Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Makes EU Dispute Docs Public
mjdroner writes "ZDNet is reporting that Microsoft has posted confidential documents used in its defense of European Commission antitrust practices related to server software. Explaining the posting of the documents, which the EC considers confidential, a Microsoft rep said, 'Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels.'"
If you can't get the opinion or results you want from the commission, throw it out to the public and see if you can generate a groundswell of support.
I think this is what Microsoft hopes to do. I doubt they'll succeed.
From The Fine Article (emphasis mine):
The commission isn't buying Microsoft's protest, the "buying" public won't either.
What's interesting though is just in sheer numbers, Microsoft will find empathy, support, and voices to support their claim they're being treated unfairly.
Starbucks Coffee $1.75 New York Times $.50 High Priced Legal battle 2.4 million dollars Having your OS on every desktop in the EU...priceless
I'm pretty sure Microsoft won't want the evidence that the EU commission holds to come out in public...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Ho Boy, Ho Boy,
The battle is heating up. I can see now that the UE have the moral incensitive to switch their document to OpenDocument in the near future.
I Hope they do.
assert(expired(knowldege)); core dump
Conclusion: go for it.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Can't wait to see how the seething "hate Microsoft" crowd spins this one.
Flat out: transparency in government is a good thing.
EU government (and the US gov't for that matter) is entirely too opaque for my preference.
-Styopa
'Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels
But apparently transparency is not vitally important for APIs.
Lol transparency indeed. But only when it serves Microsoft's own purposes otherwise it's take a hike.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Force microsoft to publish their sourcecode online because "'Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process"
"Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels."
I don't believe what I'm reading! Since when have Microsoft been interested in transparancy and openness. This is the same company that calls Open Source Softare an evil communist cancer. The same company which held secret dodgy meetings with the Republican administration which saw the US government change its mind from wanting to split up the company to wanting to give it a light slap on the wrist.
And now they want transparancy. Talk about double standards!
'Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels.'
Kinda like Open Source, would't you say?
What I'd like to see is the European Commission slap a huge fine on Microsoft for publishing these documents, as well as drag a couple of European Microsoft Executives to courts for breach of confidentiality. Add a couple of cotempt of court proceedings against the lawyers who handled the documents, and we are all set for a big legal fight.
I am not joking: Europe has some fairly strict laws concerning the confidentiality of judicial proceedings. For instance, in France, journalists can be convicted for publishing documents related to an ongoing investigation, and I think it's the same in Germany and in the UK. (And before American citizens out there start screaming: "Freedom of Speech!", please remember that these rules have been edicted to protect the "innocence" of a person/company until proven guilty).
So, this little spat between Microsoft and the EU could become interesting quite quickly...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
I have a feeling Microsoft never bought into the whole Dale Carnegie bit about winning friends. In the US, I opine MS could face sanctions. Be interesting to see what happens here.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
This is Microsoft releasing their own documents. Are you going to argue that Microsoft is the government?
Well, whatever they say about unfairness, samba isn't 100% compatible with microsoft systems. So either:
:)
1) The samba developers are incompetent.
or
2) Microsoft is keeping it's specs as closed as possible, contrary to what the EU is asking them to do.
Knowing the job Samba developers are doing without microsoft's aid, I bet number 2 is true.
Anyway, even if the EU isn't fair, I'm willing to bet that microsoft isn't fair on a couple of other issues... So I don't pitty them at all...
Anyone else find it interesting that they posted the documents in pdf format rather than word.
The most important result of the EU process must be that Microsoft should publish full and accurate specifications for its file formats and protocols that are compatible with introduction into its main competitors (ie. open source code).
That's exactly what happens when one does not use a TCP/Palladium platform to send documents !!!
I'm puzzled by this, but I don't know enough about servers and their protocols to be able to form an opinion about the reports. Could someone please read them and tell us if they exonerate Microsoft?
Purely from a formal point of view ... if the EU demands openness in the sense of interoperability, and Microsoft created an architecture that cannot be opened without copying the whole server. In that case things may look as bleak for Microsoft as it would if it turned out that it simply refused to comply.
... is that Microsoft's primary crime in this case is that it is not a European company. The company can publish whatever it wants, but in the end the commission will do whatever it believes is right for European business. At the end of the day Microsoft will still not be one of those European companies and will pay a price for it.
