrets. On the other hand, source code is an inadequate response. One reason is of course that it is a huge amount of work to figure out what it does. The other is that once you know what it does, you don't know what is part of the standard, what is a bug, and what is an option.
All that Microsoft has been asked to do is to provide proper documentation for its interface protocols. Those are not the crown jewels. Their failure to provide it means either that they are unwilling to comply or that they are incompetant.
You obviously missed two points. Do at least a little RTFA before posting BS.
1. The slimy mass in your ass aren't brains. And as such unusable for thinking. Here's one more pointer, dick is not correct organ for thinking either.
2. it has nothing to do with patriotism, nothint with anti-MS, nothing with anti-US. It is ment to level the playing field between OSS and MS, where both can coexist and freely cooperate.
EU has never demanded source code. Only freely available protocol SPECS without license restrictions.
MS just provided unusable specs and then after source code for fee, including the fact that not even one OSS developer can look at it and taint him self permanently.
Meaning MS did provided MORE (about protocols) than requested, but not WHAT it was requested (LESS, SPECS only, but without license BS). State with both MS actions has not improved not even for 0.0000001% in OSS case. And leveling the field is the only thing EU is concerned.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Microsoft hires talented people (Hi Justin!), but most of their innovations are, um, adopted. They have done some truly original things here and there, but I think their real strength is deciding which competing products to ignore, which to purchase, and which to clone for free inclusion in the next point oh release.
It's awfully hard to compete with free.
The EU has the chance to stick it to the big bully on the block--America. They aren't going to let MS get away with ANYTHING now that they've got 'em where they want 'em. They are going to nail MS to the wall, to say "We aren't going to let those bullies in the US push us around anymore!"
I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that you're an idiot!
I'm sorry you took my comment so close to heart, but--- if your going to post something inflammatory, expect to be flamed.
The EU can't find it in their hearts to switch to Linux, but feel that OSS is the right way to go. The solution, force MS to publish their source.
What a victory for... capitalism? No, if they were letting capitalism work, they'd switch products. Open Source? The FSF must be thrilled that they can now license to peek at MS source... not so much. Ahh, Linux... no, the EU hates Linux so much, that they can't bear the thought of departing from Windows.
Whoever you are, whatever you've accomplished, uhmm, congratulations or... something.
Perhaps the EU would like to switch to Linux, but interoperability with Windows systems is a requirement. Perhaps the EU would like to switch portions of their infrastructure to alternative systems, but these alternative suppliers have not been able to develop comprehensive interoperable protocols, because extensive reverse engineering is expensive.
Both EU and U.S. courts have found Microsoft to be a monopoly. As a monopoly, Microsoft represents a market failure. I'd argue that in many ways Microsoft got into its position via illegal acts. Microsoft has been known to play dirty for a long, long time. Look what they did to Stacker, OS/2, and a wide variety of companies that tried to work with them.
Look at the bullshit they pulled in their antitrust trial. Look at the video they doctored for the trial.
What about Microsoft's funding of the SCO madness, to the tune of nearly $65 million?
Pardon my french, pardon my bad attitude about the matter, but these fuckers play ugly. Really ugly. As someone who's business was once badly damaged in a Microsoft play, without the cash to pursue it legally (like Stacker, who was shut down by Microsoft, and eventually forced Microsoft to settle with them, once their business (stackers) was already beyond repair), I take the notion of "illegitimate barriers to market entry" more seriously than most.
Capitalism only works when people play by the rules. Once you switch to clearly illegal acts, once you start breaking agreements with your supposed allies, and start stabbing them in the back; once you start destroying competitors not throught competition, but through fraud--- you're a monopoly, and an evil one at that.
Capitalism doesn't work when someone doesn't play nice; that's why we have government, to make sure people play nice. I'm a libertarian, but even objectivists will recognize that the government has some role in protecting against fraud.
You come off as downright derogative towards the EU, yet have absolutely no grasp of the issues at hand. You're right; I overreacted in my response. However, lines like "Whoever you are, whatever you've accomplished, uhmm, congratulations or... something." come off very, very badly to me. I've personal experience the wrong end of the Microsoft stick (in a small way). People have been fighting the fradulent activities of this company for _decades_. This company has literally held the entire computing sector in an iron grip for over a decade.
The EU attempts to force MS to produce documentation, to facilitate interoperability, in an attempt to directly address the most obvious form of market barrier that Microsoft has established. This isn't a huge fine; this isn't breaking the company. I cannot, in fact, think of a better, more capitalist, more lenient solution.
Capitalism doesn't mean that the government never intervenes. Even Objectivists view Fraud as a violation of their Non-Aggression principle, permitting government intervention.
I shouldn't have been as hot headed as I was, but don't attempt to make a glibe insult in a discussion about which you are not fully aware of the major facts.
