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.'"
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.
Conclusion: go for it.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
'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.
Why do people always assume microsoft is doing something bad?
Experience?
"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!
...explaining why they can't deliver 200 pages of documentation....
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.
Microsoft's primary crime -- of which it has been found guilty and for which it has been sentenced -- was breaking monopoly rules. Anything they're doing here is secondary (assuming that what they're doing here really is wrong; I haven't read the documents so I don't know whether Microsoft or the EC is in the right at this point).
Just because the current US administration laughably let off their own corporation within days of coming to power for dubious reasons, you can't really expect anyone else to do the same. Nor can you realistically claim that the rest of the world is somehow being harsh on Microsoft just because they actually enforce their own laws against them where the US obviously and publicly declined to do so (after a change of administration). Microsoft knew the rules, knew it was at best walking a tightrope, and chose to do business that way anyway.
In any case, you seem to have little understanding of how European "democracy" works. European Commissioners are almost entirely unaccountable. Many are political rejects whose prominent careers failed in their own countries to the extent that they could no longer hold a high public office credibly, and thus they get assigned (not voted by the electorate) to positions on the EC by national governments looking out for their own. The whole thing is a corrupt pile of politicised shenanigans, and if you really think the commissioners care anything for the electorate or businesses, rather than their own political lives and protecting those who installed them in their positions of power, you need to read a little more about how European politics works and why it needs changing.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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
This isn't transparency though. Microsoft have published their response and two expert opinions. Great. But surely you realise that's only part of the picture? And that the EU cannot disclose the rest of the picture because Microsoft have a right to privacy that they have yet to formally waive?
This stinks. Microsoft gets to select bits and pieces to support their case, while keeping the rest under wraps, and the EU can't respond because Microsoft has a right to privacy - and yet Microsoft are being painted as the paragon of openness!
When Microsoft let everything be disclosed, then that will be great, and true transparency. But seeing a carefully selected portion of the picture isn't transparency, it's clearly biased to all hell.
If Microsoft is such a fan of transparency, maybe the EU should release all the correspondence in full, including the Microsoft "business secrets." (But of course, then Microsoft would throw a legal hissy fit.)
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
The king of closed source violates nondisclosure to demand transparency in their defense of their closed-source monopoly.
--
make install -not war
Because most of the time the accusation is correct.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
And more broadly, too often on /. if MSFT does it, it must be evil. It's simply not always the case.
Just too often to be ignored. Microsoft aren't unpopular because they're successful, they're unpopular because they deserve to be.