Novell could have dealt with all of this in a much more positive manner three years ago when they bought SUSE. If they'd picked up their corporate HQ and moved it from Utah to Germany, instead of Boston then they would have created a landscape of Europe vs. US in the computing industry, but alas they were too shortsighted, instead they pulled the guts out of one of Europe's key competitive assets.
Now the commission have to intervene and give the Europeans a position back in the industry again. This isn't a technical issue, it is pure politics, it is about protecting jobs, income, welfare and everything else that a government has to do for its constituents. I'm sometimes not sure Microsoft gets that, they're busy fighting a technical battle while the commission is fighting a political one.
I got down to the transparency statement and almost blew this off as some kind of joke. But really, I hope someone bitchslaps Microsoft in the face. Billy deserves it.
...explaining why they can't deliver 200 pages of documentation....
Fool me a zillion times, shame on me. People have been burned by Microsoft many many times.
Is that the answer you seek, Troll?
You owe me three oreo cookies and a session of answering trolls.
Infuriate left and right
It's obvious that this will not exactly earn microsoft any friends, by doing this they're actually trying to take the power out of the hands of the EC, and at the same time halfway calling them incompetent, by questioning their procedure. The EC isn't a very beloved institution, neither is Microsoft, so when you bring in the public, you bring in a lot of feelings. If I was part of the EC, and saw that a company was trying to make this kind of case into a witch hunt, i'd be pissed, and I think MS is going to feel the hammer (garvel) after this one.
Hypocritical. Bastards.
After all, it's rather hard to tamper-proof a Word document. Besides, don't forget about word's infamous "history" feature that could probably allow you to see where it was edited.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The "I" in API stands for interface, that is the contract between author and consumer in how to properly make calls.
It is not intended to provide all innter details.
So this analogy does not hold.
Cogito Ergo Sum
M$ spouting about the value of transparency and open-ness. Next thing you know it'll be the need for interoperability with other OS'es and the value of supporting standards.
I didn't see this as a troll, just a statement about how badly MS has some people hoodwinked :/
In TFA Microsoft are suggesting that the Europeans should look at what the US did and implement similar sanctions. I'm sure they'd love it if that happened, however if the US had been effective in it's sanctions then we wouldn't be in the current mess.
M$ have a number of problems with getting the same result in Europe:
a) The Europeans have seen the American sanctions fail utterly.
b) The European politicians can't be bought by M$ so easily (no presidential election campaign to need funding, no GWB whom has the appearance of being more corrupt than even the average MEP)
c) The European people in general have no benefit of letting M$ off, unless you're Irish as no other nation gets any tax from them.
d) The people of Europe would like nothing better than to show up the US administration and justice systems. They're also non too fond of super huge capitalist US corporations so for the politicians being hard on M$ has a political advantage (wheras it's the opposite in the US). "Made in the USA" is vastly negative marketting in Europe.
e) It was Europe that managed to change IBM's practices when they were the monopolist and I think they're capable and willing to do it again. Perhaps a little tired of cleaning up America's mess, but getting used to that and seeing a lot more in the future (Middle East, Environment etc).
Unfortunatley the dislike geeks have for M$ is pretty much mirrored these days by the dislike Europeans have for America - or at least it's administration. I don't think it's a suprise that there is little distinction drawn here between the political administration and the major corporations, in Europe it's well known who actually runs the USA.
Over here the fuss the US congress makes over China and human rights gives us a good old chuckle. Knowing that over the last 50-100 years the most aggressive nation in the world with the worst - and ongoing terrible human rights record (perhaps barring Nazi Germany) is the USA.
How many south east asians have the USA killed and tortured in the last hundred years in the name of democracy and capitalism (vietnam, korea)? Way more than China. How many non-asians have China abused - none. So looking just at Asia - an area of the world the USA isn't even in and China is then the USA is in the lead. Then what about Iraq, Guantanamo, the list just goes on...
How about supporting corrupt regimes. China may be one, however the USA has regularly put them in place is itself viewed by the world as at the moment having very dodgy democracy indeed with election rigging commonplace.
It's these double standards of the US adeministration that cast it in such an ugly way.
"Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels."
I would like to see the same transparency in Microsoft business dealings, lobbying in Washington and other the capitals around the world.
Too bad governments, business partners are too afraid of publishing documents that Microsoft considers confidential to shed some lights on all of the opaq processes around Microsoft.
Maybe now that Microsoft created a precedence, everyone else can follow Microsoft in search of transparency.
Obtain a groundswell of support in EUROPE for a jumbo-sized AMERICAN company?
Just ask McDonald's how that's working out for them...
You'll soon see people flinging their Windows® CDs at the windows of American embassies...
It's like back in 2002, where Steve Ballmer 'Wept for Windows' during the Anti-Trust season. Microsoft released a video of it in both Windows Media Player and RealPlayer format, obviously wanting everybody to be able to see the pain Ballmer was going through, trying to get some sympathy votes.
It's the same now: if you want to make sure that everybody can view your data, Microsoft formats alone are not the way to go.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
This certainly isn't the first time Microsoft has attempted to influence governments.
Developers: We can use your help.
nT
Seems none of you remembers the usenet oracle, more's the pity.
Aside from that, Microsoft has burnt zillions of people zillions of times. It is their corporate culture. Anyone who doubts that is beyond belief and beyond relief. Anyone who asks why this particular action, or any action, by Microsoft is seen in a less than favourable light is either so wet behind the ears as to be drowning, or a troll; when was the last announcement by Microsoft that was anything but disingenuous? Since drowning people are seldom found pecking away naive questions on keyboards, it is a pretty safe bet that we are dealing with a troll.
Infuriate left and right
monopolies hurt consumers, not competitors.
M$ hasn't necessarily overcharged for anything.
has anyone ever thought that the dynamics of software in the marketplace are very different than things like oil, electricity and cars?
software is not a physical asset.
it's possible that software tends towards a monoculture, where compatibility at some level drives decision making, rather than just dollar amount.
i just think that software is a very different beast, and it may tend towards a single platform dominating.
in this case, it appears to be M$ which has invested heavily in compatibility of its own products, hence increasing the value of their software to users.
perhaps the economics of software are different than the economics of physical products that ship by the unit.
just a thought.
Who would expect a group of Republicans to do anything against any large business?
If anything can be said to support Microsoft, at least they don't make tobacco products.
is a government.
Like Microsoft or not, there is no reason issues like this should be secret unless trade secrets are at risk, and even then that should only be a concern up until guilt is proven.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Actually, every single 'hidden' API that is used outside of windows core code is documented here. In addition to that, Microsoft has made the source code public, given full details on implementation (you have to submit a request in writing and sign a form about not copying it, though).
Now, they won't make your program magically run faster, they are just some APIs that people used for convenience when they shouldn't have.
The problem with the current state of the case is that the EU demands more, without specifying what more they would like to see.
My guess? They are simply after more money.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/commission_barroso/kroes /
Neelie.Kroes@cec.eu.int
Hammer her.
I personally don't agree with the EU case against MS.
But, let's slashdot her!
The king of closed source violates nondisclosure to demand transparency in their defense of their closed-source monopoly.
--
make install -not war
Is it legal for MS to release confidental documents without getting the EU commisions permission?
If I was part of the EC, and saw that a company was trying to make this kind of case into a witch hunt, i'd be pissed, and I think MS is going to feel the hammer (garvel) after this one.
After Microsoft "feels" the hammer, they get the sickle. We tend to forget that the EU is socialist.
What I want to know is... is this everything that went on behind closed doors, or is it just what microsoft thinks is helpful to their side of the case? If it's everything, it can only be a good thing.
I for one am I surprised Microsoft posted the documents in PDF rather than in their Word format ... I wonder why... Did anyone even noticed that?
Actually, Microsoft *does* want this "evidence" to come out in public. According to Microsoft, the EU is claiming that Microsoft hasn't delivered proper documentation (despite providing 1200 (or 12000, I forget which) pages of documentation, 500 free hours of tech support, and even the source code in question), but has not told them why the documentation is insufficient. Ever read Kafka's "The Trial", where a guy is "tried" for undisclosed charges and therefore has no way to defend himself? How can Microsoft address the grievances without being told why the documentation is supposedly insufficient?