MS has a longterm history of misleading "s
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Eek. My grammar and spelling are atrocious.
BTW. Mods, feel free to mark my original top-level response as "troll". It probably is a bit trollish.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I'd also like to say:
"Microsoft's proposal is to provide the server source code and 500 hours of "free" support under an NDA and at a cost of US$10,000."
You do realize that it boils down to Microsoft extending its "Shared Source" access to the corporate world at a cost of $10,000 per developer?
That's more than slightly audacious. The EU demanded a certain remedy, and Microsoft decided to bargain with them by selling secret shared-source access.
Same old MS BS.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
(2 !== 3) obviously returns true.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Well, I didn't mean to touch a sore spot or make enemies.
I certainly didn't mean anything against the EU. I look at a lot of things that happen in large legislative bodies (including the US goverment) and I say, "what the heck did that accomplish?" That is the summary of my feeling in this.
I'm not exactly supporting MS in this matter either. I'm just looking at this and seeing it as zero sum. I'm a proud associate member of the FSF, and a supporter of free software.
I was really going for "funny" rather than derogative. Seriously, however, if by "having nothing happen to them," Microsoft is somehow paying in all of this, then, yes, they're paying. I don't think that this will lead to:
1) Microsoft losing a dime
2) My wireless card working without NDISWrapper (Yes, this is being typed on my Gentoo Linux notebook, on which I hack code that goes onto Linux clusters to support research at the lab at which I hold my research assistantship).
So, I look at it and shrug my shoulders. It's not my intention to push anyone's buttons. And, if anybody involved in this bit is offended, well then, I apologize. It wasn't my intent. My intent was to look at it say, "this is what I see this as." I still see it that way. It's the organizations that are migrating to free software that MS has to be afraid of (and only if more of them start doing so). I just don't see this act as a likely step in the direction of increasing that number. Perhaps I'll get an email from my buddy at the FSF explaining that I got it all wrong tonight.
Again, perhaps I should stop posting on Slashdot though. I have to be mindful of my political stance, or potential employers and collaborators may be turned off, and, besides, other students here seem to view it as a terrible waste of otherwise productive time. Especially given my proclivity for entering flame wars. I guess that the way that we become accustomed to speaking about such topics in graduate school has a grating manner about it. I remember feeling somewhat grated by friends who were in grad school before I returned to school, probably because they spoke the way that I do now.
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
I should qualify, in case any professors are reading, that this isn't something that I spend a lot of time on. I just generally finish posting on Slashdot feeling somewhat wiped from the experience. When other students discuss the matter with me, they say "yeah, I sink a lot of time in that site." I think that most of us pretty much swear posting and even reading off during high-stress periods. Since I'm starting one at the moment, I really should have just stayed like a turtle.
Oh well, sorry if anyone got twisted funny.
Well, I'd like to add that I'm sorry that the matter is one that strikes you so bitterly. But, like I said, it just doesn't strike me that anything is actually going to come of this. You're mistaking a lot of what I'm saying as taking sides. I'm looking at it and asking "what will the end result of this be?" I know that there are people in the EU driving for something that will really change something, but, I don't see it.
:-D
I mean, honestly, we all know where you stand on this... what do you expect will happen out of it? My prediction? MS still won't publish anything that changes their business strategy. The EU will continue purchasing Windows on all of their machinery, and the world will march along as if this never happened. I don't even view this matter as an opportunity for disruptive change, and, certainly, nothing that will cause any hardships on the part of MS.
Also, I should add that I play Vampire too
You guys are taking this [title]. I don't see why... Isn't anyone thankful that finally someone is forcing MICROSOFT to open up? I was cheering when I first read the news... and here all I see is "oh no, this after all is our doom...". OMG
>> Maybe [you freeloading piss monkey who live's in your parents home]
grow up, troll
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
I should also add that I'm not really one to speak from a position where I don't have most of the facts.
The facts here:
1) MS has been litigated against multiple times for monopolistic tactics... sure
2) The EU pushed some litigation... sure
3) "Open your protocols!"
Counterargument... why not just NOT USE MS products? If their intention was to move from MS, they wouldn't be seeking a way to tie thousands of products to MS infastructure.
4) MS publishes source code
5) EU says, "ok" -- Yet to be seen, but I think that that's what's coming
6) Nothing happens -- A bit speculative
See, if the intention really is to move Microsoft out of the picture, adopting their protocols and so forth has nothing to do with the solution. People can compete with Microsoft by... adding still more compatible software to the mix? If anything, this strategy sounds as if it would embed MS more thoroughly into the mire, making it nearly impossible to remove.
The other forces at work there:
1) IBM outsourced OS development for the PC platform to Microsoft, effectively giving them control of the desktop once the PC platform became ubiquitous.
