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?
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.
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.
Microsoft was aked to open up it's protocols. Microsoft gave them the source code. I would not be happy with this if I were the EU. Semi-"open" source code is worth nothing.
Meme of the day: I browse "Disable Sigs: Checked". So should you.
I do hope that's sarcasm.
Let's see. Um..Microsoft has been convicted of Anti-Trust practices. I.E standing in the way of fair competition and unfairly abusing their monopoly position. So no. Considering that they already have "an unfair advantage" this ruling is intended to help level the playing field. You can't honestly believe that having any one corporate entity hold the keys to a market as vital as IT is a good thing?
Now if this was a judgement passed on some smaller, peripheral company then I'd agree with you. But it's not. So I don't.
"...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
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.
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."
No. They're monopolists, in the US and elsewhere. That means they have different rules to play by. Their customers have nowhere else to turn if MS decides to change comm protocols. They have to upgrade or lose communication with those who do upgrade. That's why the EU is pushing for this... they don't want to be bent over the barrel by any corporation. That's a bad place for anyone to be. Hence, the EU doing this. They actually care about their citizens.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read 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.
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 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.
They were not asked to divulge thier code, they were told to provide accurate and thorough documentation on the multiple API's in the Window's OS that are used and documented internally but not provided to competitors.
Rather than provide the documentation requested - which would make anyone capable of understanding an API and writing code to interact with it, they opted to instead offer to provide the source-code - liscenced for a reasonable fee, and with heavy restrictions - as an equivalent solution.
Two things I really have a problem with:
1) Free Documentation on APIs != expencive liscence on code I have to spend weeks trying to understand
2) what the heck is a [reasonable fee] to a company with an operating buget of more than the GNP of half the countries on the planet?
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.
"Want to do business here? Then abide by our laws and terms. We're not forcing you to do anything."
And even if you somehow still think it's unfair for the lawfully elected represtants of the people to bully poor innocent monopoly-convicted private foreign corporations into undoing the devastation of the software-industry then we have different notions of morality.
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
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
Remember: no one has asked MS for their source code in the first place. They're throwing that out there to cloud the issue and attempt to avoid giving the courts the API documentation that they're required to give.
This space intentionally left blank.
I mean, what if Europe demanded to know the secret ingredients to certain food products.
Well, then their competitors would be no better off since their chemists have already figured that out, but their customers allergic to those ingredients would sure be better off.
I know a woman who avoids Chinese food because she knows she's allergic to soy, but didn't understand why McDonald's made her sick for years until I found her a reference to their usage of soy. Mind, she's blonde, but still.
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.
As far as fining them, I seem to recall something about a two million per day penalty, which I believe MS is ignoring as usual, or stalling with this source code business that no one asked for in the first place.
What people here seem to forget is that this same thing should be happening here in the US if the court rulings were fairly enforced.
The courts have already given MS way too much leeway on this, IMHO.
This space intentionally left blank.
When will patriotic sentiment make way for intelligent remarks ?
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.
...to "license" their source code does nothing for open source projects and they know it. The EU should stand firm and tell Microsoft "Thanks for the offer. Now complie with the requirement of clear documentation to your interfaces that will allow interoperability in a way that EVERYONE has access."
This "offer" is just Microsoft continuing to play it "I'm complying but not really" game.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
If I were capable of making decisions at Microsoft, I would just pull out of Europe completely. Yeah, that's a big hit to the bottom line, but the way things are going now, complying with the EU will mean that eventually Microsoft products will be done away with over there anyway.
And you'd be fired and someone would reverse your decision as quickly as the board of directors could throw together an emergency meeting. Complying with the requirements will make them compete fairly, and they may well slowly lose market share if they don't make a better product. Not complying will cost them millions in fines, but still only a fraction of the profits they pull out of Europe. Pulling all business from Europe would throw away all profit and guarantee a strong competitor in short order. Worse it would not only fail to comply with the order, but violate business contracts with literally thousands of international organizations and companies and be a slam dunk for further EU antitrust sanctions. They're probably seize MS's assets in the country, including IP rights and hand them over to either newly formed companies or existing competitors. In any case "pulling out" is about the stupidest move MS could make.
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.
All the EU has asked for the APIs in Windows to be documented and available to other developers. MS continues to try doing everything but providing what the EU is actually asking for.