I think it's quite clear that no matter what Microsoft does, the EU commission will declare it insufficient because they want that cash.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
You guys really need to read the documents. Stop for a moment and ignore that this case is about microsoft, your old nemisis and imagine this is just somebody vs the government. Read the documents. Microsofts complaint's are legitimate and alarming. I am not saying anyone is right or worng, but in a situation like this questions need to be answered and documents need to be public. Microsoft is legitimatly asking what the EU commision is hiding, and it is hiding something.
One of the problems is that many of the MS protocols are not designed, not in the way that, say, NFS was designed. SMB is a nightmare mess of features added over time, and probably lacks a full, complete specification other than that in the source.
:)
But the source is worthless for OSS projects; contribute to samba after seeing it and the MS lawyers will have you. So the offer of source access is clearly a tactic to give the EU the illusion of openness, without it being of any value. Just like what happened after the US lawsuit.
They could be made to publish the source for the test suites, the stuff used to check compliance, with a proper license like GPL. Then we could rebuild it and run it against Samba and the like. Hey, we could even add bits
-steve
You need to go back to History. The Chinese virtualy wiped out the Mongols, Tibetan Monks. Koreans, and Vietnamese were also killed (you are dumb if you think other wise as it is known (excpet to the people of China) that they were/are heavily involed in the Communist state of South East Asia. The USA may not be choir boys but to compare to the Chinese we are not that bad (if you are Chines then the only thing you know is what your party tells you).
When the going gets tough, the tough get drunk
This is how documentation works. The problem is that the EC refuses to say why the provided 1200 pages of documentation (and 500 hours of free tech support and source code access) is insufficient, so the "iterative process through interaction with engineers" that is used to "develop and enhance" the "specifications" cannot be done, and indeed the EC doesn't *want* it to be done because they want the cash they'll get from a fine.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
If the case were wrapped up right away, MS would really be in difficulty. However, MS has been able to drag it out several years already and even affect the selection of judges and the decision process. It took ten years for MS' investment in Craig Smith to pay off. Neli Kroes has yet to payoffm, but there's no hurry since MS benefits from each day of delay. There's no reason yet to believe that MS can't keep the EC hopping on the end of it's leash until either the clock runs out and there are no audio or video options except WMA and WMV, or the campaign kicks in. Before MS was a political movement and ideology, it was first a lobbying firm grown from a marketing firm, so there is probably time to run what is effectively a psyops campaign using the mainstream media.
You're also already seeing the shills piping up all over the place attacking MS' competitors, trying to start a myth by implication that MS has been competing on merit rather than mostly by illegal and anti-competitive means.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Specifically, the Commission says Microsoft failed to produce required documentation in a form that worked.
"Microsoft has...supplied this documentation in a usable form in accord with industry practice," the company said in the introduction to its documents.
Does this mean they used Word and .DOC files instead of .ODT ones? ;-)
Now, mod me down freely. My karma can't get any worse...
On the one hand, maybe MSFT deliberatly delivered obtuse documents.
Another possibility is that there is no clear documentation. Many software projects start with vague specifications and grow organically. What little documentation there was, if any, quickly becomes obsolete.
I know I would hate to have to promise that my documentation matches the current state of my latest software...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Just send Balmer to Brussels with a six-pack of chairs?
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
after reading all the posts, that slashdot users are biased closed minded and unable to analyze news and data intelligently. NO ONE has taken the time to even read the pdfs that microsoft has released. There claims are well founded and arguments are valid. Let me boil it down for all you ignoramouses. The EU kept changing the rules! Microsoft would comply and they allege that EU would midstream change the requirments. LEt me quote
The Commission continually changed its interpretation of what technical documentation was required by the vague language in the Decision, and refused to put its new interpretations in writing despite repeated requests from Microsoft, out of concern that this new interpretation would come to the attention of the Court of First Instance ("CFI") in Luxembourg.
The Commission waited many months before informing Microsoft that it believed changes were necessary to the technical documentation and then gave Microsoft only a few weeks to make extensive revisions.
When the Commission issued its Statement of Objections on 21 December 2005, the Commission and its experts had not even bothered to read the most recent version of those documents which Microsoft had made available on 15 December 2005 in accordance with the Article 24(1) Decision.