** There were other competitors to MS during the early period which MS has been found guilty of subjecting to anti-competitive tactics, and had to pay reparations for.
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.
** This may be true, but see #3 for an additional reason.
3) Wordperfect had the word processing market locked up, but fell behind for reasons similar to Lotus.
** The reason that I found for the fall from grace was during my work for the US gov't between 1995 and 1999, when the gov't standardized on MS Office, and companies which needed to deal with the gov't switched over en masse. So, in effect, it was almost a gov't enforced monopoly based on the the closed file formats used by MS office.
4) Novell dominated the PC networking scene but was based on proprietary protocols, was too obscure and command-line oriented, etc.
** Once MS put all^Wmost of the major features of Novell networking into Windows 95, however poorly implemented, people tended to use those supplied features. Companies which were already Novell stayed that way for a long time, but new small businesses didn't bother going to Novell, in genereal.
5) Netscape had the superior browser and majority share but became a slow, buggy piece of bloatware.
** Plus the fact that it suffered under the anti-competitive abuse of MS, as shown in court (same as #1)
6) Apple had the superior UI (and still does in many ways) but allowed the gap to close considerably prior to OS X.
** Apple really made some bad choices in the 90's, but ultimately is a hardware company and not a software one, so shouldn't be directly compared to MS. It's like comparing Solaris to MS Windows. (I know tha it operates on x86, BTW)
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).
** The recent interview with security VP Mike Nash leads me to believe that Symantec will end up competing with MS Windows the same as Novell, Netscape, Real, or any of the anti-spyware products' companies have.
Put identity in the browser.
I'm not the one whining to his mommy about big bad Microsoft not conforming to EU's moving goal post... TROLL!
Can someone explain to me the difference between the "Blueprints" and "source code"?
Lotus, Wordperfect, Netscape, Symantec. What do/did all these companies have in common? They wrote software that relied on Microsoft's platform. They were/are all subject to various dirty tricks by Microsoft to give Microsoft an edge over them (withholding beta versions and programming documentation until retail release of their OS, etc). These companies were so incredibly beholden to Microsoft, that when Microsoft wanted to gobble up their market, there really wasn't much they could do. Sure, they made mistakes, but so has Microsoft. The difference is that Microsoft is hypercompetitive, and will do anything to win. Sometimes that includes dirty tricks.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
lol
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
You just don't get it do you? The EU haven't asked for the fucking source.
Besides source code is a terrible way of documenting how something works as you would know if you were a programmer. Take a look at the RFC's (request for comments) documenting internet standards. They don't contain source code, they contains stuff like: When the server sends packet X, the client is expected to blah blah blah.
This is the kind of documentation the EU are asking for and since Microsoft is a convicted monopoly they have to provide that information inorder for competitors to able to compete.
It's not a EU vs US thing, in fact your own government should have done the same to them.
*shrug*
(offtopic)Yes, Vampire is loads of fun(/offtopic)
I suppose your probably right. In some ways, however, I think that compatibility helps people move off MS products gradually. Few business are willing to move wholesale, however, they are much more likely to consider it piece by piece.
I used this viral approach in my office. First OpenOffice.org. Then our servers. Then our web apps (that was interesting). Then peoples old machines got switched to Linux one by one, and all new purchases are OS X or Linux.
We've got one Windows box left; but he just let me put it on a KVM switch with his new Mac Mini.
At least in most risk adverse scenarios, you won't be able to convince people to drop MS; but you might be able to convince them to go with a 100% compatible alternative.
The second step, the one away from the 100% compatible alternative, isn't nearly as hard.
I think you might underestimate government's desire for change from Microsoft. The more I read about the first antitrust trial, where Judge Jackson ordered a breakup; the more I was impressed with both his (and the prosecutors) knowledge of the issues at hand. They often made various MS VPs look foolish, and I think they were honestly trying to change the world.
Look at the former IT director of the State of Massachusettes; a hard working individual who pushed really hard for a policy not because it was the easy thing to do, but because he thought it was the right thing to do.
When I read documents coming out of the EC these days regarding MS, I'm honestly quite impressed by the various commissioners attitude. They aren't anti-MS hacks; they just want to force MS into competing fairly, and they want to see a world where no company is permitted to rabidly tear apart other companies. They didn't take the easy way out, and just accept the first offer from MS (*ahem*, US DoJ). They really are trying, and I think its fair to hope for change.
Do you really think the computer world is fine as-is? Should the EU just give up? Is the MS-centric world the way things should be?
Or do you believe that the government isn't able to generate positive change? Perhaps you just believe that the government is incapable of changing Microsoft (that's potentially a very good argument, but then again, that just might be my MS hatred coming out.)