If MS has a problem with that, they can take their business elsewhere...
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
1. The EU did not ask for source code.
They asked for **documentation** of protocols so that others can fully interoperate with Windows servers. Period.
2. Protocols in this sense are not really "secret", some have already been reverse engineered.
So, in essense, Microsoft gives up precious little.
Microsoft just needs to pony up with the documentation, the EU will have some vendors picked at random to test the protocol documentation and if good, then Microsoft gets a pass. If not good, Microsoft gets fined again or something more drastic till they comply.
Big picture view, I do believe Microsoft to be a monopoly. I do believe there needs to be some sort of repercussion for it but I think anyone asking them to give up THEIR intellectual property that they have developed is just proving their point... they are the best.
Do you have any idea what the point of anti-trust legislation is? It is to remove an unfair business advantage that allows an inferior product to dominate a market, because there is no ability for the customer to choose the competition. They were never asked to give up their intellectual property. They were asked to document their protocols so developers can compete on even ground for making software that works with Windows (since it is wholly unreasonable to expect everyone to switch away from Windows at the same time). They are offering to license their source code as an alternative, and a poor one at that.
Microsoft is not the devil, they do not stifle innovation and the people and organizations who claim they do are either on the loosing end or are just tyring to get a piece of the pie for themselves.
Internet Explorer holds 90% of the browser market. It is a piece of crap. It is insecure, ancient technology that cannot even properly render the six year old specifications it was originally implemented with. The mere fact that it dominate the market has held back internet standards, tabbed browsing, ad blocking and the Web in general for more than half a decade, despite numerous better alternatives is proof enough. As someone who has done fair bit of Web development I assert that anyone who claims MS is not stifling innovation does not know what they are talking about. That does not even count the dozens of other standards they have intentionally corrupted, or the dozens of companies they have bought out or driven out of business using their monopoly. It is awfully hard to sell a product when everyone is already forced to buy your competitor's. You have to be so much better that people will both go out of their way and find another product and pay for it again. This is called "bundling."
If someone out there was better than Microsoft, we would see that.... look at Firefox... it works WONDERFULLY on Windows XP, and its what I use.
Yep, it sure does. Now, ask yourself why is 90% of the market dominated by its inferior competitor? You do realize what MS is doing is illegal, right? And you don't think they should be punished in some way that might discourage them from doing the same thing in the future? Like with media players and antivirus software and every other market they decide to swallow.
I think the people asking Microsoft to "open up Windows" are just admitting defeat.
Here are a couple of facts for you: Most people will never by a stand alone OS. They will just use what is on their computer. There is basically zero possibility of convincing every business and individual to switch to another OS all at once. As a result of this, there is a need for any product to interoperate with Windows in order to gain market share. Unless their are published, implementable specifications for interoperability, this cannot happen and hence MS will always remain in its monopoly position. No one wants the source code. Everyone needs open API's, protocols, and formats. MS was ordered to provide some of the APIs. They have thus far refused and instead are trying to offer to sell, the right to view the source, with restrictions, for an undisclosed price. This is wholly unacceptable.
Rather than worry about "opening up Windows, or decoupling IE from Windows" isn't it time that people start innovating and competing with Microsoft?
That is the problem. You can't compete against a monopoly that bundles what you make. It is not economically feasible and even superior software you create will not win in the market, like Firefox. That is the whole point of the EU rulings, to try to make it possible to compete on even ground.
I'm an American... but...
/WhiteWolf666 wakes up
God I hope Microsoft does that. Nothing would kickstart OS X and Linux adoption like a full-fledged Microsoft pull out of Europe.
Talk about a wet dream.....
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
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?
How exactly is Microsoft supposed to make a better product if they aren't allowed to have trade secrets in the form of protocols or proprietary file formats?
Gee I don't know. They could write better, more efficient code that runs faster, is more secure, and is more reliable. But that is not really the MS way is it?
Someone can just come along and reimplement whatever Microsoft wrote and sell it for less.
MS, as the first implementor of a standard and as the maker of most of the interoperating software can implement new features and has a time to market advantage on them, just like everyone else in the industry. You do know there are plenty of companies that actually do make products to open specs and do just fine right? And why should someone else be able to write code to do the same thing better and cheaper than the people who invented the standard? In addition to being slower to market, competitors have to take time to understand the spec.