These are there complaints... Not one of you has addressed them because you assume that microsoft is the evil one always. IN this case i think EU are the ass hats.
If transparency is so important, why are Microsoft document formats so opaque?
Blankets laced with smallpox used against Native Americans come to mind.
From Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Manfred Broy Lehrstuhl für Software & Systems Engineering Institut für Informatik Technische Universität München:
"Producing a rigorous, complete, stand-alone specification for Microsoft work group server functionalities - or any software system of such enormous complexity - that is free of errors and omissions is beyond the state of the art and far beyond industrial practice"
So when an MS engineers dies, his secrets die with him? Nah.
So MS engineers are a breed apart and they understand this and nobody else? Nah, not plausible.
If they can pass the information internally they can pass it externally, they just don't want to.
I'd like to see it and judge for myself. Can someone give me a URL that I can just read it without agreeing any nasty EULAs or having to see their source code?
The entire issue of this lawsuit is silly. If it was any sillier, it would be a Monty Python skit for sure. IBM, Oracle, Sun, Lenovo, etc are whining because Microsoft is pushing XAML as a replacement for HTML and they bundle such (depending on your work requirements) necessary things as Outlook with Office and Active Directory with Windows Server 2003. Woe is them, for they admit that XAML is superior to HTML and might give Microsoft an unfair advantage in allowing itself and its customers to create rich content web pages! OH NOES!
:EYE ROLL:
I can see an argument against bundling Outlook Express or something similar with the OS, but come on, an office suite without an email/calendering client? Get real. Besides, no one forces people to use Office or Outlook. There is StarOffice, Open Office, etc.
If the alternatives they are offering are so superior, then why aren't the places reversed here? I find it to be a bit of sour grapes on the part of other business organizations. I don't see Apple getting sued for bundling iLife, iTunes, Quicktime, Safari etc with OSX. Microsoft may do alot of semi-evil things, but it is a company, and it is in the business of making a profit on business and consumer software and hardware, just like any other company trying to make money doing the same schtick. This situation is not even close to the IE vs Netscape fiasco. Hell, it's even arguable that the whole outcry over Media Player being bundled with the OS was nothing buy whiny cry-babyism either. People act like they didn't have any choice other than Media Player...
There is no guaranteed right to earnings or customer share. If they can't hack it, they need to fold up shop and look into doing something else with their time, like helping starving kids in Africa or something.
It's almost a "Can't Compete??? Litigate!!!" scenario. We all know Microsoft is just as guilty of this scenario, but in this case, it isn't them. They are playing dirty against companies who are using a foreign power to try and force them to roll over and play dead.
I don't blame them one bit.
I'm not well-versed in history, so I'd like to learn a little from you. Specifically, could you please:
Since you probably have no answers to my questions, I'll answer them for you.
I actually have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about when you say the Chinese virtually wiped out (virtually = in an MMORPG?) the Mongols. Perhaps you mean the Mongols conquered China, but lost their culture because they gradually assimilated into Chinese culture? And then the Mongols became Chinese?
As for Korea, I can only recall one major event when China killed Koreans, which was the Korean War. Why did China send troops into Korea? Because UN troops (of which the vast majority were American) led by an American general moved troops all the way up the Korean peninsula to the border with China. If Chinese troops landed in Mexico, took it over, and fought successfully up to the Rio Grande, what do you expect the US armed forces to do? Let's not forget that Macarthur was also seeking authorization to nuke about a dozen key industrial areas in China.
China didn't send large numbers of troops into Vietnam. But, again, you know who did? That's right, the US did. The Chinese military primarily served as advisors to the Communist North. Most references don't even list China as one of the combatants. Why did China side against South Vietnam and the US? Because, again, the US was encroaching up to Chinese borders.
In summary, why did the Chinese kill some Koreans and Vietnamese? Because the US sent troops first to these areas, and China did not want new US-friendly regimes on its borders. In all likelihood, in each of these wars, US troops killed many more Asians than did Chinese troops.