The only place where I doubt my position is on that question. Maybe I just see things colored through lenses of hatred, and I should just be happy with the MS-world. It's just that my experience with alternative products shows me that computing is really a lot better with limited MS involvement; but given that I'm hardly risk-adverse (probably more risk-seeking than anything), I'm not a good barometer for microeconomic examples.
What do I expect will happen? MS will get fined for a month, and it will submit a request for delay. This pattern will repeat, with MS releasing slightly more documentation each time until the EC's independant fact-finding CS people agree, "Yes, this is enough." It won't actually be enough, and there will be problems with it, but it will be a heck of a lot easier than reverse engineering from scratch. Perhaps we'll even see a WinForms implementation for Mono sooner rather than later.
The end "vision" of this, at least from the EC's perspective, is a world where you can pick from multiple suppliers, each of which supplies a product that is slightly different. These products will fit into the same roles, with minor caveats. They'll be mainly drop-in replacements; the work involved in switching from a Novell solution to an MS solution will be minor, compared to the current shock involved. In an attempt to push computing towards maturing, the EC seeks a standards based world, where consortiums of companies develop open standards with proprietary implementations that are mainly interoperable.
Look at, say, the automobile industry's ability to purchase engines for various lines of vehicles from competing manu
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
'' Rather than worry about "opening up Windows, or decoupling IE from Windows" isn't it time that people start innovating and competing with Microsoft? ''
Yes, that is why Microsoft has to produce the documentation how to interact with their software, so that others can start innovating and competing. Without that documentation, the Microsoft monopoly prevents competition.
Now it seems that Microsoft is uncapable to provide documentation, so as a publicity stunt they propose to let others read their source code instead of documentation. But as any programmer knows (are there any here on Slashdot? ), SOURCE CODE IS NOT DOCUMENTATION.
I can't believe the fucking Microsoft apologists here today.
The EU DID NOT ASK FOR SOURCE CODE
Yet here is this idiot saying "So the EU feels the only way for EU companies to compete against Microsoft is to rip off MS source code". Is this part of the your plan on how to spin this? It is MICROSOFT that proposed source code. That is NOT what the EU is asking for.
"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."
According to the Free Software Foundation of Europe Microsofts implementation of the *standard* server SMB protocol: "... a number of incompatibilities deliberately introduced in pre-existing protocols and then altering them with the aim of prohibiting interoperability." To extend a standard protocol is not inventive, it is evolutionary. The protocol is not secret, http://ubiqx.org/cifs/SMB.html, the non-standard Microsoft implemenation is. The EU simply says this is an obvious abuse of monopoly hurting competition and must stop. And no, seeing one specific implemenatation does not easily get you far in understanding how Microsoft specifically has extended the protocol itself. And by the way, 12000 pages of documenation? How can the Microsoft specification be that much longer than the original specification?
Also it may be useful to look at the wikipedia reference on the SMB protocol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_message_block
IBM, not Microsoft, specified the SMB protocol. What Microsoft did, inheretnly to stay incompatible with competitors server products and illegaly use their desktop monopoly, was to extend the SMB protocol. Andrew Tridgell which leads the Samba team has on several occasions noted that it seems like the changes made often has no other purpose than to make the Microsoft SMB implemenation incompatible with other implemenations.
Europe does demand to know the secret ingredients to all food products sold, at least it is the case here in the UK (and I am pretty sure the rest of the EU). Everyone has a *right* to know all ingredients in the food products they purchase. If I someone a nut allergy, they would want to *know* that the food they are about to eat will not kill them. You cant get round that by saying that "they are secret ingredients", neither should Microsoft.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
Thats better, isn't it.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
Well. I dunno. Having had a day to rethink everything, I suppose that my cavalier attitude was a bit too much. I wanted to be funny, but, in all seriousness, these folks are trying to do something.
If people had given up on me every time something that I did didn't work at first, then I would be nowhere.
"First of all, they are charging $10,00 for that. OSS need not apply."
There are plenty of OSS companies that can afford that fee.
And there are plenty of closed source companies that can't afford it.
Being OSS or not has nothing to do with being able to pay a fee.
"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"
The "available evidence" that you refer to is that one European dev was unable to implement the protocols in four days. That means nothing.
Judging MSDN documentation vs OSS documentation, I'm sure that Microsoft's documentation much more comprehensive than OSS documentation (and Apple's for that matter). But even for a dev that's too incompetent to understand the documentation, MS is offering 500 hours of *free* tech support. If the dev is still too stupid to implement the protocols, then Microsoft is now offering the code. What more do you want?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
The code isn't meant to be "compilable". It's to be used as reference material
Still, critical functionality can be hidden from the source by embedding it in the compiler, such as every secret API Microsoft has. Thus it would not be useful as reference material either as it would be critically incomplete.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?