Why aren't ALL companies doing business in the EU bound by the same rules? After all, I'm sure there are plenty of products that dominate their particular markets, and that just isn't fair!
What?!? Everyone is bound by the same standards. They are called laws. MS intentionally broke them as part of their business model. They fully expected that they would have to deal with the consequences, they are just betting it is more profitable to break the law and pay fines than it is to obey the law. Any company that creates a monopoly and then breaks the law and abuses that monopoly will face the same thing, and a number have done so in the past.
Your post basically comes down to, "It's not fair MS is punished for breaking laws while companies that did not break the law aren't. How can you expect MS to compete without being allowed to squash competition by further breaking the law?" Well here's an answer for you. I expect them to make a better product or lose money to those that do so. You know the way competition normally works in a free market.
Holy shit you're naive.
How exactly is Microsoft supposed to make a better product if they aren't allowed to have trade secrets in the form of protocols or proprietary file formats? A better UI? Anyone can copy a program's UI, and you don't even need spec documents to do that. Lower cost? How do you figure? Someone can just come along and reimplement whatever Microsoft wrote and sell it for less. Why aren't ALL companies doing business in the EU bound by the same rules? After all, I'm sure there are plenty of products that dominate their particular markets, and that just isn't fair!
How about a better implementation?
Do you think Microsoft should go back to making proprietary MSHTML that only renders properly on IE?
Do you think that Microsoft should make a big push for Exchange to be the primary mail system for the internet (as direct competition for SMTP)?
Do you think Microsoft should produce an SMB v5 that is incompatible with everything else, and then push it as a replacement for FTP and HTTP file transfers?
Proprietary file formats and protocols are not the way of the future, my friend. Look to the state of Massachusetts. Proprietary file formats and protocols are a DISASTER for future generations, as well as unfairly hindering superior products in a competitive environment (monopolist barriers to market entry).
Just because a program can read and write an established format doesn't mean that it is equivalent to all programs that can do so. Take HTML editors; HTML is an established, published, public format.
Do you honestly claim that Front Page, GoLive!, Dreamweaver, and MS Word 97 all produce HTML of similar quality, or end user output of similar quality?
What the fuck happened to competing on features and design? Or even gasp security?
Microsoft products routinely beat out superior implementations because of competitive barriers to entry, primarily in the realm of interoperability. Your right; the MS empire is founded on keeping out competing products.
"Windows ain't done till Wordperfect won't run!" Remember that?
It's all well and good to compete like this; build proprietary sets of software all you like, until you have a monopoly. Monopolists have to play under different rules; both EU and US legal structure enshroud this principle. Once your a monopolist, you can't use the same dirty tricks you used to get there. We do this because monopolist profits are an example of a market that is working inefficently; that's basic economics.
Interoperable products do NOT mean that all products are exactly the same. Is Apache =IIS? Is Firefox=IE? Is MS Word 97=Dreamweaver? Is IBM's Workplaces product the same as OpenOffice.org Writer?
No. Not in the least bit. The fact that you think this is the only way in which Microsoft can differentiate itself suggests to me that the existing "ecology" of Windows software is so badly crippled that you can't even understand what a superior implementation might be.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
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
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
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.
Mainly they want full specifications of the protocols and interfaces used in windows by MS, including any "secret" APIs, to be made available on reasonable terms to others. There is also a EUR 500 000 000 fine.
Crippled windows would be of no benefit.
They're not interested in cheap windows directly, but the idea seems that if someone can make "cheap windows" components, they should be able to do so without MS stepping on them (that's what the APIs are for).
Sure, they did. The problem is that the one time fine is only part of their punishment. MS could comply simply by paying EUR 2 million a day forever, but it would be crippling to MS and also not useful in solving the openness problem. Since opening the protocols as the EU is saying is very bad (cheap windows parts) MS does not want to comply. Hence the negotiation going right now.
Maybe you're not getting bitten right now, but proprietary protocols bite whenever you're weak. What are you going to do in a few years if you try to get away from MS apps? I'm getting bitten right now by active directory myself.
I think you really want an OS, a browser, a media player and a text editor. Them coming with the OS is just a convenience, unless it's not the ones you want (like IE) and you cannot remove them. I also like these apps in my machine, but I like a way for me to choose what I want (SUSE and Debian in my case). Anyway, you're using OS X, you're not being precisely locked in. What would you say if you were stuck with outlook and IE?