I'm an MS guy, through and through and I won't deny that MS has pushed it's weight around in what would be regarded as an illegal fashion. Their standards modifications have been a thorn even for MS developers. My real worry is how far MS can be pushed. I'm completely behind forcing MS to acknowledge a few standards and I really hope that's what we'll see with IE 7 and Office 12. OTOH, it seems to me that bundling Media and Internet software is pretty much required these days for any OS.
My deep worry is that MS has the ultimate trump card here. MS maintains 2 years staff salary in cash! That means that they could turn off the lights tomorrow and give all of their staff an excellent severance package. Of course, this would destroy the IT world as we know it.
The EU is making it difficult and expensive for MS to do business in Europe. What if MS simply decides to leave Europe to the Linux gurus? At USD 3Mil / day, it's not going to take long before the EU market is no longer profitable. And then the EU won't have an issue or a lawsuit and they won't have Windows either (for better or for worse). Then what happens when Mac is given the same treatment (10 years from now), after it becomes market leader?
Yes, this documentation release is definitely uncalled for, they don't have my support. But the EU is simply siphoning money from a ready source while asking MS for trade secrets, so they don't really have my support either. I think that MS should simply withdraw from the European market and leave the EU to their own designs.
Imagine Europe if MS stopped producing tomorrow.
Imagine the world if MS stopped producing tomorrow.
Why bother?
Keep in mind that Microsoft's whole business is built on priveleges granted by the State. If Microsoft refuses to accept the authority of the State, the State can in turn refuse Microsoft recourse to the courts.
Put another way, the EU could declare Microsoft's copyrights unenforcable. Care to guess what that would do to the bottom line?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Mod the parent Funny!!!
Now seriously.. Chinese censorship is bad, alright, but look what the USA's educational system and mass media brought us.. At least the chinese know they are opressed, american Capital have made a subtler job out of it. Not only you don't know how far from reality is your world, you even fell good about it. A full cup of Kool-Aid for you.
Welcome to the Matrix, sans electronics. The Capital won the cold war, and now we are all living the reality they want us to live.
Notice to Microsoft: If you thought that publishing documents would somehow sway some kind of public opinion in Europe agains the commision, you have some very serious problems. The majority of Europeans can't speak English, and a good 99,999% of them couldn't give a fuck if they're running Linux or BSD or Windows.
What you will do, for playing the arrogant american card (telling a European court to look at the way US courts do things makes my blood boil, the bunch of scum fucking bastards, and I'm not even European) will certainly not make them any friends amongst the population or the courts.
2) The EC's trustee reviewed the documentation from November, and provided 2 reports. One on November 30, and a second on December 15th.
3) Note that Microsoft could not possibly have replied to the criticisms given on the 15th, yet that is the date of their latest documentation update (according to their posted documentation).
So Microsoft is saying "Hey, you haven't even looked at what we just gave you." The EC is saying "Hey, you haven't addressed what we complained about."
Both are right, of course.
OTOH, the Criticisms Report is amusing to read in its own right. One phrase that jumped out at me was...
Don't know about you, but I can say "Squedily spooch" any number of times, even in context, without defining it once.
It ain't the first time people have sided with Microsoft, when the Eolas deal most of the people sided with them.
So let me get this straight... Microsoft is accusing the EU of treating Microsoft the way Microsoft traditionally treats it's "partners" and competetors.
Let's do the list:
- Dealing from a position of ounfair advantage... [check]
- Failing to disclose requirements... [check]
- Revising requirements without notice or explination... [check]
- Failure to document anything... [check]
- Using non-disclosure to keep control of the weaker party... [check]
- Being generally "unfair"... [check]
- Persisting and iterating the above until it does substantial business harm to the weaker party... [check...?]
Gee, if this is true, I wonder if anybody at Microsoft will appreciate the delicious combination of irony and justice.
It _should_ be legal to treat companies the way they treat others. A kind of law-of-parity.
It is, however possible that the answer is simpler. It is likely that the EU said "document everything publicly" and Microsoft kept comming back with "if we do _this_ will it be enough?" and the EU said "if that's everything and it's public then yes." and every time it wasn't "public" or it wasn't "everything" then the EU just said "we said 'everything' and 'public'"; in which the real problem is that Microsoft cannot understand simple directives.
It doesn't take much in the way of formal language to communicate "document everything publicly".
