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.
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
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
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)
Hypocritical. Bastards.
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.
Access to the source code is an issue separate to access to the documents and the 500 hours of support.
...
And yet you brought it up as relevant to Microsoft's compliance. You can't have it both ways. But I agree (as does the person you are responding to). The source code is not the documentation.
On the other hand, you are still linking the documentation and the 500 hours of support. My understanding is that the 500 hours of support goes with the access to the source code. Thus it, too, is irrelevant to the discussion.
I have a hard time accepting that 12,000 pages of documentation on dozens of complex subjects can be fairly evaluated in a 48 hour period
Perhaps you are assuming that all 12,000 pages must be perused in order to form an opinion. There is enough material there, though, to form an evaluation by statistical methods.
Assume that the quality of all 12,000 pages is alike. If so, you may take a sampling (something reasonable, statistically), and judge them. That should be easily accomplishable in 48 hours. And you verify or refute your assumption in the same step.
On the contrary, assume that the quality of all 12,000 pages varies wildly. If this is the case, the first step is to verify THAT assumption - as it is a flaw fatal unto itself. If the assumption is false, see the case above. If true,
And there is always the achilles heel of a comprehensive index and crossreferencing scheme. That, too, is a quality that could generate a rejection based on only a short examination of the documentation. If you can't find the answer you need in a short amount of time, then the documentation is still faulty.
Rejection based on accessability, detail, quality, or useability would not require very long at all, especially if the flaws made themselves readily apparent. Creating a successful project in 48 hours based on the documentation (what you seem to be implying) is not necessary.
At least Microsoft's screwing is transparent. The comission's screwing happens behind closed doors.
You see some documents from Microsoft, and assume they tell the whole story? That seems out of character with the rest of your comments.
On the other hand, you cut to the chase: you want to see what's not been made available. Reasonable, if you wish to form an informed opinion. I fear, though, that you will have to get used to disappointment. Or perhaps you will undertake a project of a nature similar to http://groklaw.net/, and clear it up for the rest of us.