GPG 0x1B479C78
The EU changing their stance? You must be kidding?
EU: You are ordered to provide the specifications to some of your closed protocols to other companies, so they can interopt with Windows.
MS: We'll do even better, we'll give you over 12000 pages of completely unreadable documentation to our fantastic Windows operating system!
EU: No, we would rather just have the specifications to your protocols.
MS: Ok, because you guys insist we will do something really really special. Way better than providing you with the specifications to our protocols. If you promise not to make any use of it and pay a nice fee we will let you have a look at some of the source code for Windows! Isn't that the greatest thing ever? We are so great!
EU: Great, but we'll rather just have the specifications to your protocols.
Even if they did, I doubt anyone would ever believe it's possible that Microsoft could write software that is faster and more secure than other competing software.
Yup, MS has developed a very poor reputation. That is one of the things you have to account for if you work in a free market. That is entirely a problem of their own making.
You just said it yourself. And the bottom line is always about money. People are willing to forgive a slower, less-compatible implementation if it's cheaper, or free. Look at OO.org for instance.
Yes, do look at OO.org. It has a lower adoption rate than Apple's Pages.app. People and companies are perfectly willing to pay for a more reliable, faster implementation and support and customization. If MS can't compete, then they should lose out in that market. It's call a free trade market.
Specs are traditionally released before an implementation exists.
This is true for traditional specs, where many companies agree on a spec and then implement it, but is not true in a number of cases, where one company maintains the spec. Just look at Java.
If Microsoft were to do the reverse, i.e., create a new version of their software and THEN release the spec, they'd get slammed. Why? Because they'd have a lead on their competitors, during which early adopters would get locked into multi-year contracts with Microsoft.
You're right it isn't fair, but I don't think that matters. MS has been asked to release the specs for software that has already been on the market for years. They may be forced to release and new specs as they release the software and I don't think anyone would find that unreasonable. The long term goal is to be able to compete fairly without intervention.
OK then, riddle me this. Let's assume that everything about Microsoft was the same, except for being ruled a monopoly. I assume you would be in complete opposition to the EU's rulings, since Microsoft isn't a monopoly, despite having a large portion of its respective markets?
If MS did not have a monopoly none of this would be an issue, because their bundling would not be causing any problems. You have your cart and horse all turned around. If MS were not a monopoly, they could publish or not publish their specs all they wanted.
Let's say I come up with some product that, out of sheer inertia, claims 95% of the market. I also use proprietary formats. The natural barriers to entry just flat out prevent other companies from competing with my product, but I am not engaging in any anti-competitive practices. Should I have to open up my specs to other competitors so they can compete? Why?
It is fine for you to do, right up until you become a monopoly and then move into a second market by leveraging the first monopoly in an unfair way. The minute you do that you go from being a legal monopoly to a predatory monopoly. Lets put it this way, you're just fine with your scenario, until you release another product in a separate market that functions in conjunction with your first product, and make the specifications for that interaction a secret. Because then people in the second market have to compete unfairly (you used your first monopoly to disadvantage them). This is exactly what MS did. They gained a monopoly on desktop OS's and then moved into the server market and made the way it interoperates with their desktop secret. That is what was illegal and this ruling is part of the punishment for that. The courts said they have to document that secret interaction so other server manufacturers can compete despite MS's monopoly on the desktop.
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
Free trade can only exist where anti-trust laws are enforced. Creating a government monopoly to replace the Microsoft monopoly does not allow free trade.
API specifications are not and should not be protected IP, especially when MS has already been convicted of deliberately and illegally sabotaging their competitors.
Nobody wants source code for windows, it's probably unreadable anyway.
Changa hates change.
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
First of all, they are charging $10,00 for that. OSS need not apply.
Second of all, even though there is boat loads of it, I doubt the documentation is comprehensive. Note that the DoJ is upset that Microsoft has not released documentation it agreed to do so in the 2001 settlement
Furthermore, all avaliable evidence suggests that the Documentation currently offered to the EU is effectively broken
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
With regards to the article... let me guess - Microsoft gave them the assembly source files after running their C++ through a pre-processor? :D
Asking for the source code was always going to be a bit dubious... :)
If I were the EU, I'd be pressing for open, *DOCUMENTED* file formats and APIs instead :)
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.