I tend to distrust Microsoft, what with their documented history and all, so Occam says that the later explination is probably the most correct.
Microsoft clearly wanted a hit-list of minimum disclosure requirements that they could hedge to the limit, and each time they tried to hedge, limit, and lie, the EU said "no" and pointed to the published requirement.
This fits the facts as presented.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Man, that would just stop this stupidity so quickly. The world is saturated enough with their crappy old OSes. Its not like there is no better alternative for any of their software. I guess all the MSCEs would be promoted to management or go back to flipping burgers eventually, so it wouldn't change the economy much.
The EU, being a bureacracy, won't be nimble enough to respond in a timely manners, so only the elements MS decides to publicize will be public. Even if they could, half the journalists in the Europe and maybe 3/4 in the US are gay for Gates and giving him the verbal blowjob by parroting his party's line as often and as loud as they can.
Seems Balmer got his way this time. Or maybe not.
/me, I hope that someone at the EU commission now stays level-headed enough to simply issue a 500 mio.-per-day fine on M$, without any angry statements.
At first glance, intentionally angering someone with enforcement powers over you seems to be the dumbest move imaginable.
But then again, it worked in the US case. The judge was found to be not impartial enough in the retrial, because M$ pushed him so far that he made a few unfortunate statements in an interview.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Mod parent up! Anyway, I'm an american living in Europe and I have to say that GGP, although a bit harsh and overoptimistic in some parts, is absolutely right! I just wish Europe could stand on its own feet instead of getting lobbied around by US interests. (I'm looking at you Blair) I'm guessing that if this happens, the US will get out of its arrogant sleep and return to being the home I knew and loved. As for microsoft, I hope they are treated as unfairly as the law permits! ;)
I second this.
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
1. The EU is certainly a joke, you'll see it crumble as soon as the good people of Europe realise that allowing this organization to be anything other then a free-trade zone was a horrible mistake.
2. This is a BS "Me Too" lawsuit with trumped up charges in a pathetic effort to "prove" damages. I certainly hope MS realises this and walks. Crap like this is too distracting, and frankly there is not enough money on the table to mess with these bureaucrats. It's time to shut down the offices, block the subnet's and walk away. The only return when the business climate is less litigious or the EU folds.
Hell, if they do I'll go get an MCSE and start doing Windows again.
The basic problem here is that no one remembers how bad it sucked before the "monopoly".
The section you highlighted is indeed one of the things that puzzled me. However, as steve_l noted, perhaps the protocol doesn't _have_ any specification other than the full source-code. That surprised me. I thought that such protocols were engineered from the ground up, not cobbled together (as the case seems to be here).
Perhaps the EU made an easy to make mistake in thinking that a company such as Microsoft would set up their network protocol according to strict and clean software engineering principles. Just look at the abrupt changes made by Jim Allchin in subjecting Windows development to mainstream software engineering practices and formal specifications. That development effort seems to be a rather undisciplined hack if I read the background information right, which also seems to indicate that Microsoft's development standards in general are a bit informal.
If this is the case, then would it be reasonable from the EU's point of view to let Microsoft prevent interoperability with e.g. Open Source code by creating a protocol that cannot be adequately documented short of providing the source code, on which Mircosoft then imposes terms that exclude Open Source? I think that the EU could be justified in asking for an Open Source compatible way of achieving interoperability. An interface specification would be just that.
Perhaps the EU should take a step back and say "Ok, we don't care how you do it, but you're going to make it possible for _both_ proprietary and Open Source competitors to be interoperable. If not, we'll either allow people, in this special case, to reverse-engineer your software as far as needed to achieve interoperability, or we demand that the code you submit carries an Open Source compatible license."
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/02-23-06R esponsetoECSO.mspx/
It's hard to follow without the context of the original Statement of Objections to compare against. Does anyone know of a groklaw like website that is capturing all the publicly available legal documents on this case and organizing them in a coherent manner?
The message I get when reading it is that Microsoft says we're trying to comply but the commission is not cooperating and is biased against us and preventing us from bringing this to the Court of First Instance ("CFI") in Luxembourg.
Here are some of the more interesting snippets taken from Microsoft's document:
Transmitting energy without a license.
Moral: threatening or intimidating the EC is a big mistake